geeklee

At the bottom is Sh2-157 (aka lobster claw). I think the cave nebula is off frame further up and to the right (from this framing fov). I only know this as I imaged the same region but at a shorter focal length and was hoping to squeeze the cave in, but couldn't! I've had a quick root about in CdC. Sh2-155 is the cave nebula. Good luck with either target. If they look like your image above, you'll be on to a winner! Ah clear skies... I remember them... vaguely!

Looks great Tony! Plenty of signal in Sh2-161 too and NGC 7538 looks great (as with M52).

Good to see another person coming to the same conclusion. I was concerned I'd missed some way to make it work out the box yesterday

Nice capture Bob, well done for reframing at the last minute - well worth getting both those objects in. Had me off to look into Arp 6 some more too 👍

It is a fine line. We're all trying to extract as much as we legitimately can from our images and fundamentally, great images with loads of signal (like this one) make various stages of this easier, with better results. I think comparisons here are with an almost raw stack and a fully noise reduced + sharpened image? Can "normal" processing resolve the same or close to the same detail? I think you've now answered that above though 🙂

That's still come out great Paul. Lovely image.

Is it adding something or just able to display what perhaps the optics/resolution/conditions weren't quite able to? From the flame nebula crop, I just see genuine detail being brought out - magically almost! - rather than anything being added/manipulated.... unless that's the issue? (resolving detail that perhaps wasn't quite there)?

Wow, you really get a feel for the noise reduction on the final image. In comparison the final image looks almost painted! Echoing my earlier Astrobin comment, fantastic image Richard 👍 Detail and colour to pore over for ages!

I'm starting to feel like I'm having a go now! 😅 Looking at the comparison I think the detail was lost earlier in the process - that version from the earlier thread has such delicate detail in these two areas (and across the whole image of course) that I don't think can be recovered with any sort of HDR / contrast tool late in the current version. If you're in PixInsight, maybe running back through History Explorer can find the same detail and work out which step reduced it? I've purposely left these at 1:1 because they look so good: They're all lovely, detailed images but the SHO one in the original thread had that subtle detail - a real stand out part for me. It was awesome at 1:1 viewing (seen above)

Nice one, you've definitely retained more of the detail in that second processing. I've had a quick process of the stack as well to try and get a happy medium between the noise and the detail - not sure I've succeeded, but it's another route.

I find the exact same challenge and have also tried unsuccessfully with various methods of reintroducing removed stars. Using Affinity Photo, I managed to adapt one of Ollie's recent tutorials using several layers (original, starless, original) in PS and got much better results than previously. For this particular FOV I find the very bright stars can leave squared artefacts in StarNet that are challenging to overcome.

Hi Adrian - I like the extra dust you've brought out in the surrounding area and honestly prefer some of the stars, especially having a few more in the field (controversial!) Comparing to the previous SHO version, it feels like some of the fine detail has been lost though - those wispy layers beside the horse's head and the fine structure in the flame nebula are subdued (seen easier clicked through below). As before though, a cracking capture and image 👍

No problem 👍 I've had a chance to take my camera off the rig and dismantle the extensions. From what I can see, it can't make 44mm out of the box as that 11mm extension that sits on the camera by default is just an M42 female ring. If you have a 10mm M42 extension then I think it could work - you'd have 6.5mm (sensor to faceplate) then the 11mm M42 extension from the box, then add a separate/new 10mm M42 extension and finally the 16.5mm M42-M48 adapter from the box. This gives 6.5 + 11 + 10 + 16.5 = 44mm... then use any slim spacers to fine adjust if needed. Shame the 21mm M42 extension from the box can't be used... from what I can see... 🤔 Note: When I use M42 above, I mean M42*0.75 (i.e. T2) as per ZWO's diagram. Apologies if that's more confusing! Good diagrams here: https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/product/asi533mc-pro-color

Awesome images Adam. Great framing with the mosaic for that FOV and the detail at 1:1 is lovely.

