geeklee

There's not even a caveat about it being good for 76 minutes, it just looks really good. Great detail with nice subtle colour and the galaxy cluster is a stand out. Love the framing too. Thanks for the annotation The difference in star control (capture ? + processing) is quite something looking at your older image.

If you mean there's enough to see at this focal length, I'm not sure. I think the Flaming Star has some fascinating structure with the right data. A modest SHO example @250mm and 3.8"PP shows amazing additional structure and I think some of this would be great to see at longer focal length (I'm certain I've seen examples on Astrobin). I do miss the reflection element though and like an HaRGB version. https://www.astrobin.com/ke9eqx/B/ (this is my own image with a crop above taken and rotated 180deg) I've also seen some longer focal length images of IC410 recently that were stunning. The tadpoles themselves bringing a new "wow" factor to that area. Example (not mine!) https://www.astrobin.com/full/8wvghn/D/

Excellent! Nothing to laugh at there - some good detail in Clavius showing in the bottom image and you can see loads in the first. I found during the day much trickier with exposure on a phone. If we ever get a clear night (howling wind and heavy rain again today!) you'll be even more impressed I'm sure. My phone cameras were the same and the cradle kept everything stable enough so the "auto" elements of the camera could stabalise and if I then clicked on the bright area on the screen it could set the exposure appropriately - it usually worked but not always .

Welcome to SGL! A cracking little scope. It's worth persevering with the phone if you want to keep it simple for a while. A phone cradle to keep it steady on the eyepiece can be very useful. It lets you play with the controls a lot easier for autofocus/exposure/brightness. A couple of examples of many I enjoyed through phone+eyepiece.

Seems much easier to show the great detail you've captured in the central lanes. Also a little subtle detail in M110 👍 This isn't really processed. Just a very rough background extraction and a light stretch (with the new file)

As an aside... I once had a retailer branded dew strap (not large, probably similar to covering a 72ED) and the first time I tried it was a short clear spell. When I took my gear in the scope was almost hot to touch! It was pulling a silly amount of power, even adjusted (for a smaller dew strap). It went straight in the bin. The smaller ones I have now (for slightly smaller scopes than the 72ED) are ~0.3-0.5A @ 12v, so ~3.6-6w. These are W&W Astro/Dew Control and AstroZap. The former has power specs on their site for each size 👍 A long way of saying... is yours also getting too hot? 😅 Yeah 👍

Thanks @vlaiv It was the softness that was throwing me on this - hence mentioning focus. When clearing the background many different ways, everything was left with ghosting around it like cloud/fog/mist etc. I wasn't sure I had got the background extracted correctly but if the sky was like this then perhaps it was.

It's always hard to tell because everyone's localised light pollution is different but it does seem like 4.5hrs should give you a touch more. The focus looks a little soft, or could there have been high cloud and a lot of moisture during this night? Did you have a dew heater on? Was the data calibrated with Flats? The background was tricky to remove and I never managed fully as I was trying to be as light touch as possible. I gave it a gentle stretch, reduced the stars a bit and tried to get a some more colour (didn't really manage the last one) I'm not sure if you were getting similar to the above yourself? Don't be disheartened, processing is a huge part of AP and not knowing if you're getting the data captured to your own satisfaction adds another variable.

I've got my eye on both of these but have been shying away from the recent moon/moisture filled nights. Not something that you can afford in the UK really! 🤣 Always the way! That'll be a cracking addition to your kit though.

Both super images Martin and great to get more data on targets that demand so much! Colour balance also looks better to my eye on the updated ones. More planned on these? (should a clear night appear again!!)

Looks great again Adam. As well as the detail in the centre, those "waves" alongside the subtle transition of faint nebulosity on the far right centre looks fantastic too. I shot this recently with the Samyang 135 so it's been good to see better close up versions ( from @Rodd and now yourself most recently).

Agreed, looks fantastic, with a lot of depth and detail.

Superb, well done Wim. Great perseverance to keep collecting data on this and see the end result. Did the IFN (?) only start to show much later in the data collection?

Why wouldn't you aim to match gain and offset on all your calibration frames, it'll just make life much simpler and with less variables. Is "2" offset a typo? Seems very low.

