Rustang

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Not being able to afford it never stopped anybody on SGL from buying new kit...  

😁lly

Your not helping! 😊 😉

19 minutes ago, Budgie1 said:

Although Pixinsight takes more time for the processes to complete (on my PC, maybe faster on newer ones ) the built-in process make quite a difference even with the default settings.

There is so much I have to explore but I think I'll be buying it once the trial has finished.

Here are a couple of images of NGC7000. The top one was my original process using Photoshop CS3 and the second is the same autosave.tif file put through Pixinsight and following a tutorial I found on here:

Now the same with M31, top is Photoshop, bottom in Pixinsight.

I'm still learning with this software and there is more to play with. Like you, I need to get better at removing the noise form the background, so more playtime required.

Some noticeable differences so something to consider 👍

Thanks guys, it apperas there may still be somethings to try before I decided to, and can afford to upgrade the camera 👍

24 minutes ago, Budgie1 said:

I'm about to go the same route and get a modded  EOS 1300D, currently using an unmodded 2000D. So I'm still experimenting with what can be done and what gets the best results.

I see for this image you've gone for 800 ISO and 5 minute exposures. Have you tried increasing the ISO but lowering the exposure time? 

I know that generally increasing the ISO will increase noise but if you're lowing the exposure time, meaning you can get more exposures in the same time period, then it may work to eliminate or reduce the noise.

Which software are you using for the post processing? I've just got a trail licence for Pixinsight and that's made a big improvement on the DSS autosave files I previously processed with Photoshop.

Also, you say you're using APP for the dither, do you mean APT?

Sorry, yes APT not APP, ! Its something I could look at in regards to higher ISO, shorter subs so may give that ago next session, I'm concerned it may add noise but hopefully the shorter exposure will counter act that so will just have to test, Ive got nothing to lose! Im post processing in PS, stacking in DSS until I can buy APP for stacking. What differences have you noticed with using Pixinsight?

2 hours ago, MarkAR said:

From the close up there does seem to be a noise issue. Are you dithering between subs ?

Noise has always been a problem, one of those things with an un cooled DSLR and a DSLR at the cheaper end!. My thoughts about more integration time is that am I only going to be stacking more of the same issue!? I have starting dithering but I'm not 100% sure how effective its being, I've not fully got my head around what setting's I should have in APP to do so properly with my gear. How long should a standard dither last? From what I'm seeing my dithers go from approx 20secs start to finish to timing out sometimes, if they time out I'm guessing they haven't worked that time? It can run ok for a period then sometimes the dithers upset the tracking a bit to much so I turn it off. So all in all, yes I'm dithering but whether its set up properly or making a different I'm not sure but then when I think about it, I dont think I'm getting the "walking" noise as bad as Ive seen in previous images, just the noise you can see above!. Even with out the noise, the clarity and sharpness and colours are definitely not great, definitely more so with galaxies with this camera. I dont have the money to go for a dedicated camera so will have to try and soldier on but I am feeling I'm reaching the cameras limits but would really like some clarification on this.

I apologise for always being on here asking lots of questions, I promise you I'm not being lazy, I honestly struggle with the vast amount of technical intake of information needed to do this and putting it all together. Its one of the worst hobbies for someone like myself with my slow little brain and is very challenging with many, many things to have to think about. I have to battle with myself sometimes to keep going with it and not jack it all in as the more it seems to progress to more I feel I need to take on, but I'm going to keep going as the results can be worth it even if it does make me go insane! 😊

I'm posting this image here for my learning and progression. I will start with my set up, most of you may know this already: HEQ5 Pro mount, SW80 ED DS PRO scope, Modified Canon 600D.  5min guided subs ISO 800, calibration frames.

So I'm not happy with this image, its pretty pants and not my best processing but its enough for this post as I would like to clarify some reasons why I'm not happy with it! I would like to understand where I stand with my equipment and its limitations on certain targets. I feel this is a difficult target, is it? I fully understand integration time makes a difference, with this particular image its only an hours worth of 5min subs as I had to bin a load due to unnoticed star movement issues. But with my current gear is more integration time really going to make a significant difference? You can clearly see that the camera mostly is struggling, noise, hot pixels, banding etc etc, more noticeable since doing longer exposures. I really wouldn't go zooming in on the images as it looks terrible and really does show my issues. I did a test by stacking the binned subs from the same session to bring the integration time up to 3hours (the subs were good enough just to test this) and it didn't make any significant difference, as i say i know more integration time is important but what is that really going to do for me with this particular camera?. My nebula images seem to come out better with these problems but galaxies really show where the camera is struggling. Or is it just me, can I/ is it possible to get better images from this particular camera on targets such as M33? Is it my post processing? I've certainly got some improving to do but I do feel that with my current processing skills, they are enough to show that its possibly the camera that's letting things down along side some processing improvements. One thing I just cant get right is the strong blue colors that galaxies such as this and Andromeda seem to have in them, Ive tried many ways but just cant get that color, could it be the over powering red from the modified camera? the colors do seem balanced correctly though from the stacked image. The washed out light, orange/brown color is just really difficult to change, again is this because of the camera or the post processing!?

It would just be nice going forward to know that I'm not flogging a dead horse/ trying to polish a turd!! Stick with this camera or move on? You know me, I like to get the most out of my gear but I honestly feel the camera is now letting me down, please help me confirm this! 🙂

17 minutes ago, Davehux said:

Hi Russ

What software are you using? 

I use an ASIair, and the dither waits until the guiding graph settles to within my set parameters - I have mine set to <2s variance on RA and Dec. Once it settles to within that limit, it will fire the next exposure. It’s not time-based.

