don4l

21 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Very striking! A lot to like.

So no Red, but Ha used as red?

....emmm no!  No red.

This is Ha:G:B  with the Ha later applied as Lum, and also partially applied in "Overlay" mode in the Gimp.

I cannot explain why, but I usually leave red till last.  In this case,  I had intended collecting a lot more data before finishing the image.  However,  I don't know where to take it, so I thought that I would put it up and see what the reaction is.

If you asked me what might add to the image, then I would think more Green, or I would be tempted to try OIII.  However,  I would be the first to admit that I don't really get RGB, so I really am very open to advice.

I'm not at all sure about this at all.  It looks completely different to anything that I have produced before.  The red seems to be a monotone, but maybe that is the way the object is. 

This consists of 210m Ha, 25m G and 20m Blue.  I did get another 50m blue, but there was a horrible glare around the brighter stars, so I couldn't use it.

This is the first time that I have used starnet on the individual colour channels before combining them.  Previously, I have just used it to remove bloated stars, and replaced them with a set that "I prepared earlier".

Equipment:  G3 16200, EQ6

Software: CCDCiel, CCDStack, Gimp, Starnet

Any comments very welcome.

Here is a screenshot that shows this image in relation to Orion and the Rosette.

There are cheap refurbished laptops available for less than £200.  I've got one of these and it has performed flawlessly since May 2018.   As it happens, I left it as a dual boot system in case I ever wanted to have Windows available on it.

9 hours ago, drumsolo said:

I am worried that I may have damaged the mount gears as when I was setting up I forgot to put the weights on before I slewed the scope and it made a horrible crunching sound. Can the gears be replaced if they are damaged?

I did something similar once with my EQ6, and there was a terrible noise -so possibly the same as you describe.  There wasn't any noticeable damage.  The noise sounded like the mount had destroyed itself.  With hindsight, I suspect that the motors make an awful noise when slipping, but noo damage is done.

I definitely wouldn't attempt to take it apart unless I was certain that damage has occurred.

2 hours ago, Vox45 said:

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by : "the sketch is a bit more complicated" ?

A "Sketch"  is a computer program that runs on an Arduino.  (sort of!)

11 minutes ago, NickK said:

The only issue is that Bayer matrix can confuse some star tracking. If the wavelength of the start if blocked by one of the colours then the tracker may loose the star or find that the star centre point moves irregularly.

I seem to get guiding of 0.6" near the zenith, and about 1.2" lower down.  My imaging hasn't yet reached a standard where this has been an issue, so I haven't bothered learning about it.

If I was buying a canera for autoguiding only, then I would have gone for the mono.  As it is, I've played with some planetary and lunar.

I'm using the 120MC with PHD2.  I've no idea if the fact that it is colour has had any effect.  It just seems to work.

I hope that this question isn't too off topic, but I have been thinking about building my own autofocuser for some time.  I am totally confused about the classification of stepper motors.

Am I correct in thinking that NEMA17 just refers to the physical size of the motor housing?

Is there a guide to selecting, and buying stepper motors anywhere?  (I've looked, but I haven't understood what I found).

I've currently got a Robofocus on a TakFSQ106, but the step size on this is a bit too big - so I wand to find a stepper motor that is strong enough to lift a fairly heavy camera, and has enough steps, or microsteps.

This is a rough combine with the Ha.  I've got a lot of work to do before I produce the final image.

It's a magnificent sight.

I got home 20m ago and said to my wife, "go outside and have a look".

She went out and looked around for a minute and then said "Oh, my God!".

I've just taken a photo too.  It won't be as good.

41 minutes ago, MartinB said:

Well done Don, it looks great and should stand up well to mixing with Ha.   I've experienced the same set of problems with 11 hrs with a 200mm lens at f2.8.  The OIII is incredibly faint and I found that I had to ditch 8 hours of subs because of a sky haze which wasn't even visible during the session.  My stack showed very little signal and it needed a starless image to pull it out.  Have you got a load of Ha?  I also found it a big challenge combining the 2 channels.  It was frustrating because some of the faint wisps of OIII are distinct from the Ha.  As you say, a decision has to be made between pulling out the maximum detail vs keeping things smooth.  I went for detail initially but will go back enjoy working on a redo.   

Good luck completing the project.

Thank you.

Yes, I have a load of Ha, and it does look very promising.  I'm still struggling with the processing.  I only posted this version because it really surprised me when it appeared on the screen. 

Your comment about OIII and haze really resonates with me.  It's very frustrating to process a bunch of hard earned data only to discover the next morning that it is useless.

I'm going to carry on playing with the data that I already have before deciding if I need to gather any more.  I will try a bit more OIII to see if the new camera makes any difference, but I am not going to gather another 12 hours this year.  It would be nice to be able to show more of the OIII detail,  or even the faint OIII haze that surrounds the whole object.

This data was never intended to be an image on its own, but it is unusual, so I thought that it might be worth posting  as is.

I collected an awful lot of data last year on this target, but I was never able to create a finished image.  The problem was that as soon as the OIII data was stretched, the stars had become huge.  I don't know how to make star masks etc, so I was going to try for more data this year with a different, more sensitive camera. 

