RolandKol

I just took files per each channel from here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AZtDxo0IwnWAfZ3qtgIYMeSoKr3835ou

all looks more or less OK for me.

The image below, is a 1minute stretch:  slightly cropped, background extrracted and a bit of color adjustment + SCNR (no sharpening or noise reduction)

15 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

This is what I was trying to say about the driver differences. Swapping between these two won't necessarily keep the same offset settings and also explains why you can see the offset in the fits header of one but not the other. I know this because I've done exactly the same.

In the native driver NINA shows you the offset and you can change it there and then but with the ASCOM driver you can only see it and change it in the driver itself which you can do by clicking on the "gears" icon before connecting the camera.

I also think one of them defaults to 8 and the other defaults to 30. If you changd one of them to 2 then the other may have been 8 or 30 depending which you changed.......

Just in case, 

once you will set up all and working, make your Windows System Image BackUp...
Saved lots of headache for me few times 

I have just compared my .fits Headers and found out strange thing,

my NINA and SGP do record resolution values into Headers, yours not.... 
Also, cannot know if it makes any difference, but worth checking NINA connection section, just in case...

P.S. my header from NINA

2 minutes ago, Gumminess8083 said:

Huh, this is strange. I thought I took them both with the same driver, but oh well. I tried opening them in pixinsight but the offset value for the lights is not using the same unit of measure as NINA, so I'm cannot confirm that it's 2, but it should be.

 

As for the other question, I'm not really sure where I read that, but it was a post going around the internet. Since my gain was so high, I was looking into whether I could take my lights and flats at a different gain and offset value to be able to get my RGB flats decently, as my sky flats were too bright.

For the new ones I will use tonight, I made sure to use the same exact settings as my lights, but I'll reconfirm it later when I get home.

Not sure about your cam, but once you connect ZWO to NINA, you have 2 options, to use ZWO native drivers or ASCOM ones, - they may behave a bit different, I have not tested.

I just checked the files you shared...

Are you using multiple / stacked Calibration subs? or just single? Asking, as you shared only one file per calibration...

they should be stacked... The larger amount the better...

Furthermore, file names of flats tell, you take them incorrectly.... 2022-10-27_10-31-30_O_-10.00_0.03s_0000.xisf

0.03sec is way too fast sub for Flats, you should target above 0.33sec, closer to 1 sec (can be even 5sec for H), - stack minimum 25 of them.

Almost all software now have automated flats procedures (for Example NINA or SGP), the only thing you have to look after, - amount of light coming in, to have longer subs as described.

Hi mate, I would disagree about default springs on SW...

Not sure about Quattro, but my 130PDS primary holds collimation almost rock solid... Simply collimate it fully back (away from the secondary), - as much as possible, - in my case even locking bolts are not used and collimation is the same as springs are squeezed almost to the limits.
Another question is the focuser.... SW use quite cheap ones and yes, each time you put something IN, you get a slightly different view, - it may be to due tool locking mechanism, drawtube tilt and etc.

Do not hurry, check the focuser first, - check via Cheshire once it is vertical, later once it horizontal, take it out, put it back and check again without moving the scope at all.

As I recall Fitswork4 actually worked "quite OK", - it did leave some stiches behind, but not always, 

plus, I never tried to hide them using Gimp or similar software.

Maybe take a look.

Welcom to SGL,

Sounds like you want to spend some out of boredom? don't you?

In this case Astrophotography is your BEST choice! And you are quite ready as you have the main backbone of it, - AVX mount...

If you can handle it after your surgery, - you just need guiding scope, guiding cam, and of course, the main camera (DSLR like Canon/Nikon is ok the the start, or if more money can be sacrificed for Gods of Astrnomy, - dedicated astro cam), some adaptors and bunch of cables.
As per Telescopes,  -  SE6 & ED80, covers most of the targets you will be able to image on AVX, and of course,  sadly your 254mm cannon is way too large and too heavy for AVX.

For planet photography, - in fact you have SE6  and you just need high speed (high FPS) astro cam something like ASi224MC, which you will be able to use for guiding while imaging DSO.

If AVX is too heavy for your helth condition...  wide field imaging can also be an option, as it does not need a very precise tracking and guys do it on "portable astronomy mounts".

My, kinda, cloud piercing image
Shot in between and even through some clouds, only 2h per channel and STRONGLY overprocessed as my lady liked it more in such a manner....
(probably red colour is luring for ladies)  

1 hour ago, Eruliaf said:

My first attempts at Jupiter on the 130 - also on the getting started with imaging/130PDS topic as well, but more suited to this location.

3 x Barlow and ZWO 462MC - 3 min AVI file processed with AS3.

 

Also, my first ever mosaic (7 panel moon) - slightly clipped (lower right) where I did not overlap them, processed AS3 and stitched (with much room for improvement) in Gimp.

 

Extremely nice mate! You even managed to shoot down all the Galileos!