Hi @nephilim Out of the box, the Samyang lens will have a bayonet connector for the camera manufacturer you select (e.g. Canon). There is a Canon ZWO adapter that takes this to more traditional M42. This is 26.5mm in depth so with the 6.5mm distance from camera face to sensor and default 11mm adapter on the camera gives the default 44mm for lenses. As discussed in this thread, it's usually a touch more than this, but the camera does come with some slim spacers that would help. Alternatively you have the M48 bayonet replacement discussed in this thread that FLO stock (again, for the Canon lens). This changes the lens to an M48 connector. The ASI533 will have the M42/M48 adapters out the box but it's setup for 55mm backfocus. To get the ~44mm may require additional tinkering. I cant remember if removing the 11mm adapter from the camera face lets you then add the included 21mm M42 and then included 16.5mm M42-M48 adapaters. the ZWO diagram isn't clear - not sure if anyone else has this information until I can take apart my rig and check? My ASI533 and Samyang (currently using the Canon ZWO adapter until the M48 item arrives) with UV/IR cut filter was just over 45mm IIRC (to get the focus point within the 'L' infinity marking). Hope this helps.

That's a great capture and image @smashing 👍 I had a quick look at the stack you attached and it looks like it's got loads of detail too - albeit noisy as you mention. I think the image above has lost some detail during noise reduction compared to the stack. If you can take a step back in your processed image and lighten the noise reduction, you might bring that back. A couple of examples (at 1:2) below with the fine detail in the flame nebula and the blue reflection beside the horse head. None are processed just showing what's in the raw stack with an unlinked screen stretch (STF) in PixInsight. Above: Stack and stretch: Above: Stack and stretch:

Hi Stu - Last night I was shooting through some high cloud / mist / murk and eventually packed up. Were you shooting through similar conditions as the signal is very weak to pull out without being too aggressive. I did the background extraction with APP in the end as I was never happy with things I tried with DBE in PixInsight. The right hand side still doesn't look quite right. It would be interesting what others manage or how yours looked after this initial step. Anyway, not sure I've done it justice (just taken a different route!) but here's a process from PixInsight. I've left it quite bright with that hazey look to try and maintain more detail. Thanks for sharing - let me pause a tedious chore and enjoy a quick bit of processing!

Great review. Thanks for adding the detail on mechanics of the scope and equipment used to get around the various challenges.

There can be so many adapters, it's easy to get lost in them! If you're looking at a ZWO camera then at a certain size/price point they come natively with M42 / M48 and loads of adapters for some typical combinations of back focus. Check out the camera's details on ZWO site (or FLO for example) and you'll see what's in the box. If your flattener/reducer needs 55mm of back focus (or thereabouts) you'll be sorted for a lot of ZWO cameras out the box.

This one looks much clearer, brighter and more detailed to my eye. Comparing them both now, the first one looks like I need to wipe away a sheen of film to get to image 2. Good capture either way!

Typically that part is used to connect Canon lenses to CCD/CMOS cameras via the T2 connector. I'm not sure what flattener you have but assuming that usually these have a M42/M48 connector, there should then be a M42/M48 T mount connector that your DSLR attaches too. Is this the case? If you take your DSLR off, is there then a small adapter that unscrews to reveal the flattener's native connection type - hopefully a screw thread. Scope -> Flattener/Reducer -> T-Mount -> DSLR. Image below shows the T-Mount and DSLR. If it has this, you're closer to being ready to go although would need an adapter to go from the 1.25 if your planned camera also has this. Hope this helps. I've not seen a reducer/flattener that has a direct DSLR attachment (as it would have to be manufacturer specific), so hopefully that part is the T-Mount and will unscrew...

Absolutely, it worked a treat 🙂

That's great Nikolay - lovely wide field shot and I think you've even snagged the double cluster in the top right. Good shout on NGC 457 - definitely stands out, like Vin's one. It's always enjoyable seeing the bigger picture and targets in their surroundings. Was this 5 seconds rather than minutes? Just wondering as the description mentions a regular tripod and no tracking!

Hi Steve - you might not be doing anything wrong. An OSC, auto STF image in PI will usually be very green biased. To check if this is the case and all is well pending Automatic/Dynamic background extraction (ABE/DBE), background neutralisation (BN) and colour calibration (CC), open Processes menu and select All Processes and then ScreenTransferFunction (STF) Once this is up, click the little "link" icon in the top left of the STF window, then run the STF again. You should see an "unlinked" STF on the stacked data. As mentioned above, ABE/DBE, BN and CC should start to get the image balanced and not require the unlinked STF. Hope this helps - at least work out if it's a debayer pattern issue or not.

That looks great @matt_baker. Lovely details and contrast.