Adam J

7 minutes ago, Victor Boesen said:

wow! that worked out very well. I don't know if it is just me, but it looks like you got the nebula to pop a little more!

Just boosted the blue channel a little. I am going to try and get another 75 frames over the next few weeks.

Tried to correct the Halos.

I am still getting extra diffraction spikes despite checking for the spider veins being twisted (they are not). Could it be the focus tube in the light path? I am also getting purple halos on the stars (see below) my camera has an IR filter and the only glass in the system is the MPCC MK3. Could the CLS clip filter be causing this? Some sort of reflection?

Actually looking at it the direction of the extra spike is not the same in all the stars....collimation...tilt?

Btw 24 x 300s 130pds HEQ5 pro

2 hours ago, al-alami said:

Hi Adam,  Quick question, how did you add a nose piece to the camera? (I assume you meant nose and not noise :p)

Yes nose. you need to use a c-mount nose piece extender.

Ok, so I decided the best way to look at the sensitivity at a given wavelengths was just to use my 2 inch H-a and OIII filters to create a pair of flat frames and compare pixel values on the Bebrayered section to the edge with both micro lens and filters still intact. I have summerised my finding in the table below.

The real shocker for me was that the OIII seemed to increase in sensitivity where as the H-a decreased in sensitivity on a per sub pixel basis. Honestly not sure what this means in terms of real world imaging....i suspect it means that ill have to increase the lenght of my H-a subs but that noise will be greatly reduced leading to a lower total integration time????

The totals for each 4 sub pixel group are significantly higher, however as I noted before I am not sure how this will translate to the real world, i am reasonably sure its not the same as having the equivalent increase from a single pixel though.

Btw I have no idea why the luminance reported by Pix Insight is higher than the 4 sub pixel average...

Sorry if this is becoming something of a monologue lol.

1 hour ago, StuartJPP said:

Thanks for the info Adam.

Regarding the sensors, I am not 100% sure if the "spare" one works as it came with a faulty camera, I think the person plugged in the wrong power supply and fried the camera main board. The other camera is working fine, it has had the filters removed. I was/am going to have a go as a Winter project, but am still undecided if the effort is going to be worth it. I want to try but then again I am not sure I will use it if I do get it done...will let you know.

With regards to shooting in mono, I 'd definitely say no. Shoot in RAW and then use DCRAW with the parameters elsewhere in this thread to extract the image without demosaicing.

I would suspect that where the microlenses have been removed you will see a quite a reduction in sensitivity (from what I have read about microlenses), but then a gain since the CFA/Bayer matrix has been removed.

Cheers, Ill have a look at DCRAW I have never used it to be honest. Could you be more specific on the advantages of this method? See below for my analysis of the effects of sensitivity for the 1000D.

If I look at the sum lum of all channels in Pix Insight LE then I am getting a very slight reduction for green, a slight increase for red and a big increase for blue.....I am not totally convinced that this mod is going to help sensitivity a hug amount as things stand in may have a positive effect on signal to noise however.

I am not sure how the quantum efficiency of OIII, H-a and SII is effected by the transmission at those wavelength of the bayer matrix alone....it is possible that at those specific wavelength rather than the broader bands in my test the RGB matrix may also be less than 100% transmission. If this is the case its possible that some performance will be gained at these wavelengths.

Finally I would say that despite my best efforts the test colors are not pure and as such this may result in the performance of the mono area of the sensor being overs estimated.  Although the area I selected around the edge for comparison looks clean, there is no grantee that the micro lens is completely undamaged.

Could anyone comment?

The three shots below are RED GREEN AND BLUE (in that order) flats shot with the camera in mono (b/w) mode. The brightness variation is likely the variation inherent in the color balance of my monitor.

