teoria_del_big_bang

Well (well) worth a revisit. 

Chalk and cheese as we say. The early version is pretty typical of unmodded DSLR images, I think anyway, still a good image but with the star reduction, and probably because of how your processing skills have developed, the new versions are more like a dedicated astro camera and have allowed you to bring out much more detail in the nebulosity. 

I really do like the widefield anyway as often most images of this target only every show a portion of the target. Well done and time well spent 🙂 

Steve

Unfortunately we all find out that for imaging there is no such thing as a scope & camera setup that works well for all targets due to the FOV.
In the end I think you find yourself wanting 3 setups, or at least 3 scopes, which is not always viable due to cost or space to keep everything.

The  North America nebula is a particularly difficult target to get fully for many setups used for imaging without using mosaics and whilst maybe not for the beginner I always thought of mosaics as my next challenge and so tended to look for targets that suited my setup and try to get those under my belt first with the aim that when I had developed my skills a little more (both in acquisition and processing) then to try mosaics to either get these bigger targets like  North America nebula or there are some areas of the sky you can then capture more than one target in the finished mosaic.
I also intended to at least get a second setup to capture the much smaller targets that my current setup just could not do satisfactorily as the final image was just cropped too much to give any detail.

It is never easy and so far not done mosaics or managed to get my small target setup, these are still work in progress but will get there.
If you do try  mosaics then I really recommend NINA for the acquisition s it is really easy to do.

Steve

That is such a bad situation but very understandable. The weather in UK has made me think many times if having all this money tied up in equipment is really worth it, and then the agony of looking at the clear kies app and seeing no green whatsoever is quite sole destroying at times. I think you are not the only one with the same feelings.

I do hope you will you keep looking in on SGL, or do you think that "ripping the plaster off" and a clean break from astro stuff is the only way to go ?

Steve

5 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

I suppose the point is people invariably want their pictures to stand out . I am certainly in the camp of what i see through the EP , as grey as it is , is reality to my eyes . This is why i really like mono astro photography photos . 

Not that long ago (was about 5 years ago I started imaging and joined SGL) people seemed to post a lot of mono images, yes many were using NB filters so not true to our eyes, but these mono images seem to be be rare these days.
I too do like a nice mono image and agree it is more realistic so why have I never posted one 🤔, i guess the temptation to look further into the image to bring out what is there but we cannot see, whether too feint or not within our visual spectrum is just too great. And whilst maybe hubble started the big desire for most imagers to seek out these spectrums beyond what we can see I guess to some extent it is necessary to find out what is in fact out there. Maybe similar to X-Rays and ultra sound images, of course we could never see these images naturally but no denying what they show is actually real and how much have they helped us in many aspects of our lives ?

Steve

On 28/07/2023 at 11:57, Richard N said:

Never really fancied imaging. Far too much to go wrong.

Can't argue with that 🙂 , but as an imager the challenge to get everything working and giving good clear images was just part of the hobby for me and a feeling of satisfaction when achieved. Although some foul language was probably heard in the still of the night whilst getting there 😂.

On 28/07/2023 at 11:57, Richard N said:

I often wonder how "real" the images we see are anyway. People seem to spend hours manipulating them to make a pretty picture.

Something I kept asking myself for a long while when first getting into imaging and a very valid concern. After much thought I do think that so long as you keep the images containing pretty much what is in the original images (I think that some amount of noise removal and a little sharpening is always necessary)  then yes I do think they are certainly valid images, yes you are manipulating the various light frequencies so that maybe the feinter colours are made stronger than others and changing colours to see the feinter stuff, whether that can be called real is debatable.
But I think if the signal is present in the original images, no matter how feint, then the image is still true, if not real.

If a real image is only what the human eye can see then no they are not real, but to a lesser degree so is what we see when observing as most of that would not be visible without enlarging the target image and vastly increasing the light going into the eye.