Starnet+ has come storming to the rescue. 

This image is a two panel mosaic.  The OIII mosaic was fed into Starnet and the original smaller stars were then added back in a gimp layer set to lighten mode.

I thought that I would post this up so that people can see what OIII is available in this object.  There  is a lot more that cannot be seen in this, because it really made the image quite noisy.

Equipment:  STL6303e,  FSQ106 at F3.6, EQ6, Chroma 3nm OIII filter

Software:  CCDSoft, CCDStack, Gimp, Starnet+

Exposure: Top panel:  OIII 415m, Bottom Panel: 350m  Total 12h 45m;

Stars are Ha.G,B  (G and B about 5m each in each panel)

It isn't a pretty image but it's different and I hope that people find it interesting.

Click the image for full size.

21 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

Very very nice.  What a lot of detail, and just over 5 and a half hours. 

Thank you Adam.   Over 5 hours is incredibly long for me.  The last few months I seem to have got everything working properly and I am getting much more useable data.  I didn't realise how much time that I was wasting, or more accurately, I didn't realise that there is some fantastic software out there.  Good focusing s/w and platesolving have absolutely transformed the hobby for me.

I seem to be catching up with myself this weekend.  This is NGC281 which I've been imaging since 9th November.  As it is nice and high, I've been imaging it while waiting for other targets to appear from behind the trees etc.  The nice thing about this approach is that it is entirely stress free.  You just image it when nothing else is available.  I've managed 5h56m of data, which is very long for me.

Equipment:  G3 16200, FSQ106 at F5, EQ6

Software:     CCDCiel, CCDStack, Gimp

Exposures: Ha 14 x 600s,  OIII 16 x 600s, R 7 x 120s, G 10 x 120s, B 11 x 120s.   Total 5h 56m.

Comments and suggestions welcome.  Thanks for looking.

28 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

You could've aligned the colours Don 😂

Dave

I'm a bit of an idiot at times.  CCDStack didn't like the tif files.  Anyway, I've now learned a bunch of settings in the Gimp that fix that problem.

"tif" should be a standard format but every software author has their own idea of what is best for us. 

Here is what the Gimp did.  Just auto stretched each image, RGB combined and flattened the OIII background a bit.    I haven't done anything with the alignment.

The data is looks good, but the focus could be better.

I'm afraid that I don't know anything about PI.

I do love images that show unusual objects.  I hadn't heard of this pair before.

This was taken back in November.

This is an H,O,O+B image with RGB stars.

Ha90m,  OIII120m, R 32, G 19, B 74. Total 5h 35m. The Blue was combined with the OIII for the blue channel to combine the reflection with the emission.

Equipment:  G3 16200,  FSQ106ED @F5,  EQ6

Software:  CCDCiel, CCDStack, Gimp,  Starnet+.

I had problems with blue halos which came from stretching the blue data.  I've done my best to hide these.

  I must say that Starnet makes it a real pleasure when making final tweaks.

3 hours ago, MartinB said:

I read your description before looking at the image and was expecting to see a dog's dinner of an image instead I see a beautifully rendered M31 with exquisite dust lanes and plenty of extension without the usual associated noise.  Very good indeed!

Thank you.

I have no confidence at all with RGB imaging.  I don't seem able to look objectively at my own images,  and I have no idea why.  I'm chuffed by your comment about the dust lanes as I've never tried to bring that kind of detail before.

I've never managed to take a decent M31, despite many attempts.  I think that my problem is light pollution.  Recently I've had some success with RGB, so I thought that I'd give it another go.   I've spent so much time processing the thing that I have no idea if it is any good or not. 

I've tried to show the Ha stuff and the dust lanes into the core as much as I could.  I'm happy with both these aspects, even though I've wrecked the very core in the process.

I can see that there should be more of the galaxy further out than I have captured, but I don't know if more L, or more RGB is needed - or indeed if I would be wasting my time under light polluted skies.

Feel free to make any comments at all.  I hope to get more Ha, because I know what to expect with that.

Exposure:  Ha 50m.  L 85m, R 37m, G 39, B 53  Total 4h 44m.

Equipment: G3 16200, FSQ106 @F5, on EQ6

Software: CCDCiel, CCDStack and Gimp.

Thanks for looking.

Superb!

Very nice.  Well worth the effort.

19 minutes ago, Gina said:

I have the Starlight Xpress Lodestar X2 Autoguider.  Wonder if this would be better than the ASI120MM-S

I doubt that it matters much.  You will be well within recommendations with either.   The Lodestar will have a slightly bigger FOV, but that won't be an issue with either camera.  I'm using a 120mc on an ED80  (600mm F7.5) and I never have a problem finding a guide star. ( I usually guide with a 2s exposure time.)

If it is much easier to connect up, and focus, one camera, then I would use that.

I've used both ST4 and Pulseguiding.

I don't really notice any difference in practice between the two.

If you use pulseguiding, then you are sending the pulses down the same cable that is already connected to the mount.  So it is simpler to connect up.

Third version for me.

Lovely image, and I like the FOV/ framing.