1 hour ago, Gina said:

Lack of a steady hand nowadays was my reason for giving up.  It's very time consuming as well as needing extreme patience and I simply had better things to do with my time.  There comes a time in your life when you can no longer do the things you used to do and need to prioritise to make the best of your increasingly valuable time.  I did give it a pretty good go though

Your contributions to the thread where very valuable in helping me get a good result.

I am going to make a video on you tube of the process as I think my chosen method was quite effective for this sensor anyway. I just need to find another 1000D at a reasonable price or I may try a 450D.

I have done a little analysis of the results:

1) I set a custom white balance in the camera to balance out the contribution of each of the red green and blue channels....not sure if this is the correct method. Should I be doing this?

2) I used my PC monitor to make some individual separate Red Green and Blue flat frames. So MS Paint custom Color and 0, 0, 255....etc.

3) I then used PixInsight LE to take a look at the average pixel readings for the area center area incomparison to a clean section of the border (with the filters and micro lenses still in place)

???Should I be setting the camera to Black and White mode???

Looking at just the pixels of the relevant color in both areas of the image I found that the lack of micro lenses reduced sensitivity as follows:

Red: With Filters and Lenses = 0.669 , Removed = 0.479 (71.5% of original value)

Green: With Filters and Lenses = 0.843, Removed = 0.662 (78.5% of original value)

Blue: With Filters and Lenses = 0.651, Removed = 0.524 (80.4% of original value)

So for each sub pixel type there has been a reduction in sensitivity of between 20% and 30% due to the micro lenses being removed. At least if my methodology is sound.

Clearly from the attached picture the green is brighter then the red and blue on average....not sure if this is due to double the number of green pixels or due to double the number of green pixels on the monitor or a bit of both. But this does make sense....

This is when my knowledge runs out and I could use a little help. How should I be processing this? Clearly when I use my H-a filter I am going to now get 4 x active sub pixels instead of 1 x active sub pixel. However, each sub pixel will only be ~70% as effective due to the removal of the micro lens. So......the bit I dont get it this, I suspect that 4  x sub pixels together to not equal one single pixel with 4 times the collecting area. Am I gaining 4 times the sensitivity or am I just effectively getting an average value of the 4 sub pixels, similar to stacking 4 frames? Should I be converting to gray scale in processing? I am a little confused. Or by doing this am I only effectively gaining resolution at the expense of some sensitivity????????????

Some help would be appreciated.

4 hours ago, StuartJPP said:

Good job Adam.

I have got a Canon 1000D camera and a spare 1000D sensor but haven't gotten around to attempting this mod...not sure if I will or not.

What plastic polish did you use?

In all seriousness I am looking for another sensor as I think that I can get it perfectly flat without scratches on my second attempt so if you dont get around to it and want to sell it then I would be happy to buy it from you.

I used "Meguiars Plast.Rx" Polish. White plastic bottle with a black cap with a pointed felt polishing tool for a Dremil but by hand only.  I did not mess with the wires with epoxy, or even attempt to get close to the blue area around the edge of the active sensor region. From reading the entire thread I think that 95% of the problems have arisen from trying to get too close and using the wrong type of epoxy on the gold wires. If you dont have patience and a steady hand I would save yourself some money and not bother lol. I am a perfectionist and so it hurts not to do the whole sensor but I have just told myself that I am going to have to crop it out of the final image.

Good Luck.

Cleaned and cropped flat frame, not too shabby if you ask me. Its a testament to the work you guys have done on here that i can get this result from my first attempt. Comes out at 7.2 mega pixels after cropping the rubbish out.

Edited to add a picture of my scope and DSLR cooler taken with the mono 1000D.

Hey all, would like to show you my first test photo from my debayered Canon 1000D, having read this thread I opted not to even try to push to the edges of the sensor, ill happily crop it.
 