Agreed the fantastic colours in the images are either vastly exaggerated or not even true colours in the case of NB as we are looking at frequencies of light we are not even capable of detecting so have to map colours we can see to them.

But I find it difficult to compare Imaging and visual as whilst both involve aiming some form of lens towards the night sky (or day if solar) they are totally different and ideally use different equipment. Some people do both and others end up either only imaging or observing.  Its a bit like comparing Sailing, speed boating and wind surfing. They all involve water, they all provide entertainment and thrills for participants but all so different.
Whichever, you choose the idea is to enjoy it, if it is not enjoyable (albeit frustrating at times) then why bother 🙂

Steve

13 minutes ago, Mark2022 said:

Re the imaging add ons: At first, at least, I intend to not use guiding. I watched a talk by the guy who introduced Sharpcap who spoke about the fact that short exposures (albeit a ton of them - 30 seconds to 90 secs) end up being every bit as good (and sometimes better) than long (3 - 5  minute) ones. This can allow (perhaps not 90 seconds) for unguided exposures  as long as your polar alignment is good. So less imaging add ons necessary in that case. Essentially, then, just a DSLR.

There have been a few talks and videos on optimising sub lengths and you are right that to some extent long exposures are not always required and there will be an optimal sub length depending on the viewing that night, the brightness of the object you are imaging and your camera. But ideally for short subs to be effective you need a dedicated astro camera with very low read noise. 
I hold my hands up that I am no expert but I do think short exposures with a DSLR, even an astro modded one may be difficult on all but the brighter targets.

Steve

Fair enough but to me its an odd one to answer because you are burning £600 but make no mention of what the spare £200 would be used for so for me I cannot say one way or the other. But it was just my thoughts, to what was in my mind when trying to answer your poll.

Steve

Up to you but I think maybe you would get more honest replies if you make both choices to come to £600 otherwise I think everyone will tend towards the 2nd option (although could be wrong).
Maybe just add what the spare £200 would be used for (other astro stuff or used elsewhere).

Another thought would be to mention what you want it for, I assume visual as responses from imagers will probably differ to what somebody strictly visual.

Steve

That really does have some detail , fantastic image 🙂 

Steve

That's a great image. 
I have had at least two reasonable attempts at this target but neither are as good as yours, i would be more than chuffed at that 🙂 

Steve

As above this is far from a failure. The image produced really is a worthwhile image. Yes I am sure some more experienced could improve the image using the same data but believe me good processing does not easily and takes practice and time to master (if we ever master it, I suspect we all get better but only a few master it 🙂 ).

I would be well happy with that as an early image.

By all means upload your raw data and I will have a go to see what I could produce (although I certainly am one of those that have not mastered processing for sure but can usually cobble together a reasonable image), but some of our other members may also have a go that will produce far better than myself.
On the whole I think the processing of data by third parties is not a great help with your processing skills as you still need time and practice, but does have some advantages in giving you some clues where to look to improve and at least gives you an idea how good your data actually is.

Steve

Come on guys it was off line for what, a couple of days ?  Was that realy so traumatic ?  (he says trying to convince himself he's being level headed). 

Well, if I am being honest I did press the refresh button about 10 times .............................................................................................an hour 😞 

Well  thankfully all up and working again and I can cancel the Rehab, thanks to all involved in the changeover, I am sure there were a few panicking there too 🙂 

Steve 
 

12 minutes ago, Leti Theobald said:

oh no, I'll have a look

I don't thin it is a huge issue as people just seem to cover the  joins with some tape and it works fine, like I say just what I recall reading in past threads maybe this is fixed now on newer models I really cannot comment just to make you aware of possible issues.

Steve

4 hours ago, scotty38 said:

I went Antlia as a supposed middle ground option....

3 hours ago, Peds said:

If you think you may go full-frame in the future, I'd get 50mm unmounted filters and skip 2" altogether.

If you're happy with sticking to APS-C, then 36mm unmounted is what you'll need.

