Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_comet_46p.thumb.jpg.9baae12eeb853c863abc6d2cf3df5968.jpg

Peter Reader

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About Peter Reader

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Devon
  1. Thanks for the rotation idea! What is HDR merging?
  2. Hi all, Tried to image horse head and lame last night. Got nearly 100 60s subs and the horsehead shows but alnitak is blumming huge! It rather ruins the image as it draws the eye away from the horse head and covers part of the the flame. I'm using ISO 1000 and 800 DSS and GIMP Any thoughts?
  3. Thank you all for the wealth of information provided!
  4. Hi all, I know that the following is wrong, but if ISO determines how sensitive the camera chip is, why not set it as high as possible? As then you'd only need to take shorter exposures. Why don't people do this? I've noticed people using low ISO for M42 in order to not burn out the core... faint detail still comes through so how does this work? If someone could shed some light on this that would be great! Thanks Pete
  5. Yep, same here. This will be my next target with my 200P and unmodded D80
  6. Thanks for sharing. I must try a lower ISO to stop the core being burnt out.
  7. Looking good! I can make out the running man and the core doesn't look burnt out at all! What ISO did you use?
  8. Good image! How many short subs do you recommend adding to the burnt out exposures?
  9. Reprocess: I don't think I have the software to do either of the methods you recommended...
  10. Hi all, Thought I would share my image of M42. This is 35 x 60s subs with 10 x 20s thrown in to try not to burn out the core... it didn't really work did it? And 5 x 60s darks for the noise. Processed in Microsoft Office 2010 (mid tone adjusted only). Thoughts on how to get detail in the middle instead of burning out? Thanks Pete
  11. Thanks for the info! There's a resampling box that you can check before stacking... How is this different to drizzling? I never noticed the resize button in the wavelets section before, so thanks for letting me know!
  12. It makes the image 2x larger without making it look pixelated.
  13. Focus seems good. I try to expose for the brightest part of the picture (in this case bottom left), so that this area isn't too white. To be honest though you've done a fine job -I'm just nit picking. Some strange artefacts in bottom left of image... possibly just the result of gain being slightly too high? Not sure, but well done!
  14. Hi all! Kept gain under 50% for this one and adjusted exposure accordingly and managed to bet a much bolder image than last time... Before: very high 80% gain New: 45% gain Newer one uses drizzling method in Registax 6... Preferences? Pete
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.