EDIT: I've had a look at the files and compared to my own. Two observations: The Master Flat is underexposed. It looks fine but typically aim to get the histogram further to the right. I think the Master Dark and Dark Flats could be causing the issue. As I mentioned below, did you mean offset "2" when you typed that above? I looked out a 90s Master Dark I had. Gain 120 and Offset 30. So the defaults. I had a play with calibration and got a result on your Ha with no discernible pattern (except the amp glow where we mismatched more clearly). The pattern would have been there with a strong enough stretch as our calibration frames mismatched but the point was it wasn't overcorrecting massively. Perhaps your lights were offset 30 or higher than 2 anyway. Lee

Hi @Gumminess8083 Please see this thread where I pasted an image of my narrowband flats with the 294MM at Gain 120 (unity). The image above mine was another example from a 294MM user. These flats fully calibrate (and you can see the same pattern in my flats and in my Ha lights - for example - when stretched hard).

I can only offer experience of using a CCD (460EX) and CMOS (various) on different rigs over the same time periods and all the data had similar characteristics. Yes I exposed for longer with my CCD but a sensibly exposed mono image always had a similar histogram and appearance (both raw and stretched) etc. From the few things I know about the QHY 268 family, you're using the basic low gain and high gain defaults? So nothing out of the orindary? When we're troubleshooting issues it's so frustrating we don't have more clear nights! If you have others filters in the wheel and could just shoot a 30s Lum image, see how that comes out? Even an image without a filter just to see the response and FITS file. What about a Flat file - have you taken one yet? I'm thinking how that might look (pixel levels) Vs the above. It's like the above images converted anything above a certain (low) level to a value of 65535. If I take another crop of the 180s frame I have (same as above): Raw: AutoSTF: Then pick an area of "bright" nebulosity in the core of the Heart (lower rights) that's around 0.0280 in PI (between 0 and 1). So still a very low value as you'd expect. Run this PixelMath, which is saying "if the value of the pixel is above 0.0280, then make it 1 (clip), otherwise leave it as is". I get: Raw: Looks very similar to your mode1 file. Lee

You wouldn't think 120s Ha subs even at F2.8 through 4.5nm filters should look this should they? Crop of the Heart from mode1 FIT file with no stretching. It's the way both images have such stark clipping/saturation. Hope you managed to make use of the clear skies 😊

Is that with SharpCap and have you been testing the camera in SharpCap? If so, the top right I think has the capture settings. Ensure its 16bit raw and not 8bit.

The example was an older ZWO 183MM at unity gain (111 - no relation to the QHY numbers). So a camera with a smaller full well than a 268/2600 camera. The FITS header says they're 16bit, but is there anywhere that may have set it to only capture in 8bit, but a 16bit FITS output? 👍 Maybe adjust the title to read "QHY 268M subs help - do these look right?" or similar.

I'm not familiar with using the QHY camera Bryan but agree with your assessment. To my eye Mode1 has a lot saturated, even the stronger nebulosity! Mode0 looks better but some of the bright nebulosity (like the tip of the "fish head") is saturated. Very odd - I may be way off but it seems like the full well is very small but that wouldn't be right in either of those modes (from what I do know!) If I remember, this is your Samyang lens in front of it? Here's that fish head on a mono CMOS, ~F2.6, Samyang 135, 180s sub. How long were your exposures? These were raw straight off the camera? Sorry, I've not been much help.

That's a stunning outcome @tomato A spot too much blue/purple in the galaxies colour and maybe a little sharpening of the galaxies added? Both personal things though. Love the framing output combination! 😅 ...Everything.

The bottom of that poster. ASIAIR Mini!

Both looked great to my eye. The star of the show is the detail, great stuff 👍 Background definitely looks more neutral now.

Fantastic @Shibby Superb subtle detail to enjoy in the bright central regions (especially so at 1:1, 100% viewing). I like both versions. A little too much blue in the background on the first (and to a lesser extend in the second) if you want to tighten it up a bit but doesn't detract from enjoying the main event! Worth submitting to the challenge, without a doubt. Thanks for sharing.