Antlia is fantastic value for money and better than optolong, if you can stretch your budget a little bit. Whatever you decide, stick to the same filter width!

I also read good things about Antila and a good deal cheaper than Chroma or Astrodon.

On another note whilst I have no experience with the filter drawer you intend to use I have read several threads about these being prone to light leaks and people using tape over the joins to eliminate the leaks, may be worth a search to see what people say about them.

Steve

Just now, Anthonyexmouth said:

I do darks about once a year, same kinda period I check my PA. Think I'm gonna seriously consider one. I'm lazy with flats so this will really help with that. 

Yes the darks is not an issue really as I too do it once a year. If you use NINA (which I seem to think you do, or did) then you can take flats using NINA to change the light intensity by specifying an exposure time. I do it this way and all my flats are 3 seconds (that's all of them from LRGB filters to NB filters) so I also then can have a 3 second dark in my library that I know will do for all flats.

Like I say apart from the heater I love this and it does really make flats a doddle.

I also have a rotator from DSD as well and love that. Having both if I do more than one target in the nights session I can also automatically take flats after the first session before I then rotate the camera for  the framing for the next target, which in theory you should do, as the dust bunnies can move wrt the camera, if they are not on the camera, although in practice I think the majority of the bad ones are on the camera so maybe not strictly necessary

Steve 

6 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

So for a refractor the heater is pointless. 

IMHO sadly yes, a pity as it would be great if it did. 

Steve

1 minute ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

So no issues with it melting or distorting under a cover during the hot weather?

As I said above (was writing this when you posted this 🙂 ) I wouldn't think so, it will get a bit more flexible at temperatures over 50 degrees or so but should not distort, I say that using my experience with 3D printing more than with this item itself, although without testing I would not guarantee that. I would be more worried about the components themselves than the casing, but even saying that most electronics, including the LED panel should be fine at temperatures up to 50 degrees probably higher.

Steve

4 hours ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

Anyone here using one of these Deep Sky Dad or Wanderer Astro flat panels? I like the idea of the DSD one with the heater but concerned the £D print wont hold up well as I keep my scope setup all year round under a cover on the pier and worried the heat might be a problem in the summer.

I have one for my Esprit 100 and very (very) happy with it. It works great and also means I can automate my flats during an imaging session using NINA.
Regarding the heater I personally think the intention was good to include it but find it of no use, whether  to replace a dew band on the scope or to heat up the panel itself to stop dew on that. But everything else about it I love.

How it would stand being outside under a cover in heat is another matter and I too would be a bit worried. On a normal day I think it will be fine but on the almost 30 degree days we seem to get now and then for several days in a row then under a cover could get a lot hotter. In theory it should be okay and the PETG should be fine at those temperature, but maybe you need to ask Pavle  about the workings themselves such as the LED panel itself and the electronics.
I know a bit of a faff but it's not too difficult to remove the panel if you know the hot days were on their way, and maybe in the summer months you do not do too much imaging anyway so might not be a big problem removing it for say June to September , just a thought.

You need to remove it to take darks anyway as it will allow light leaks so you need to do this every so often anyway. I remove mine a lot for one reason or another without any issues. I keep intending to 3D print an adapter to make this even easier maybe without having to loosen even the one screw you have to now 🙂 

Steve

5 minutes ago, Gary Clayton said:

If it's printed in PETG it should be fine outside, but if it's PLA not so much

It is PETG, I have one and definitely PETG.

14 minutes ago, bottletopburly said:

Send pavle an email  great guy I’m sure he can answer your queries regarding leaving it out under cover .

Top Guy I have had a few items from him and had great after service with some issues that he went out of his way to help me with (one was a software issue not of his making and the other I damaged the electronics and he sent me a replacement part for a real goos price).

Steve

1 minute ago, Leti Theobald said:

Thank you. Am I correct to say I need the 36mm unmounted filters? Also, any suggestions on Brand. I've always used Optolong on my current OSC camera but I know they are not the best of them.