I removed the tougher micro lenses first using a cocktail stick and then the filters themselves using car plastic polish. This is a practice sensor and I will be doing another 1000D soon taking into account my experience. One scratch just to the left of the penguins foot caused by me pressing to hard, did not know how hard i needed to press on at first and way over did it. Everything else baring the edge is dust or loose bits of the filter layer that will vanish with a little more cleaning. Over all nothing that wont disappear with a little dithering and some flats. Clearly focus is not perfect due to the filter having being removed.

P.S I know that many people say that you can remove the cover glass on the 1000D without heating but I found that this was much easier when taken to a mild 60c using a hair dryer.

How are people dealing with secondary mirror dew on the 130P-DS, I have been using a hair dryer but to be honest its not ideal as a intermittent solution when the thing dews up half way through a 20 min sub and you lose it. I have been thinking about glueing a 400ohme / meter nichrome wire onto the back of the secondary. But I am shocked to say that I cant find much in the way of advice on this online...

Any advice from my fellow 130P-DS users would be appreciated. 

3 hours ago, Coastliner said:

I have a choice of optics btw,  the sw150pds and a swED80.

It will be fine for SW150PDS to not bother with the replacement filter. I use a 130PDS with a coma corrector and no replacement filter and its totally fine. I dont have a ED80 but my gut feeling is it would be fine too so long as you dont try to use a focal reducer with it. But ultimately just try it an see what happens. If you do get star bloat it wont be horrendous like it would be with no filter at all.

3 hours ago, SkyBound said:

So won't the filter that is left in the camera which has the IR cut, stop the star bloat, that was my logic...and then that means the CCD version of the clip is not needed

 

It can stop the star bloat but like i say its a little less aggressive than the Baader so it lets a little more IR through. Canon filter = 750nm cut off vs Baader filter = 690nm cut off. ED Doublets tend to not be optimized for chromatic aberration beyond 700nm so although its better than nothing its still letting 50nm more IR get past to the sensor than would be optimal. It would mean that the optical system would be less tolerant to adding a reducer / flattner for example. It would probably also depend on just how fussy you are about minor star defects too.

23 minutes ago, Coastliner said:

I'm getting overloaded now. Back to basics - I'm going to to take out the filter nearest the sensor and replace it with nothing. I have no intention of using the modded camera for anything but astro. Will this enable me to use the cam for getting more nebula detail? Is it a worthwhile mod?

Ok I understand it can get confusing. So ill try to condense this into the following advice.

1) Take out the filter nearest to the sensor and leave the other filter in place (the one with the wires attached). This will give you a massive boost to nebula. Do not replace it with a baader filter for now you probably dont need it.

2) If you experience any issues with star bloat / strong colored halos around stars, then buy the Astronomic CLS CCD clip filter. It would need to be the CCD version to stop the star bloat as only the CCD version has the IR cut. That will get rid of the bloat.

32 minutes ago, SkyBound said:

Yes the clip filter is perfect for the canon cameras, the only difference between the CCD and normal CLS is that the CCD one has got IR cut to, so as long as you are doing the normal astro mod and leaving the second filter in the camera, then you only need the cheaper non IR cut version, as you already have IR cut in the filter you leave in the camera.....

so no point I spending the extra, the clip filter comes in both IR and non IR versions, the IR version has CCD in the name, so go for this one, as it is non IR and £20 cheaper

http://www.365astronomy.com/Astronomik-CLS-Visual-Clip-Filter-for-Canon-EOS-Cameras.html?gclid=CLfqseWlns8CFUw8GwodtjkBoQ

They call it a visual version, but it is for imaging too, if you read down the description you will see, for some reason filters that do not have IR cut they seem to label as visual.....!

The only difference between the CLS CLIP and CLS CCD CLIP filters is the IR Blocking Filter. However, it will depend on his optics as to if he needs the additional IR blocking filter or not which is included in the CLS CCD. If he does not get star bloat with his setup then adding the LP filter becomes a completely separate concern. However, if he did get star bloat it has to be the CCD. Either way as these are external filters he can just try it and if he needs one without having to open up the camera again. Finally I seem to remember that the CLIP versions of the CLS filter have an additional anti-reflective coating in comparison to the 2" and 1.25" versions. But I may be wrong about that.