Dave

I'm using APP 👍

So I think I may have found the cause of the star movement in my last imaging session, its not been a problem before but it appears to be how it goes sometimes in this hobby!! So I'm still new to dithering and have been using it for a handful of sessions (with out known issues), i have noticed that if the dithering takes a while then as soon as its completed the new exposure starts straight away, this is what I feel may be the problem as there will be no settle time!?. So how to do over come this? I have set a 50 sec wait time for the next exposure to start, the dither timeout is also set for 50 secs, so if it does take up to 50 secs for the dither to complete and the next exposure then starts straight away which could cause movement? But the other thing is, in the dither settings, its set to 15 secs settle time! when does that come into play? So do I need to up the wait time between exposures to make sure everything is settled? I'm using APP.

The reason I'm putting the star movement issue down to this is because after I re sent the scope to target after it crossed the med line, i turned off dithering as it was playing up, the short period of images once the dithering was turned off are the only ones without star movement so I'm kinda putting two and two together! But with astrophotography there's probably having to put 3 and 3 together or 4 and 4 😆!!!!

Single sub with star movement.

3 minutes ago, alacant said:

Much better. Now it looks like a proper flat frame:)

Awesome, much appreciated 👍

34 minutes ago, alacant said:

Dim the panel and/or put more sheets of paper until you get at least one second. Do it in a dark room to ensure no extraneous light enters the camera.

 

I have attached a new flat taken at 1.3 sec's, any chance you could stretch it out like how you did above to see if there are any issues!? 🙂

IMG_7375.CR2

10 minutes ago, alacant said:

Dim the panel and/or put more sheets of paper until you get at least one second. Do it in a dark room to ensure no extraneous light enters the camera.

 

I did just test it with the 1/50th flats and the strectched stack now appears with out the spot to the top left but will do as you say aswell 👍

1 hour ago, alacant said:

Ah;)

Ive been having a play around with trying to do some new flats, it seems that with the lowest setting on the LED panel which already has one layer of paper across it, the slowest shutter speed I can go to is 1/50th, is that going to make any real difference? Shall I just do a few a see if it stacks any better? If i cant get it to work I guess I'm going to have to yet again have another look at a different way to do them.

5 minutes ago, alacant said:

Hi

You can see that the optical train has changed between flat frames being taken. The first shows the shadow of the camera's flip mirror. The second, doesn't.

You can also see evidence of too short a shutter speed -uneven lighting- on the bottom quarter of image 1.

HTH

 

 

Ok, I will look to improve the flats today. The optical train /focus point will be different between the two sets of flats as different field flatteners were used for the two different imaging sessions. Thanks for your help 👍

Ok thanks guys, il have another go at some flats today and look for any artifacts on different areas of the optical train but it is exactly where there's a dust spot is on the sensor which is strange. Cheers 👍

First is non working flat, secound is the from when it worked!

IMG_7303.CR2 IMG_7056.CR2

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Flats won't remove gradients from the sky and, even at my site (SQM reaches 22), I have residual gradients on almost all broadband images, which I fix with DBE in Pixinsight.  Even on the zenith you're pretty well bound to get them. Nor will flats correct for dust actually on the chip because the affected pixels receive no light.

For all that, I have, like you, had occasions when my flats would suddenly stop working and I never did get to the bottom of it. The problem was unique to a rig which was capturing in Nebulosity, which makes me think it was to do with the capture process. I shot a set of flats capturing in AstroArt and these worked perfectly for some time - and then didn't.  Mystery.

Olly

I thought that one of the reasons for using flats was to remove the sensor dust marks!?, it has appeared to do this every other time!!?

Ok il post the raws later. I thought shutter speeds didn't matter as long as the histogram sits between 1 3rd and half way!? I never heard of the shutter needing to be around 1 second!? From what I've read previously, if you stick the camera in AV mode it will choose the correct exposure, to be fair I normally do it manually. 

Also to add a photo of the camera screen of a single flat from the batch that didn't work. It sits dead on a 3rd of the histogram. 

Below are 3 images, first is a single raw flat that didnt work, second shows the stack over stretched and b&w and slightly cropped, to see firstly the sensor dust wasn't removed and also the lines (could be my normal banding issue) and gradient that seems difficult to get rid of. There shouldnt really be much gradient as the target was practically at its highest point in the sky!. Lastly the flat taken that worked before.

49 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Have you tried comparing an old working flat with the new failing one. They should not be that different just the odd dust mote. Images might help us see what might be happening.

Regards Andrew 

Will post up some info/images tomorrow 👍

I will post tomorrow, a flat frame taken today and the stack stretched to show the artifact and one that has worked as well 👍

Scope is SW80ED DS Pro at 600mm FL with none reducing FF. Canon 600D with Optolong L-pro LP filter. Exposure was at a shutter speed of 200 to hit the histogram at approx one third 👍

Trying to narrow down some star issues from last nights session, tracking seemed ok, same as other nights but I had to chuck a lot of data due to star issues that I didn't realise was happening until today. The only thing that was different is that I was using the HoTech SCA field flattener for the first time and i had to rack out the focuer further than normal to achieve focus. If its that FF that turns out to be the problem then what is everyone else using? (not the reducers just the standard FF to keep the scopes normal FL) There's not alot of choice out there!!

What are the most common reason's for flats not to work?. I have been using the LED light pad method for a short while with good results. Today I took some Flats using the same method and with the camera, light pollution filter and scope in exactly the same position of focus from last nights session but they haven't worked to remove any artifacts as they are showing on the stack. I'm back to using DSS until I can afford APP.

What more do you want! 😊 Just under 3 weeks wait for another clear enough night, it's good to be out again.