Yes that's what I use anyway.

Brand, now there a question 🙂  I am by no means an expert and having only been into imaging for 5 years, give or take, do not have a great deal of experience with different filter brands. But you are wise to ask about and get some opinions on SGL.

All I can give you are my issues I have had and hope that helps.
Basically I always bought what I considered to be good quality (but not the most expensive) filters and stuck with Baader LRGB and SHO. And TBH they seemed to work fine for me except the OIII gave halos on the stars and bright stars were really bad. So eventually I sold the SHO, which were the Baader standard ones at the time, and replaced them with the Baader SHO ultra narrow band filters, hoping these would be better, but actually my OIII was worse and had terrible halos, and these were not particularly cheap. I emailed Baader several times but never had any replies. It may have been I had a one from a bad batch I do not know but got no help from Baader.

I now have a full set of Chroma filters and very happy with them (but my word they do not come cheap).
In hindsight maybe I should have stuck with the Baader RGB as they were fine and I see no difference with the Chroma, and could have saved a fair bit of cash. I think the Ha and SII chroma are better but again not a massive improvement but the OIII is on a different level altogether. I do have the advantage though that they are all the same thickness filters and so I can tune my back focus in well, if I had a mix of Baader at 2mm and Chroma at 3 mm then not sure how much difference that 1mm would make.

So I guess all I can say really is I would get the best you can afford, but perhaps you can save some cash certainly on the RGB, From other posts I have read the money needs to be spent of the NB filters, if you indeed intend to do some NB imaging, and OIII (again from what I read and experienced) seems to give the biggest issues. But also as I said if you intend to have all 7 filters in a filter wheel keeping at least the same thickness filters would be an advantage. 

There are so many other members and SGL with far more experience and knowledge than myself so do not rush into buying filters without getting more advice. I guess a lot depends on whether you intend to do NB as well as RGB.

Steve

I also was a bit worried when going to APS-C format and at the time already had 36mm filter wheel and filters and worried I would need 2". But so long as you do not place extra spacers in between camera and filter wheel (other than what is needed to connect them) you should be fine.

The cost to step up from 36mm to 2" is quite considerable, especially when buying good quality filters. Also ideally you will probably want a 7 position filter wheel (so you can have all the SHO and LRGB filters without changing) and this is also an extra cost and adds extra weight to the train.

So as said already unless you see yourself going to FF anytime soon then from my experience 36mm should be fine. 

Steve 

I do not have this setup but from what I can see you are correct.

Only thing I would add is that with a filter the back-focus will increase by 1/3 thickness of filters used. This does not sound a lot (if filters 3 mm thick the need to add 1 mm) but you will see distorted stars in corners if you do not account for this. Most filters are between 2 and 3 mm thick. So you may need some thin shims available from FLO and other good astro suppliers just to tune to the exactback-focus.

Steve

I would agree with the above, I would be  dubious about not using flats if ony to remove dust  motes which  am sure in time you will have. 

Steve

What calibration frames is it saying you do not need ?

With the very low  read noise with the newer cameras I think the need is less but would think darks are still usefull and flats for sure wull be required.

steve

10 hours ago, Priesters said:

My opinion is that it looks more like the JellyFish nebula than the JellyFish nebula 😂.  Some of these names are very tenuous e.g. M1 - most crabs have legs 😉

Yes I would agree I think it does look like a jellyfish and a far better name than a cresent.
I think images that do not capture the whole of the jellyfish structure maybe do look like a cresent but this one certainly has the whole structure visible.

3 hours ago, bottletopburly said:

@Adam J @teoria_del_big_bang @Priesters had in my head jellyfish 🤣 at least I got the correct NGC number we all know what it is lol 😆 👍

No doubt at all what it was and a great image it is too, I do not think this is an easy target 🙂 

Steve