don4l

I use the Chroma filters at F3.6, F5 and F8. I haven't seen any evidence that their performance is impaired at 3.6.

I had to make a choice between a Pi and a laptop to live beside the mount. Initially, I was attracted to the Pi. It would be neater, and cheaper. In the end, I went with the laptop (and screen) for a few reasons. 1) Rotating the camera. I am not going to spend a small fortune on a rotator, but I do rotate to frame my images. 2) Focusing the autoguider. (not really a big issue in practice) 3) Focusing my Tal. I don't really need a motorised focuser for this F10 scope. 4) Anything that I hadn't thought about where a display would be useful. I'm using a refurbished laptop that cost £200.00 - so it wasn't too expensive. A headless computer would be neater, but I'm happy with the way I've implemented it. I like the idea that I can just sit down beside it if things go wrong. On balance, I would suggest that you go with whatever you feel more comfortable with.

Try it and see. The only thing that matters is the image that you get at the end. Generally speaking, the more data that you collect the better. If you see a problem with continuous imaging, they try leaving a gap to see if that fixes your problem.

Thanks for posting that link. I had to read parts of that twice, but it was well worth it.

There's no Moon here tonight at all. If the sky is clear tomorrow night then I'll probably image the Moon. ....sorry!

I am very happy with my Chroma filters. They may seem a bit expensive, but they have upgraded the performance of my camera and scope. I didn't really understand this properly until I saw the first 10m Ha sub appear on my laptop screen.

I didn't consciously take AutoStakkert out. I processed a single AVI in Registax and was impressed with the result, so I just carried on with the rest. Tomorrow, I'll do some experiments to see what produces the best result. I'm also going to play with the number of frames used in each panel. I've cropped a frame to remove a horizantal line which was at the bottom edge of one of the frames. (There isn't any "blending" as such. The layers are just on top of each other.) I *think* that I've fixed it in this???

This is my third mosaic (5th attempt - first two had gaping holes), and things are definitely getting easier with practice. I discovered the "take a snapshot" button in Sharpcap and thought that I could build up a quick mosaic as I went along. This turned out to be much easier to do than I thought. The workflow was 1) take snapshot, 2)start capture 3)Open snapshot as new layer in Gimp and quickly line it up, 4)move mount and repeat. This resulted in a mosaic that needed 24 frames as opposed to the 32 that my last mosaic needed. I think that I could get this down even further if I try. One weird thing is that I had to refocus during the capture. I prefer to leave everything the same because it greatly reduces the processing. I haven't had to adjust the brightness . The image was taken through a Tal200k, ASI120mc on an EQ6. Acquisition was with Sharpcak. Stacking and wavelets in Registax6. Mosaic assembly in Gimp. Comments and suggestions very welcome. The suggestions that I got on the previous images have been brilliant and really helped. I still don't understand what the Gain and Brightness settings really do. I think that it would be good to capture some of the "Earthshine", but I cannot see any hint of the unlit part of the Moon even when I change the settings. Click the image for full size (18Mb).

That's a nice result. I've just started to try to learn how to image the Moon and your questions are, more or less, the exact same questions that I was asking a week ago! I haven't worked out proper answers yet. Lunar rate tracking helps, but I would say that exposure and focus are much more important. At the moment, I start off by looking at a largish bright feature and adjusting the exposure until it is just about to be saturated. Some of the crater lips are still blown out, but I don't know how to prevent this without losing a lot of the dimmer bits.

Thanks everybody for the lovely comments - it's very encouraging. I'm very pleased with the image, but then I see some of the other images that people take with similar equipment. I have a 1.6 extender which I will try squeeze into the imaging train. However, the thought of 40-50 frames puts me off. So, I'll probably just go for some small areas.

This is my latest moonshot from Tuesday night. I ended up with a black slot in the middle (Doh!) which I have filled in with a bit of the previous night's effort. Naughty - I know. I slowed down the capture in Sharpcap because I read somewhere that this would improve the quality. I think that it worked, but I cannot be certain. I'm also wondering if I can do anything to improve the quality of the captured image. Would a barlow/extender improve things, or is the OTA limiting things? The scope is a Tal200K (8"). I'm also wondering if binning the capture would degrade the quality. 3.7u pixels would be too small for normal deep sky work. I still have no real method for knowing which bits I have imaged and whether I have missed any bits, so I am gathering far too much data. Even then, I missed a bit on this attempt. Any advice very welcome. I'm off to Argos to buy an external 5T drive now! Thanks.

Thank you! I do have ICE installed. I'm not sure why I didn't try it already. I'll try it on my next attempt - hopefully tonight.

Just the wavelets. The videos were processed in Autostakkert, which has the "Sharpening" box ticked. I did try the direct export tickbox to Registax from Autostakkert, but it didn't appear to work at all. (Perhaps it was just taking too long.) I used Registax on the assembled jpeg. The effect was too harsh, so I blended the Registax version back into the original at about 20% opacity. This was far quicker than trying to adjust the wavelets sliders.

Thanks Geof. I had some good advice - which really helped a lot to speed up progress. I'm goin to work out a processing workflow before I go back to fix the alignment issues - otherwise I will be going round in circles. I also need to figure out why Registax isn't really useable. Hopefully, I'll have another go this evening if the sky clears early.

I've had 3 attempts over the past three evenings at capturing a mosaic of the Moon. Last night I got a result that I am pleased with. I do feel that I can improve a lot further because I have little experience at this, or the software used. Any advice would be very welcome. This was captured using Sharpcap, a Tal200K at 2000mm and an ASI120mc. The panels were assembled in Gimp. A mild Registax6 wavelets was applied. Thanks for looking. Click for full resolution (4000 x 5000 px)

Another vote for the Gimp. You can try it for free, and if you like it, you've saved yourself some money. As far as I can tell, it is very similar to Photoshop. I have used many PS tutorials and hardly notice that I am using a different package.

I think that there is some reflection stuff around the central stars. It might be worth getting a load of Blue data to see if it would add a splash of colour???

Lovely!

It's just another catalogue. The ASTAP download page has instructions for downloading and using it. No special knowledge required.

Lovely image. I especially like the "bridge". ASTAP shows about 150 galaxies in your image from the Hyperleda database which are clearly visible.

Nice job. I've had a couple of attempts at this, but haven't got anywhere.

Lovely image... and new to me too.

A butcher in Wales has been producing meat that looks like vegetables. A "Carrot" made from spiced pork seems to be going down very well with his customers.

I have to say that I am also surprised at the reactions. The Royal Society's motto is "Nullius in Verba". This guy was just trying to investigate for himself. Even if I think that he was wrong, he actually built a rocket. We need far more people like him.

If you have a reliable way of measuring FWHM, or HFD, then you will always be able to see how are doing as the night goes on. I used to only find out the next day that my subs were rubbish. I use CCDCiel to capture the images from the camera. As each image is downloaded, CCDCiel measures the HFD and FWHM of the stars in the image. If the HFD is 2.8, or below, then all is fine. If the HFD is 2.9, or above, then I need to refocus. If the HFD is 3.1, then I know that I will be able to see that the stars are big and round. Don't ask me what HFD, or FWHM are. The only answer that I can give is that they tell you something about the size of the stars, and the smaller the number, the better.