Adreneline

Hi Wim. To be honest I've only used MLT and I've had mixed results on LRGB/NB channel images; it has worked better for me on osc/dslr data. Perhaps I should investigate MMT as well. Adrian

Thank you Tristan. I used Dfine within DxO Photolab to reduce just the noise on the second image which I've used for ages as a Photoshop plugin but therein lies another story! I am looking for an alternative to PS. I bought PS Extended back in about 2012 but it is no longer supported by Adobe (no RAW support for my new M6 MkII) and worse than that it won't run or even install on MacOS Catalina and won't install properly on Mojava. As the latest PixInsight requires an OS above High Sierra I'm stuck and I refuse to pay the Adobe subscription when I purchased a full version. So I've been experimenting with Luminar 2018 and with Topaz DeNoise AI. I also downloaded DxO (which I'm still trying to get my head around); the advantage being I can use my DxO plugins. I could also use the DxO plugins if I upgrade my old Luminar 2018 to the new Luminar 4 (rumour has it Luminar AI is on the horizon). Too much choice! I do like Dfine so I am very tempted to stick with it but thought I'd give Topaz as well. I've got some low-light terestial photos and Topaz has worked wonders on those with the combined DeNoise and Sharpen. Too much choice! Adrian

Just wondering @Kinch if this version looks any better to your eyes? The stars are not so good but the I think maybe the noise/artefacts are better. Adrian

Maybe I should set the Sharpen to zero and just experiment with the DeNoise. I'll give it a try and see what happens.

I am concerned I have gone "over the top" with this image - I tend to prefer a much more pastel palette but I thought I might push this one to see how the noise reduction coped. Glad you like the colours. Adrian

Thank you for the observation Brendan. I've not decided yet whether or not to buy in 28 days time. The software carries out a combined denoise and sharpen each set independently with a slider control. I need to experiment a lot more and really appreciate your feedback. I had DeNoise and Sharpen both set at 15 (out of 100) so a fairly minimal amount and I was quite pleased with the result but maybe I'll pull back the DeNoise a little and keep the Sharpen at the same value. Over the three nights of data collection conditions were not ideal. I notice that whenever I decide to collect OIII the conditions go down the pan! Hoping to move house soon to a Bortle 3/4 region from the current Bortle 5/6 and I'm thinking I might scrap all my data and start again. A new beginning! Thanks again. Adrian

Decided to experiment with PixelMath with Ha, OIII and SII - nothing too avant garde. 24 x 180s of Ha, OIII and SII using a Samyang 135mm + ASI1600, unguided on iOptron CME25-EC. Processed in PI - first use of a trial of Topaz DeNoise AI. Thanks for looking. Adrian

That's a very good result for a handheld cellphone - when ever I've tried that approach the results have been a disaster! Adrian

Despite perceived wisdom (adding more glass, reflections, etc.) I use a Hoya UV/IR cut filter and it solved all my issues - especially with OIII, Green and Blue. I didn't notice any Red (or Ha or SII) bloating with my lens. The filter also had the effect of making the FWHM variations between filters much less. Adrian

I bought one of these which took all the guess work out of power draw estimates. I also found my RPi4 demands 5.1 volts (it gives an on-screen warning when used with a 5V supply) - the new Pi supplied psu is 5.1 volts. HTH Adrian

Well I'm not sure that I do either, however, I've looked through my past flat library and these are taken with a Canon 70D (AV mode) on a 6"RC and an iPad as a light source (barely big enough) with two sheets of white paper over the end of the OTA. This is just a single frame linear .... and stretched: They seem to work for me. HTH Adrian

That will be exciting if they take the current incumbent to a galaxy far, far away. 🤞

Apologies Gav - I meant Mojave and not Catalina. I tried Mojave and it offered to delete PS - that's why I'm still on High Sierra. I understand software and hardware progress and develop and we all benefit from that, but Mac OS seems particularly frustrating in this respect. I've had to give up on hundreds of pounds of Firewire audio equipment in the past because updates to MacOS were not supported by hardware drivers so stuff just stopped working! USB 3.0 put the kiss of death on Firewire. Adrian

In 2013 I purchased a 13" MacBook Pro primarily to use for general photography. I also purchased a copy of Photoshop CS6 Extended Edition. In 2016 I purchased PixInsight when I embarked upon my astrophotography hobby. My MacBook currently runs OS 10.13. I was going to update to 10.14 Catalina at the end of last year but when I started the installation it advised me that PS CS6 was no longer supported and would "be removed" before the installation continued. Big sigh and decided to stick with 10.13. At the same time I also discovered that Adobe would no longer be supporting CS6 so no more updates to CameraRAW for me! Oh well I'll just have to stick with Canon DPP when using my new Canon M6 MkII. The latest release of PixInsight will not run on OS 10.13 - it requires 10.14 or 10.15 due to changes to LibRaw and TensorFlow - whatever they are exactly. I also run a cheap, refurbished Lenovo i5 Windows 10 laptop on which I have also installed CS6 (no Adobe updates but at least it runs and with Compatibility Mode will do so for some time to come even if Windows 11/12/whatever becomes a necessary/desireable update). The new PI installed with several error messages and would not run Starnet as a Process. Surprisingly the new PI installed perfectly on my old i3 Intel NUC. My MacBook is getting a bit long in the tooth but it does benefit from an exceptional display - far better than the Lenovo. It overheats a lot running graphic heavy applications (or even viewing graphic heavy web pages). When the day comes that I replace it I can can have PI but not PS (which I paid good money for back in 2013). It just doesn't seem right to me. Adrian