20 hours ago, Jokehoba said:

Best of luck...but I'd still recommend fitting the Baader filter.

Totally depends on the rest of the imaging chain. The front filter in the canons is a little less aggressive then the Baader replacement (750nm cut as opposed to 690nm cut) so it will depend on the quality of your optics with a refractor. However, if like me you are using a Newtonian adding a Baader UV/IR filter in addition to the front filter is a complete waist of time even if you are using a coma corrector. If you have a refractor of suspect quality you could kill two birds with one stone and get a CLS CCD filter as that will cut the IR just as well as the Baader replacement filter and you have a LP filter for the price too.

8 hours ago, AlastairW said:

Hi Adam. Yes, I have a Astronomik clip to M48 adapter. I'd been imaging with my clips on a debayered 350d but recently moved to an  Img2pro (to learn the ropes of CCD imaging). Rather than splash out again on Ha and OIII 1.25 filters I thought for 20 quid it was worth a shot. Turns out the adapter works brilliantly. Pop the filter in and screw on to the end of the img2pro (img2pro, variable spacer, coma corrector, clip adapter - see image). Obviously it's not as easy as using a filter wheel but it's a viable alternative if you've already invested in clip filters.

Yeah I only have the one clip, after that I decided that I was better off with 2" filters for future proofing reasons. That does look really neat though.

5 hours ago, AlastairW said:

Getting to grips with my new(ish) QHY Img2pro (314l+ equiv). Bi colour image from my 130pds of the Bubble Nebula NGC7635.

Info

7 x 600second Ha
10 x 600second OIII
10 x 600second darks
 
Skywatcher 130pds, HEQ5
QHY Img2pro
6nm Ha Astronomik Clip filter
12nm OIII Astronomik Clip filter

Interesting that you are using clip filters with a CCD, do you have some sort of converter?

Better with less red?

Wanted to put this in here as 6-months back this is the thread that inspired me to get a 130-PDS and start out in astro-imaging.

Its been a month long project...for only three nights of images. But last night got 7 x 20min frames with the OIII filter. So for the last time this year (baring the inevitable revision) here is the witches broom. 16 x 180s CLS filter (RGB), 8 x 1200s H-alpha 7nm Baader 2" filter (Red), 7 x 20min OIII 8.5nm Baader 2" (Blue). 130PDS, HEQ5 Pro, QHY5L-II and 50mm finder guider, Baader MPCC MKIII Coma corrector, Canon 1000D Cooled to -3c with my custom cool box. Lots of hard work and staying up till 4am but I am really happy with it and think it was worth the effort.

Thanks for the inspiration guys.

Compression makes it look blurred click on it lol

My very first picture, about 6 months back now.

2 minutes ago, al-alami said:

Thanks Adam for all that   will definitely give it a try  and yes I have a Canon  one of the big things about the filters is it would mean that I can shoot at home from the roof (at least as far as I understand).

Let me put a question out there, I'm trying to work out which would be better for guiding my 130PDS, would a finderscope with a camera on it do? or should I go down the St80 route? I'm on a HEQ5.  Am still trying to choose a guider as well, leaning towards the QHY5 at the moment (even they have many different type of it as well)

I use the Orion 50mm finder guider with my QHY5L-II (pictured) it gets the job done just fine at the 130P-DS focal length. I mounted it to the back of the tube to get it to balance, it wont balance if mounted to the front of the tube. I eventually added a 33cm dove tale to move the center of gravity backwards further. I did need a noise piece extension to get focus mind you, Orion designed it with the older guide camera in mind. I have no guiding issues with it, in my opinion the ST80 is just adding more weight for no real guide quality advantage. I can run my setup with a single weight using the finder guider, it would need two with the ST80.

