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_30_second_exp_2_winners.thumb.jpg.b5430b40547c40d344fd4493776ab99f.jpg

johneta

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About johneta

  • Rank
    Nebula
  1. Just wanted to post a note that I started using my ebike battery for remote imaging. I'm guessing a few imagers have an ebike (another cool tech toy) Ive got a 48v 16A/Hr battery on my bike and I bought a chinese 48v-12v DC converter (around $15-20). So I can run my power supply hub with it. Ive done a 4 hr session running - Laptop, dual drive EQ5 mount, 2 Newtonian dew heaters, 1 guide scope dew heater, canon DSLR, QHY guide cam. It used around 1/4 to 1/3 of the Battery capacity. Would need a pretty big Sealed Lead Acid Battery to do similar. Its a handy dual use for the battery.
  2. Oh thanks. Nice explanation. That makes sense re wide and long FL. I will let those hot pixels through in preference to the other artifacts. Regards
  3. Yeah I may do. Mines got a curved threaded rod and a $2 stepper motor and Arduino driving it. Im just starting to use it again, hoping to get some wide landscapes with around 18mm - 25mm lens
  4. Thanks again for your interest. It helps to keeping pushing on to find an answer. Hey I also had a look at your Barn Door thread you made a while ago. Looks cool. Ive got one of those too (wee bit different). Its amazing what you can shoot with those.
  5. Problem solved ! I had ->Cosmetic Tab - Detect and Clean Remaining Hot pixels ticked and set to 1px and 50% threshold. I think I have always had this ticked . I think I thought it made very little difference ages ago and I have just stuck with it on. So I un-ticked it and the stack just looks normal, None of that fuzzy stuff. I stumbled across this on another thread. I'm surprised it makes such a big difference! Oh well I would recommend to always disable everything in the cosmetic tab.
  6. I did a stack in Sequator and it looks fine. A little different than the stack I did in PS but similar and good quality as you would expect.
  7. Thanks for your interest, I appreciate it Hey whats the best way to share the images with you. Is there a mechanism on SGL? Also I'm not sure how much use it would be as the images I look at in the DSS image list before they are stacked have already been deteriorated just by bringing them into DSS. So its understandable that the stack output would also be poor. I will do a stack in Sequator as you suggested-but I also did a proper stack in DSS of 50 of these images (Converting them to Tiff first in PS)and a process in PS and I'm happy with the result. It's as I would expect.
  8. Also, what type of lens/ Telescope is that photo taken with? I checked and the effect is much less pronounced on telescope type focal lengths (around 800mm in my case). Still there, but is worse on wide angle shots say 20mm.
  9. Yeah, not sure what to say. I have always been a little dissapointed using DSS and have noticed this lack of clarity, but do my best to work around it. Also I'm Having a wee bit of trouble comparing the 2 images since they look a bit different from each other. I trialed APP and Pixinsight a while ago and noticed an overall improvement in the stacking clarity amongst other things. I intend to buy Pixinsight at some stage. So I would like to understand what is going on in DSS because I haven't seen other people discuss it
  10. Update. I checked the options, Raw/FITS DDP Settings on DSS and found that made a difference to how DSS converted RAW's to FITS (DSS uses FITS while stacking I think??) I tried the settings out under 'Bayer Matrix Transformation' section and they did make a difference. But none of them were as good as converting RAW to Tiff in Photoshop first. So, I'd still recommend this. Anyone else got an opinion on this.
  11. I went to try out your suggestion but went down another path. I usually never look at the subs in the image subs list on DSS - as I have inspected them closely on APT or windows Photo Viewer before I load them. I decided to have a close look at the images in the DSS image list. I found that the individual images already looked smudged and messy before I even started stacking!! I usually load RAW's (Canon CR2 files) to DSS thinking they will be better quality. But maybe the RAW converter in DSS is poor quality. I cant believe I haven't noticed this before. So I converted the images in Photoshop from CR2 to 16bit Tiff before loading them into DSS. And they looked virtually identical to the original RAW images! (looking at them in DSS) So, I stacked the 4 x CR2's , then I stacked the same 4 images that had been pre-converted to Tiffs before loading them into DSS. The Tiffs came out a lot better. This really surprises me. I haven't noticed other people mention this before. I'm either missing something simple or this is a really important issue that people should be aware of with DSS. Below is: First the Tiff stack, then the CR2 stack. Then very cropped in images of them both,-First Tiff stack, then CR2 stack. Although pixel scale is poor (stars consist of only a few pixels due to wide angle lens) you can see there is a lot sharper detail in the Tiff images.
  12. Yes agrees loosely with PHD Guiding assistant. Sharpcap can report down to a few seconds off perfect polar alignment (dubiously optimistic I'm sure). The PHD guiding assistant usually will show less than 1 minute of Polar align error. Loose agreement as far as I'm concerned.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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