P.S.
Try to slightly reduce green or simply use the AutoBalance on Registrax as per post below:

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/313652-130pds-planetary-imaging/?do=findComment&comment=3440646

Thanks vlaiv, that's the problem, as pix script spits out 2 values which do look like are in the different measures.... (value and value in decibels)

As SNR naming says, it is Ratio, so it should be (I guess) a single value, representing ratio, not some kind of value of "something" and "decibels" of something else.

As per drizzle, - 2bin, = I got it, thanks a lot for explanation! I was not expecting magic, but hoped, maybe maybe it can give a slight of SNR.
But on Another hand, it looks like it is one of the options to reduce noise by scarifying a bit of detail (and my images are usually very Noisy even in NB)

I posted it, as could not find the answer also...

Plus, I am not sure what the figures actually mean.

In other places, people speak, like it is obvious 2x2 and dont explain the values... 

I have posted on pix forums also, have not yet receive any reply.
 

Hi guys,
I was playing with the different stacking options and was trying to evaluate the final result.
Visually, stacks are more or less the same, but SNR script shows a bit different values and I am not sure how to interpret them.

For example,
OIII channel stack, no drizzle:
SNR = 3.811e+02, 25.81 db

later, the same OIII stacked with x2 drizzle and binned x2:
SNR = 7.093e+02, 28.51 db

Does it mean, SNR on the drizzled and x2binned "back" sub has ended up almost twice better?
Too good to be true....

Just found this vid, - about RC lack/incorrect baffling.

is this something usual and I should actually worry about?

The problem, - I image almost from under the bloody street lights....

Good news, - I do own 3D printer and even 2 left hands

Update

hehe, funny... 130PDS is like a switch army knife  

Almost

Last night tried again

It looks like I am not able to achieve my previous result anymore

30 minutes ago, Clarkey said:

The RC8 works OK without - I think all of the images above were at native FL without a flattener. I think if you go for a much larger sensor you might need to get a flattener, but these were all with an ASI 1600mm so you should be fine. (I think the RC6 does need a flattener).

Just another point (looking at your set up), I did struggle a bit with the OAG due to odd star shapes - although this does appear to be a common problem. I use an ST80 for a guide scope and it does not seem to cause any flexing issues.

Yep, with OAG,  - sometimes it is really difficult to pinpoint the position of the prism... With PDS + ASI1600 it works OK, not protruding and no shadow at all, - at least in my case and it took quite awhile to adjust it correctly.
With RC8 (if I will get it) I will test with my Evoguide first, but it will cause "The imaging / guiding ratio 1 : 6.62 " .  It does not look good on the paper... On another hand, if guiding will be around 0.5" error anyway...

10 minutes ago, Clarkey said:

I have the StellaLyra (GSO) RC8 and use it for imaging and I have found it to be excellent. (Similar to the iOptron but there may be some differences - StellaLyra 8" f/8 M-LRS Ritchey-Chrétien Telescope OTA | First Light Optics). Personally, I think it is bargain for what you get when comparing with an SCT etc. Answering your questions in order:

1. It is a narrow FOV but excellent for smaller targets. Not really a planetary scope though, but good for galaxy imaging.

2. As long as your guiding is 1/2 your resolution you should be OK. With a binned 2x2 ASI1600 it would give you just under 1"/pixel which is probably more than your seeing can support anyway. So your mount should be OK. With the CCD47 you can reduce you FL to around 1200mm (or whatever you want within reason).

3. I cannot answer for the iOptron focuser, but the GSO one was OK - but I did swap mine for a Baader ST. Probably not essential depending how fussy you are and which auto focuser you use. There was some slight slippage but only during autofocus routines (and not enough to be a major problem).

4. Never had a problem with meridian flips. No evidence for mirror movement. Collimation is not as hard as most seem to suggest - and once collimated it hold really well.

5. Some images M51, Coma Cluster and Hickson 44 (Leo Quartet):

Thanks a lot for the info!

As StellaLyra  is probably not much different from iOptron, - why not!

Plus, I kinda always hate brands starting from letter "i"... not sure why...

Completely forgot to add one question...

In your case, how flat is image? Should I think of any kind of corrector as a "must get/pay for". I am mostly willing to image wihout a reducer, as I will keep PDS and will be able to use it for a wider FOV's.

Hi guys,

I planning a christmass gift for myself willing to upgrade my 130PDS to a slightly larger scope and slightly Longer Focal Lengh as sometimes I am really happy to image planets also. The aim, - to shoot down the Saturn .

The main purpose would be DSO (nebulas mainly, - if street light will allow, larger galaxies also).

I will hook up ASI1600MM + EFW + AOG (guide scope also available if focuser will start causing problems).

Questions:

1) The Main, -  "Should I stay, or Should I go????" Please talk me off... Maybe, I should just stay with my 130PDS and Samyang 135... But I have no challenges with them anymore and it can become a bit borring.

2) I use oldie NEQ6 Mount....  The compabilities of this mount with F8 are on the limits... On a "good" night, I manage to guide my PDS down to Total 0.4" error, however usual guiding error is around 0.6", - most likely it is not enough... Recuder? mmm... in this case I can stay with PDS don't I?