3 hours ago, al-alami said:

Hi Adam,

Honestly I've read all about this stuff, but of course reading isn't the same as doing. Temperature wise, hmmmm I guess as a ball part figure in the summer its in the 20-24 centigrade range at night, while in winter it can get into the minuses (but that isn't the usual). So I guess as I get better (and solve my mount issues and start guiding) then the long exposures will become a major problem because of sensor heat.   When I said mono ccd I am sort of  leaning towards the Atik 383L+ (if I can find the money).  My biggest problem with ccd is that I hope at one point to make large prints from the pictures so I would need a might megapixel one.  Also one of the reasons I am leaning towards the ccd (apart from the better quality and all that) is that I am finding it a real pain to focus through narrowband filters.  I can't see anything through the viewfinder or on liveview, so for the time being I've just put them on the side till i can work out how to do it.

Yes, focusing. I cant say that I have had an issue with that myself, which is not to say that it is easy. I use Backyard EOS and it lets you mess about with the live view settings lots more / integrate multiple exposures, so that its easier to see a bright star while using narrow band filters. You can download a one month trial for free.

I start by finding a bright star, say Alpha Lyra or similar. I then focus on it with no filter to get it around about right. I then lock the focusing tube off nice and hard. I remove the camera and place my 2" narrow band filter (OIII/H-A) 7nm onto the nose-piece. I then turn up the gain / integration Backyard EOS frame and focus to say 4x video frames and ISO1600 on live view and with the star centered on the view adjust using the Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM) tool.  7nm wide filters are the narrowest that this will work with, 12nm is much easier, astrodon 3nm would not be possible in my opinion (while using live view). Someone jump on me is I am wrong here but as I understand it you dont focus a CCD with live view or an equivalent. You have to take multiple short exposures and use a FWHM tool or a bahtinov mask. In general as I understand it focusing is a little harder with a CCD than with a DSLR.

I would try the free Backyard EOS trial to help you focus easier than with EOS Utility...i think I remember reading you have a canon...if not Backyard Nikon for Nikon cameras. If that will not work you could try a bahtinov mask on a bright star.

You will notice significant noise reduction between summer and winter by the sounds of it. Noise halves every 6-7c so a 21c drop in temperature would give you a noise reduction to about 1/8th of the original value and would let you do longer exposures with the DSLR making the narrow band filters worth while. But in summer, unless your willing to mod the camera with cooling the value of narrow band is questionable in my opinion, though I would still have a go in BYEOS though as you have the filters why not?

On 18/08/2016 at 07:05, al-alami said:

I need to get myself a nice mono camera, I think my 130PDS would greatly enjoy it

 

You asked about narrow band filters earlier in the thread in the context of your DSRL. I have had some good results recently using both Ha and OIII with my canon 1000D. Problem is that to get that to work well I had to cool my camera down to negative temperatures using a cool box, allowing me to grab low noise 20 min exposures. I am guessing that Jordan is pretty hot, even at night? What ambient temps do you get? The most important thing for you may be that CCD cameras are cooled as opposed to mono per say, although mono is almost always the way to go in my opinion. Personally I would not rush into CCD as there is always allot to learn at first and CCD' being a little more fiddly than DSLR (harder to focus, needs filter wheels etc) can actually get in the way of the learning process when you are starting out. Allot can be achieved with a DSLR given a little patience and good technique.    

http://www.astrobin.com/260459/

I use a MPCC mkiii with my 1000D. It will not remove chromatic aberration its not designed to do that...you should not have chromatic aberration with a Newtonian anyway. So assuming that you mean Coma? It will remove coma very effectively and I would not be without it. If you are seeing coma on images still after using it then its most likely that the spacing between the MPCC and the Dslr sensor is not correct (usually caused by the thickness of the T-ring which should be standardised), I am not sure how well it would work with a full frame Dslr though. I would say its better than the sky-watcher one also.