Datalord

On 10/08/2019 at 17:08, sloz1664 said:

That is some"beast" of a mount, can't wait to see photos of it set-up and loaded with the ODK12

Here's one of this mount with an RC12.

Congratulations! We're the proud owners of the very last of these magnificent mounts. Even with my beginners problems, I'm so happy about mine. Good luck with it! 

I like the uncropped version better!

Here's what I meant. I just did one small amount of unsharp mask. Like I said, it's personal preference.

Nice one. I think I would sharpen it up a bit if I were you. The stars are a bit too fuzzy for my liking.

37 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

This would be really helpful for me to understand this topic further.

Hmm, infuriating I can't find this exact example I know I had on one of my images a few months ago. I did exactly the side by side and for some reason the drizzled seemed to have better control over the dark areas. Less noise, more smooth. I can't find it now. 😞

I'm a non-Facebooker, so none of that. 🙂

So it seems we have similar performance from the mount. I'm going to keep going with what I have at this point, since I have <0.3" at 2400mm. Any improvement from here would probably hit seeing as a limit, so I'm content.

I am, yes.

Can I ask what kind of guide figures you get from your rig?

1 minute ago, Corpze said:

Are you running the mount with Autoslew and guidning with PHD?

i have loves my DDM in three years time, i have not been guidning though, just MLPT.

Yes, just autoslew and PHD. I've tried MLPT, with and without Sequence a few times, but it always ends in tears because of that useless software package. Something inevitably will crash and ruin the night. PHD and autoslew just works.

On 01/08/2019 at 11:14, vlaiv said:

I'm just wondering, since drizzle can lower SNR. With ASI1600 and Esprit 100 you will be sampling at 1.43"/px, and that is sort of optimum resolution for ~ 2.3" FWHM stars. What is your average FWHM in subs, have you measured it?

I often drizzle my images as well, even though I'm imaging at 0.52"pp. Like Richard, I compare the two outputs and more often than not, the drizzled image just looks better, theory or not. Added bonus is that the resolution enables poster size prints.

Spent some time on this iconic nebula. Once again I tried some new techniques using starnet++ to make starless narrowband images before combining with an RGB starfield image. It took me quite a while to figure it out and chose which colours I wanted in the final. I think I'm going to make a Warhol'ish poster with the data in different colour layouts, but for now, this is what I have.

Acquisition data:

10 hours ago, Wavseeker said:

hmm the only way to find out is to go to a store and try it out for myself then.

No, the only way is to try it out under the stars while you try to find your target. I would go nuts without GoTo, but I'm also an imager.

For AP, the setups you are looking will only work for planetary. Don't even begin to think about using them for deep sky objects if you want to retain your sanity.

Hope you don't mind I grabbed your image and had a go at it in PixInsight.

You have really good data. A few key things: ChannelMatch to move the red and blue channels half a pixel to compensate for the diffraction in the atmosphere. Has to be done on colour cameras. Second, you should colour calibrate it.

Here are the processes I used, in the order I used them:

Regulars on the mount page here will know all the shenanigans I have had with my mounts. PTMD (Post Traumatic Mount Disorder) has been strong in me, so after my purchase and setup of the ASA DDM85, I carried the scars given to me by the CGX in the shape of PHD settings.

I had been pretty happy (read, ecstatic) with the ASA so far, with guiding stats I could only dream about with the CGX, but tonight I did something on a whim. I increased the PHD interval from 3s to 10s. The mount responded to my trust with this:

In case you're in doubt, I love this thing. It is crazy to me they stopped making these and I got the last one they produced.

I have it set up in E-Eye in Spain, so I just log onto the computer from home and roll off the roof and start my thing. The frightening part about this setup is that I'm 2000km away if something goes wrong. And something has gone wrong a time or three.

2 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Do you concentrate on the one object over the course of many nights, or might you image different objects? 

I do only one object per night because sleep and I prefer more data on one object than hopping around.

39 minutes ago, HunterHarling said:

You can make it more blue by using a mask of the OIII and reducing the red saturation in it.

Yeah, that did push it a bit more into the deep blue. Thanks.

28 minutes ago, Brian Maurer said:

move the purple

I might be colour blind, but I can't find any purple?

Here's one with more intensity in the blue. Better?

Interesting. I actually toned it down after I stretched it because it felt like the oxygen should be more subtle. 

Alright, I finished this one up. Quite a lot of work to gather all this data. I even threw away 30 more hours due to various problems with my setup. On top of that, it was my first time processing HaOIIILRGB.

All acquisition data:

I processed it in PI, with finishing touches in PS. Especially getting the Oxygen to come forward was done in PS, which is a godsend. The original image is 3 times larger because I drizzled it before processing. I made a HOO for the main image and used LRGB for a starfield which I masked in in the end.

Ok, blended it gently with a mask and did final touches on it. This one I like...

1 hour ago, alan4908 said:

So, if you blend the two images together on a simple 50 50 basis you get this:

Wow, that's really nice. Good idea. 

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

In first post, right image looks very, very good.

Thanks Vlaiv, I did everything I could "by the book" and somehow it packed the wow I had from the previous, wrong as that one was. 

Thanks for the reality check. 

Pixinsight

19 minutes ago, carastro said:

I presume the left one is uncalibrated and the right one is calibrated.  The one on the left looks clipped to me though I can see you have more pink in that one, 

Carole 

Yeah, it has all sorts of nasty gradients, but somehow it appeals to my wife more than the new one. I'm tweaking myself into a depression trying to make something nice of it.

So, I opened my M101 project to try to apply my latest learnings about processing and starsand whatnot. I then realised I made a huge mistake and used the un-calibrated images in my stacking, which I remember gave me grief last time. So, I redo everything.

But, I'm not particularly happy about it. My result so far is less appealing than the original, which is full of wrong colour.

I haven't done final corrections on the new one, but I'm curious about what the stargazers here think?

34 minutes ago, wimvb said:

The starless version was created with standard settings in starnet++ on the original image.

OMFG! WITCHCRAFT!