3) Focuser... I afraid the default one will not manage to carry such amount of "toys" without causing problems... or not?

4) Primary Mirror, - will it hold the colimation and focus after Meridian Flip? As far as I have managed to find info online, some say no, some say yes for 8" as new versions have slightly upgraded Primary holder, but also no for 6"... Confusing...

5) Not much pictures online which are done using this scope ... A bit scary...

6) Will I need to get any kind of corrector if I am planning to stay on the native FL and do not use reducer?

The scope in question: https://www.ioptron.com/product-p/6112.htm

P.S.

And yes... EdgeHD would be my primary toy to go for... But damn... The price is not in my range...

17 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

The total time was nearly 4 times longer than RolandKol's at the top of this thread. 

Set Pix to use 8 swaps and all Threads your CPU supports (most likely something around 8), and run again.

(just dont forget to apply new settings by pressing the circle/dot in the bottom-left... I keep forgetting this step on Pix...)

1 hour ago, scotty38 said:

To be honest, I'm pretty much aware of what I need and what I'd buy if I upgraded and it would be Ryzen 9 based most likely.....

I'm on the PI forum already so I see a lot of the chatter on performance too.

With Ryzen 9 CPU you will be close to the top end anyways...

Just completely forgot, if you do not afraid using Linux, - try to adjust Pix and set Swap to RAM (linux allows this trick, windows don't), just be careful, as Swap files can become very large, so this option can be counter-productive. I would probably avoid doing that with 16Gb RAM, but no one forbids testing.

Swap file on RAM should make read/write process faster by "pleasant" amount.

Pix kinda likes a bit of larger amount of Swaps, so set 4 or 8 or even 12 in total, - also test how it performs on the current set up.

and if it will show you any benefits, decide about initial RAM size per slot (For example 16+16 or just 32 and upgrade later with the second 32 or go for dual 64 from the start)

I dont play with linux anymore and cannot test for you unfortunately, but previously i had my Chrome running directly from RAM and it caused a lot of joy

Just to finalise

25 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

I just use an i5 with 16GB and 1TB SSD. I dual boot Linux and Windows as Linux runs that bit faster but either way neither are that speedy so I wouldn't recommend this spec as anything brilliant but I know that and for me I can get by. I just have to leave things like WBPP to get on with it and accept it takes time especially if there's a decent number of frames to process. Not so long ago I processed around 500 frames and it took over 12 hours.....

If stacking is an the main issue, honestly my 11th gen i7 vs 8gen i5 does not show much of improvement. Improvement IS, for sure, but there is no "wow" effect.
I sometimes use i5 9th or 10th gen (do not remember) intel based Desktop PC for stacking (in my office), - not sure if it works faster than my current laptop on i7, I kinda feel even opposite... However again, I have not ran any specific tests, it is just internal feeling...

You can google or check pixs forums for benchmarks and compare to yours, - maybe it will lead you towards something optimal. To improve stacking, you probably need to target for the fastest read/write setup with powerful CPU with more working threads... In this case, probably Desktop pc with i7 or i9 like CPU's and very fast SSD and motherboard  supporting all of that, will give out quite a Noticeable improvement, but it will cost quite a amount of beers or candies you could buy and if you are ready to cash out just for this purpose, why not.

4 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Yes that was the point I was making, I was trying to ask if you were happy or not with your machine's performance as that would be a pointer to replicate, or not, your build. Now you've said you're happy that's a good pointer, thanks!

Not a problem... Just keep in mind, - in my case it is still a laptop... 

As I am not any kind of video dev or gamer... I do not see the reason to by a bulky tower + screen + space... 
if laptop is still the option for you, Lenovo Legion 5 can be as a benchmark to start from... I guess all Legions will have one or another GPU, -  sadly, I cannot advise if you need one, mine has GF4060

20 minutes ago, piprees said:

Hmmm, yes, sorry, but I'm a bit lost with most of that. What I guess I'm after is the sort of thing that I could say to a dealer. maybe about 3 or 4 parameters, such as i5 is a no no, or i7 is a defo.....

From my investigations, - looks like Pix do not use GPU, so maybe this part can be left aside... However, I can be wrong... As I am probably just a bit more tech educated than you as I know the purpose of the Swap file  but probably not much more...
As I bough my laptop quite recently, also investigated the options, and AMD CPU (similar level one, for example Ryzen 7 5800h) actually runs faster on some applications, for example Excel, plus it has better power management! And I would go for AMD if not a great discount which was offered for this laptop with i7 CPU, which, on another hand is a bit more universal 

As Pix involves Lots of calculations per sec, maybe... maybe, AMD can be better option.

RAM 16GB should be more than enough (8GB will also be OK, my older laptop with i5 and 8Gb was also quite comfy with Pix),  SSD min 512GB, the rest as your wallet allows, new CPU's. AMD vs Intel, - it is the argument as Windows vs Mac or Linux... Intel will be more universal and will have more new tech in it for sure and will be more expensive. If you are not gamer or video developer cheaper AMD is probably very reasonable way to go.