AbsolutelyN

Still can't figure this out. Have  retaken all the darks (120 darks) and bias (400 bias) frames, integrated in every way I can think of and every time ends up with the same green/magenta banding.  Admittedly it's only visible when you really push the files but I dont get anything like this with my 1600MM. Full frame with no crop from a rasa 8. Any suggestions most appreciated.

pushed you can see banding

1 minute ago, CedricTheBrave said:

they supplied a plastic P clip to tie up the USB cable to stop it falling out

not a great fix tbh

i do only use it for firmware though as I use a Bluetooth dongle to connect to it from astroberry

Do they? I must have missed that in the packaging .... 

Mine has the USB port. Other than taking a while to get it working with EQMOD the only issue I have is USB cable comes out of the USB port quite easily. Not a major issue but I've had it come out accidently a couple of time. Works perfectly and very handy but given choice I prefer the standard port with eq-direct cable as it clips in. 

I received a ZWO 2600MC last week and managed to get it out for a few test shots this evening. 

However I'm struggling with calibration. I've never used a OSC camera before and am getting some odd results. I'm hoping I'm missing something obvious.

I've got bias and darks (I don't have flats). Those are applied to the lights with image calibration in PixInsight. The calibrated lights are debayered with RGGB. Then star aligned and the aligned lights integrated. 

The same thing happens if I debayer, align and integrate without darks/bias. 

I'm getting green/magenta banding. The files look fine initially - the banding becomes clear once you run a DBE. Anyone got any pointers on what I'm doing wrong? 

With saturation through the roof to make it more obvious:

Flat

Many thanks

1 hour ago, geoflewis said:

I had an interesting discussion with Anthony Wesley and Niall MacNeil, both of whom are excellent planetary imagers from Australia. They both propose that fast frame rate isn't everything, but needs to be matched with photon count per frame. Anthony typically images at around ~60-70 fps and Niall at around 75fps. Niall did a lot of testing recently with his ASI174MM / C14 combo and concluded that the trade of between photons per frame and fps saw the 174MM optimised at 13ms (76fps), so I have been following that recommendation with my ASI290MM / C14 and have been pleased with the results. I adjust the gain for each filter to maintain a consitent histogram with the exp fixed at 13ms for each. I only recently purchased the 290MM and was considering the 462MC, but opted to stay with mono, hence was very interested to see your comparison. Did you capture any IR with the 178?

That's really interesting thanks. It's not the first time I've noticed the 178MM gets better results despite significantly lower frames per second. I usually adjust the exposure between filters with shutter speed, will try gain instead and experiment with those frames rates.  

I'm afraid I did not get any IR with the 178. However I do have one from a few days earlier - this was on the 25th.

178MM ZWO IR 850NM
Capture Area=344x350
Gain=342
Exposure=0.01425

Hooked up the Canon 200mm 2.8 to my 1600MM last night to see if I could get sharp stars across the field. The subs for this are awful, it was literally imaging through high cloud and haze. However once the really bad subs were removed and it was stacked its come out reasonably ok given the conditions. 

3 hours with 1600mm and baader f/2 HA filter, Canonn 200mm at about f/4

2 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

Nice work and good comparison of the 178MM and 462MC, the mono being the clear winner here IMHO.

Thanks Geof. Yes the 178MM always seems to win out for me. I switched to the 462 mostly because shutter speeds were quite slow on the 178 (100fps for red, about 50 or less for blue) where as could get 325fps on the 462. Was interested to see how they compared. Image scale of the 178 helps and I find it easier to focus too.

We had a constant stream of high cloud and haze last night but atmosphere seemed relatively steady so had a quick crack at mars despite. Quite surprised so much detail visible given the conditions. 250PDS with 3x barlow.

What res did you get it to 400fps at? I find I need 350x350 which seems to be in the 200fps area. Just tried lowering it - got 600fps at 100x100 but not sure that's a useful res. 

Really nice image. Agree you just have to get out and get on with it otherwise you never get anything in this rubbish weather - but can be stressful watching rain radar and dashing out to cover up the scope before it gets soaked!

Fantastic images as always. How are you aligning the two scopes? Are they on the same mount or two mounts? Just curious as been thinking of a dual setup for a while but doesn't look easy. 

Just got a OSC camera myself. I'm not currently planning on using any filters.  

37 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

Challenging conditions Tristan and it still worked out well - I am definitely a fan of these wide fov images and seeing things in relation to one another.

RGB gives a quite different perspective on this pair of targets and it is nice to see lots of dusty stuff all around too; all too often (and I used to be mega guilty of this) it is obiliterated by moving the black point too far to the right.

Thanks for sharing.

Adrian

Thanks Adrian. It's largely your widefield images which made me go with the 200mm lens in the first place. I might try it with the 1600MM next time. 

Last night was quite windy and showers kept sweeping over so I put the 6d (modified) and Canon 200mm lens (stopped down to about f4) for a quick image when conditions allowed. It's about 2 hours of data with moonlit sky - 60 second subs. 

Fantastic image, love the colours. Very moody feel to it. Great work. 

Wow, that really works well! Wish I'd know this yesterday, wasted an hour trying to get PlateSolve working. Thank you!

Brilliant thanks both - downloading it now and will give it a go. Much appreciated. 

I've been trying to platesolve in SGP with my 6d and a 200mm 2.8 lens. It's worked once or twice but the majority (99%) of the time it fails. Its using Planewave PlateSolve 2.29. Just wondering if anyone has any solutions? Not sure if it's specific to the DSLR or that its wide angle. It's just using standard settings, never had any issues with telescope. Any thoughts most appreciated. 

Fantastic image Geoff. 

Looks stunning. What did you take it with? 

We had a couple of hours of clear skies tonight though it soon clouded over. This time I tried just using the 3x barlow rather than the 5x. It gives a smaller but brighter image allowing much faster frame rates.  250pds with 178mm - 20% of 10,000 frames per filter. 

4 hours ago, lukebl said:

Nice and sharp. The skies cleared here for the first time in weeks too, but seeing was diabolical.

Seeing wasn't good here either though you'd get brief moments where it was reasonable - this was best of a batch of images taken over about 3 hours. 

4 hours ago, Fozzie said:

Great set of images..

Harrogate, I had no idea you were so close geographically...

Thanks. Nice to see there are others up here in Northern England ... so many seem to be down south 🙂

The skies finally cleared briefly here for I think first time since opposition. Managed this quick image on what seems a rare gap in the weather at the moment. Best 20% of 5000 frames (per filter). 250pds and zwo 178mm.

That's amazing. Well done.