Chefgage

In my mind I was sort of thinking that data from a poor seeing (moon lit) night added to a good seeing night (no moon) would still improve the image (increase the SNR). So poor data is better than no extra data. But that could of course be that I am sleepy after a big fish and chip tea!

That sounds like sound advice. I will do just that.

I know the question of stacking images from different nights has been asked many times before. I know how to set up DSS to do this. But my question is a bit more spefic and I couldn't see an answer to it. I have a set of images of the eastern veil nebula taken under 95% moon lit sky. The images are narrowband (l-enhance filter). I would like to take more images over different nights to build up the total image time as we are a bit limited at the moment regards how long it is 'dark' for (UK). Is it worth using data from moon lit nights along with data from say when the moon is not out. A quick process of just 40 minutes under a 95% moon did show a fair bit of detail.

Thank you for that.

I prefere the first one. The stars are sharper and the nebula more softer/pleasing to the eye.

Thanks for that. I think a bit of experimenting is in order. Still trying to get my head round when or if to bin the image. Or is resizing the image a better option or not to do it at all.

I don't usually bother as it makes no difference what size the image is as the monitor/ TV will still display it but only at the monitor/TV resultion. I am just wondering if my TV when downsampling the 6000x4000 image is making it worse than if I just resize or bin the image in processing.

I have a canon 200d that I image with. This produces an image of 6000x4000 pixels. So from a processing point of view (after stacking the images) is it best to leave the image size as is and then start processing and not resize the image at the end. Or resize the image to 1920x1080 (to be viewed on monitor/TV) and then start processing. Or bin the image say 3x3 and then start processing. Is there any advantage in the three scenarios I have shown?

Thanks for that. I think I will give that a try later and compare the processed reduced size image with the image that the TV downsamples. Obviously to get the 1920 x 1080 I will just resize the image in pixInsight. But still wondering about binning and how that differs from just resizing?

Let's say after finishing processing an image it's resolution is 4704 x 3360 and then I transfer it to my server to be viewed on my TV. My TV is 1920 x 1080 so when I view the image it is full screen but I assume is now downsampled to 1920 x 1080. As I understand it there are various methods of downsampling, some better than others. So my questions are, is it better to just resize my image during processing to 1920 x 1080 so that no downsampling takes place and possibly effects the image? Also is it better to resize the image or bin the image?. If I need a specific size I would have to resize but which is best in terms of picture quality?

Found the links. As I said this runs my canon 200d DSLR all night. This is the battery pack http://www.exprodirect.com/ex-pro-on-the-move-16000mah-rechargeable-battery-power-system-replacing-for-use-with-ex-pro-coupler-system-for-canon-nikon-and-sony-dslr-cameras..html And this is the dummy battery to go with it http://www.exprodirect.com/ex-pro-canon-lp-e6-dr-e6-coupler-cable-for-ex-pro-rechargeable-battery-power-system.html

I use a dummy battery in mine. This is then powered by a dedicated battery power pack. The advantage of this is no mains power needed. I can image all night with this. I posted it on here somewhere. I will take a look.

Morning all. Is there any 'rule of thumb' when it comes to dithering settings based on the equipment you use. It's the next step I am going to use to improve my images. The equipment being used is a canon DSLR with pixel size 3.72um. The dithering will be done via an asiair pro connected to a heq5 pro mount. The scopes focal length is 420mm. The guide scope focal length is 128mm. Any thoughts??

Just my quick take on this. I have used the asiair pro on a star adventurer pro mount. It really made the process of using this mount easy. By that I mean the first step of polar aligning using my guide cam was all done in a couple of minutes. Then I figured out how to use the plate solve function. As my mount is a manual non go to, finding some targets was very hard due to the bortle 8 skies and the fact I cannot often see many stars near the target. But by pointing in the general direction and then plate solving and comparing the coordinates in sky safari I was able to find quite a few targets that I did not think was possible. Guiding was also easy to set up on the star adventurer. I have just now tried the asiair pro on a heq5 pro mount. Again this was easy to set up (more things to do than the star adventurer pro). I have set it up using the eqmod cable so that the hand controller is not needed. The novelty of pressing a button on my phone or tablet and the mount moving to the target brought a smile to my face in the dark. One thing that the asiair pro surprised me was when after moving to the target the star was not quite centered in the field of view. But not to worry the asiair then automatically took a picture, plate solved and then centered the star. Excellent.

Right, thank you that makes sense. This image was taken with an ed72 scope on a star adventurer pro mount (so guiding in RA only). Guiding I am averaging about an rms error of 1.5" I cannot remember what the FWHM showed for each image in deep sky stacker but I do seem to remember seeing so of my other images being higher than 1"

Just re reading this. When you are referring to my image being oversampled, this would be the raw image taken and not the processed image? You refer to the size of my stars in the processed image but these stars are just bigger due to the prosessing being done? The reason I ask is that my small understanding regarding ideal camera/scope combinations was that with my camera pixel size and focal length of scope this gave an ideal equipment combination. This was based on the formula of pixel size ÷ focal length X 206.265. I hope that makes some sense.

Thanks for that.

Many thanks for that. I will certainly be giving it another go. This was my first attempt at a new software so I will take on board your suggestions (again thanks).

When you say to bin it to proper sampling rate. How would I determine that. For my camera the pixel size is 3.72um and focal length of scope is 420mm. So using the formula I get a sample rate of 1.83.

Any reason why? Myself I like the first one as it shows more detail I think.

Hello all. I took some images of the Orion nebula late last year and processed them using my usual method in GIMP. I decided I wanted to try out new software to process my images so I have obtained the free trial of pixInsight. So this is the reprocessed image of the Orion nebula using pixInsight. This was a first go at using the software, and although very different to GIMP I think I will get on well with it. The first image is the pixInsight one and the second image is the GIMP one. In the pixInsight I seem to have brought out quite a bit of noise and some strange coloured dashes/streaks?? But overall I do think the pixInsight one is best.

Thanks. I have just recently subscribed to Adam block. So I will take a look.

Not to worry it came through over night. It was just that the website site states if you have not received it in 20 minutes try another email address. Just took a bit longer than that.

Tried getting a trial license but have not received it after some time. Using my ISP and also tried other email addresses. I get the initial 'welcome to pixInsight' etc. So I know the email account is not blocked. But no licence details are then sent. With me being in the UK anyone else who is in the UK had issues with this??

If they need volunteers to go up and fix it I don't mind popping up there with my spanner and soldering iron.