Jkulin

Looking at that it does look like a filter problem.

I use Chroma filters who used to make them for Astrodon and don't let them palm you off with "you are using the filters the wrong way round?"

Have you checked that all the filters are parfocal as the focus does look out as well, if like me you focus using the Lum filter and the Ha is out then they could be a contributing issue.

I'm not sure about he US, but in the UK they would be covered under the distant selling regulations, I'd be fairly certain that you have something similar over there.

Lovely Capture but just a bit too magenta for my liking, so I bunged it into PI and I think this enhances your image: -

Hi Carole, not sure if this helps but if you were thinking of going to the PAS I could bring my kit as I have a 135mm and spend an hour or so showing you the basics?

Dave, two questions as following this with interest: -

1. Where are you going to bring your electrics in?

2. Are you going to just mount the pier on the floor or do you have an alternative idea?

You might want to have a look at Altair Astro: - https://www.altairastro.com/cameras-3-c.asp

I had my Esprit with the SW Flattener working at about 57.5mm and my stars were not perfect, I have been waiting 2 months now for Jtech to make me new flanges to reduce down to 55mm the recommended distance, which I know the Esprit can perform superbly at, the reason for the change was that I have moved over to OAG's on all my scopes as I find my guiding is so much better.

Unlike yourself I didn't want to reduce down the FL as I have an 80mm and a 100mm Esprit.

HTH

Cheers Dave, Keep us advised how it goes?

Any more updates on this scope?

35 minutes ago, JSeaman said:

The results I'm chasing are the clarity of detail, nothing to do with the black point, that's the very last thing I tweak

Black point should in my opinion be one of the first things yo do so that you can determine how good the data you have without masking it, you will then be able to see how far you can stretch the detail, making it dark hides all that.

On 15/02/2020 at 09:04, JSeaman said:

 

I just don't seem to get the results I'm after at the moment.

 

With the greatest respect your opening sentence was as above.

When I first started I was guilty of too black background and I missed so much of the detail, I knocked it back and my images started to come alive.

31 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

The moon is a big issue for Oiii.

Yep Adam, fully agree, I tend to shoot Ha when the moon is at its largest followed by SII and then hopefully the OIII when the moon is out of the way.

Its all about planning.

Looking at the image as some have said there are a number of issues: -

1. One of the finest members with regards to processing @ollypenrice commented that it is too black, personally I would heed his advice as you won’t get finer.

2. The ED80 is capable of excellent results and to me the focus is out, have you used a bahtinov mask?

3. I live in a light polluted area and I choose my targets around the moon, and would choose NB targets when the moon is a pain and LRGB targets when it isn’t.

The stars aren’t going anywhere so just enjoy it when the seeing/moon/time is right.

Like you I used to rush to capture images in windy moonlit nights, now I take my images when everything is right rather than rush and waste time.

HTH

On 15/02/2020 at 18:06, Rodd said:

I have imaged the Rosette Nebula 3 times at 3 differnt focal lengths (318 mm, 480 mm and 700 mm).  I managed to work each idata set into a version I could live with (after much time!).  Each image consists of 14 hours, 24 hours, 13 hours respectively.  I wondered what would happen if I combied them all into a 51 hour image.  So, becuase I do not know how to insert higher resolution data into lowere resolution widefield data (Any advise on how to do that would be very much appreciated).  So, I registered all data to the smallest FOV (which eliminated the need to crop the combined image), combined the 3 images,then inserted the lum of the highest resolution image (700 mm)-- Well--here it is.  I do miss the wider FOV, but still a satisfying endeavor.

 

That’s a belter Rodd, very nice processing, esquisite detail

Hi Gina, nice wide image.

just wondered how you are managing with no guiding, is it because of good PA and a nicely tuned mount or is there some other magic😉

Hi Steve, really lovely detail.

It never ceases to amaze me that with this and my mates and my M1 that with similar amounts of data that we have such vastly different images, yours bring so vastly superior😎

Martin, that is one of the best Spaghettis that I have seen, nice one!

I notice that this is just Ha and OIII is there any SII around, not that it needs enhancing, just interested.

I was thinking of having a go with my Samyang 85mm on the smaller mount.

😎

Hi Frank, yes it is the 64bit version.

I tried yesterday with CC 2019 and CC2020 and the plug-ins will not install

I downloaded it and watched, what an absolute "Plonker"🤣

8 minutes ago, Xplode said:

Not sure why you're looking on the Ascom website, it has a very little percentage of all Ascom drivers.
If you searched on Google you would have already found that there is an Ascom driver for Sony cameras
https://github.com/Axlns/ascom.sony.camera

Thanks, never really looked further afield once I have all my drivers, so this was appreciated.

Hi See that Sony has finally released the SDK (Software Development Kit) for their cameras, I have asked on the SGP and APT forum if they intend to incorporate the camera's into their software.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/0419921057/sony-releases-software-development-kit-sdk-for-remote-camera-access

I also has a look on https://www.ascom-standards.org/ but can't find any Ascom drivers on there.

Does anyone have any ideas or do you think it will be years before we see any development?

For me the first version is beautiful and gently processed, using the old adage...less is more.

You have introduced some star colour in the revised which to me doesn't look as good.

1 minute ago, WanderingEye said:

Can I ask why you don’t power your mount from the UPB...? Am curious

Two reasons, the first is that from experience I find mounts prefer their own feed as it guarantees a minimum of 12v, in my case over 13v and improves the reliability when everything is on.

The other reason is that the iOptron mounts have a feed in the base not on the rotating head, so there is no drag or chance of the feed getting snagged, iOptron just use a 2.1mm jack socket and to me I would prefer something that locked the power in place, it's just a minor niggle.

So with a single feed going up to my UPB it saves unnecessary counter balancing and with a separate fused feed saves any possibility of blowing the whole lot.

On 09/02/2020 at 22:23, david_taurus83 said:

Why not just run a 12v supply outside? I have a Nevada 12v supply indoors and I run out a 15m cable

Exactly, I run 12v cables of 2.5mm out about 15m from my leanto shed, then everything connects via waterproof connectors to my pier.

I use Nevada 25-30A power supplies, two cables from each, one to my CEM120EC mount and the other to my Pegasus UPB, and then from the other I run my Laptop and a separate feed to my CEM40EC, they remain out 24/7 and the only time they get moved is when mowing the lawn.

Personally I would never suggest anyone run 240V out to their pier without it being protected in an Obsy, yes you can get water proof sockets and they do work, but as many have said they need a proper earth and RCD.

Yep take your time Adam getting the right ADU, I used SGP flats wizard but have used APT for doing this previously. I then sandwich the gels between the light panel and the appropriate perspex sheet so it doesn't get scratched.

The difference this made to my flats was unbelievable.