I've used this service several times for both astro and non-astro and have been delighted with the end result. I've just taken possession of a photo album of 11"x9" astro prints and could not be more pleased. The more you order the more discount offers they send you. Adrian

Really love the colours again. I did an image search of Sh2-115 on Google just to see what was there and your image is without a doubt better than anything that comes up, despite your misgivings about total imaging time. Inspiring image. Thanks for sharing. Adrian

PI workflows seem to be very personal things and when I first started four years ago with PI I found it all very confusing knowing what order to apply processes/scripts, etc. Using LV and "Jim's PixInsight Cribsheet" Rev.33, I eventually evolved my own method of working that suits me and gives me the sort of results I find pleasing. There are aspects of using PI I find too difficult/tedious and so I always end up jumping ship and resorting to PS for finishing touches. I have to say I've also migrated to APP for image calibration, registration and integration but that's another story! If the link above doesn't work just type in Jim's PixInsight Cribsheet into Google and a link will come up in the listing. It downloads as a Word docx document - I can supply as a pdf if that helps. Adrian P.S. Apologies if you've already seen this document.

Well I feel I am one of the few who quite likes a starless image. I've done lots but rarely if ever post them as I perceive there is a view they are not kosha. My personal view is that removing stars can often reveal structure and form in a nebula that can go unnoticed in a star filled image, whether the stars are correctly processed or not. I feel that if the object of the exercise is to image a nebula then what is wrong with removing the stars in order to better perceive the nebula itself? The vast majority of the stars in an image have nothing to do with the nebula - they just happen to be in the field of view. I know I am in the minority and I am quite happy to keep my starless images on my Apple TV screen saver for my own personal enjoyment just as I am my star filled images. Adrian P.S. Perhaps there should be a "Starless Images" topic! That way those who are offended by the lack of stars don't need to look

I'm afraid I can't help you there - sorry. To be honest creating mosaics in PI was the main reason I bought into APP instead - it's an absolute breeze and so far has produced perfect results every time. I still use PI extensively in processing images but not for mosaics. Life is too short! I'm sure someone will pop up and help you shortly. If not then why not try the trial version of APP whilst you're waiting . APP can handle different optics and geometries without difficulty. You can load your PI masters into APP (as fit files) and it will produce a seamless mosaic image. There's a tutorial here. Adrian

Nice image - really well framed. I think the first one is the best of the bunch. You can reduce the star colour fringes using a Noise filter: You might want to experiment with the Reduce Colour Noise slider. Works better on some images than others. Adrian P.S. Apologies if you already know this trick.

The procedure is set out here. Good luck! Adrian

Welcome to SGL! Enjoy Adrian

Ulm - a beautiful city. Welcome to SGL! Enjoy Adrian

Very nice and well worth all the time and effort you've invested so far. Thanks for sharing. Adrian

If you don't mind casting your vote with ZWO equipment the ASIair is an amazing piece of kit which has transformed my imaging experience. Without doubt the feature that has saved me most time is using the ASIair with Sky Safari and the faultless plate solving. So far the meridian flip feature has also worked faultlessly. Rather than use the focus feature I use a Bahtinov mask which combined with the pinch-and-zoom feature on the iPad makes focussing easy and very accurate. I started with a PC (NUC) indoors near the mount and more wires than you could shake a stick at trailing through a custom made hole in the conservatory wall. I then moved to placing the PC with the mount in a weather proof box along with all the same lot of wires, albeit shorter versions, and controlling the PC remotely from a laptop in the house. I now use the original ASIair mounted on the scope and there is one wire (12V); I use it with a ZWO ASI1600MM, ZWO EAF, and ZWO EFW. I use an iOptron CEM25-EC mount and with the focal length of my scope I can get away without guiding and the joy of using any variant of PHD. If you enjoy the challenge of spending hours configuring and fine tuning disperate pieces of software and getting them to talk to each other only to find that something gets upgraded or discontinued then go for a laptop. I should say I still use mine on the odd occasion I use my Canon cameras because although they are supported by ASIair I prefer to use BYEoS instead. I have used the ASIair polar alignment feature and it works well providing you are sure your OTA axis and polarscope axis are very well aligned. I chose to buy a PoleMaster to align my mount and have no regrets; the additional expense was worth it in my opinion. I love my ASIair and the ease of setup and use it provides. I would love to buy one of the new versions but can't really justify spending the money as my original does everything I need. Good luck with your deliberations. Adrian