mackiedlm

Nothing wrong with "arty" to my eye. I'd say that the level of resolution and detail looks fantastic and promise some super images from your set up.

I am far from an expert but perhaps raising the blackpoint a tad would leave the Rosette standing out more.

Congrats of yur first light.

Thats come out really well. I like the colours as they are quite "pastel" rather than the "dayglow" I tend to achieve when I do this.

These are looking really good. Looking forward to seeing more images as you work with the camera (Especially since I'm due to take delivery of an ASI2600MC pro this week. )

Really nice set of images. You have got great signal in them all but particularly the lobster claw/bubble.

Thats a really lovely image especially given the conditions and integration time. The level of detail is excellent.

Has anyone experienced any issues with EQMOD/EQASCOM after updating to Ascom platform 6.5sp1

I have not made the update yet because it took me long enough to get it all playing together in the first place. However, i am about to receive a ASI2600MC pro and the ZWO website states the ASCOM driver for this needs the 6.5 Platform. I am planning to use the Native ZWO driver but would like to have the backup possibility of the Ascom driver too. just in case!!

My setup is NEQ6, windows 10 laptop, driving everything from APT.

Should i be concerned or is it all good?

3 hours ago, MartinB said:

It looks great.  I've always found the Jellyfish quite tricky to process and you have done a very nice job.  The L-enhance filter seems to have failed to pick up the fine OIII signal around the periphery.

Thanks for that Martin.

I think whats happened here is that I had about 85% moon and not that far off target. The L-enhance is great but you definitely get some moonlight leakage in the Oiii band and I think this may have swamped the fine Oiii.  It would be interesting to try the same target on a moonless night.

On the other hand it could just be my Ham-fisted processing😀

rgds

David.

1 hour ago, The Admiral said:

I'm intrigued. This filter has two narrow passbands (though it's called a tri-band ), but this image looks like a normal RGB image rather than NB. Is this a mix of the two, or is this just what you get with 3 hours using this filter? What am I missing here?

Ian

Yes I know exactly what you mean, and indeed other targets I have done with this were more clearly "NB type" images (see my monkey head for example). My process on this on was the same as the others - stacked in APP with the extract Ha and Extract Oiii algorithms to give a mono each for Ha and Oiii. Processed then in PI using normal NB methods and recombined as HOO using Pixelmath. (I may have thrown some Ha into the green channel - cant remember!)

For the sake of full disclosure 😃 I did take the final image in to Photoshop and did a selective colour adjust on the Flame as it was too red.

But no RGB included at all. It was nearly 90% moon so without the L-eNhance I'd have got nothing. I may consider getting some RGB to put into the stars (which I think is the only "tell" that this was a filtered image) but that requires a clear moonless night which out here are like hens teeth!

Thanks for the feedback.

Another from my couple of clear nights around New Year.

Managed 4 hours on this one which I know is not enough but even at that I am a little disappointed with it if I'm honest. Maybe my focus or tracking was off a bit but it just does not feel as crisp as I'd like it

Hypercam 269C, SW 80ED, NEQ6

79 X 180s with L-eNhance filter

Stacked APP, processed Pixinsight

C&C Welcome

That is a great result. I've read of how difficult this one is but your squid is really pronounced and clear. Well done

Thanks for the positive comments folks.

@Marvin Jenkins I'm still pretty new at this myself, really only 18 months at it properly and this is my first dedicated camera. So its complex and can be frustrating but when it comes together it is very rewarding.

So this is my first time capturing this wonderful object. The word "iconic" is, IMHO overused and abused these days but this, for me anyway, is a truly Iconic view and one I have wanted to capture since i first started AP.

Due to technical issues it ended up as only 3 hours of 180s subs but I think its come out Ok for that. Captured on Jan 1 and only my second CMOS image. I had to crop out a bit below and left of the flame because of a nasty gradient that I could not get rid of in PI. I have probably overdone the noise reduction a bit and may go back and try again at some point.

SW Evostar 80ED on a NEQ6

Optolong L-Enhance filter

Altair Hypercam 269c

Stacked in APP/ Processed in PI

C&C welcome

Those are really nice images. Well done.

That is really spectacular and beautiful image. I don't think I have ever seen so much detail in the clouds below the HH. Wonderful image.

On 27/12/2020 at 14:49, geeklee said:

I typically prefer this palette, but enjoyed both images 👍

From some Ha and OIII combination I was doing recently (albeit mono) the above looks more H(HO)O with a blend of both into Green - was that the case or was the hue just shifted on the whole image?  I mention it because you could get some more blue into a straight PixelMath HOO (like the first image) by boosting the OIII before combining - especially if you're using the Ha as Luminance.  I have also added a bit of Convolution to the combined HOO before adding the Ha Luminance - this seems to create a cleaner colour layer before adding the detail.  YMMV of course.

Interesting camera though, I don't think I've seen that chip used on many variants. 

Wow- a VERY good catch Lee! The green is 65%Oiii and 35%Ha' - I was mucking around with various mixes and found this one was quite pleasing. But I was neither experienced nor smart enough to know that that made it an H(HO)O😆.

I do boost the Oiii before combining but for this one the HOO was just not really very appealing. I do also give it a bit of convolution before putting the lum on top.

Yes, I dont think the sensor is in any other of the usual cameras - but it was ticking all the boxes for me in terms of sensor  size pixel size ( so image scale with my current kit) etc and I have spoken to a few folks who speak very highly of it. Time will tell but for a first light I pretty happy with it based on the above.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions - much appreciated.

This is the reprocess of the data I posted earlier as a normal colour processing.
This time I have extracted the Ha and Oiii in APP then processed the mono before recombining then adding the Ha as a luminance layer.
C&C welcome as always (comments on which of the two you prefer would be interesting)
SW 80ED, Hypercam 269c, NEQ6, L-eNhance
100 X180s

stacked in APP processed in PI,

51 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

Nice first light. Has that camera got the imx571 sensor?

Thanks for that.

No its the IMX269, I'm not sure if any of the other  common cameras use it.

So I finally took the plunge and got a cooled CMOS - Altair Astra Hyeprcam 269c. This is my first non DSLR camera so lots to learn.

But all in I am delighted with the camera (where has all the noise gone????)and relatively pleased with the image. Its with the l-enhance so I'll take a go at bi-colour in the next few days

SW 80ED, Hypercam 269c, NEQ6, L-eNhance

100 X180s

stacked in APP processed in PI,

C&C very welcome as I need any pointers relative to using and processing a CMOS.

On 14/12/2020 at 21:10, raf2020 said:

Sorry Guys for late reply, busy week at work then Xmass tidies on weekend 0o

@mackiedlm thank you very much for you effort looking into my RAWs. This aberration close to the borders is caused by LPF. Without it photos look ok but because of my Bortle class 7 area I am not able to take any longer exposures without it. So I need to choose between 90 sec exposures without LPF or longer with it, but then I need to crop a lot my photos. In general I think I will stick with DSS to get maximum from it (now still I work only on default settings) then maybe I will try another solution so I will have full background picture to compare. Regarding flats I have took it straight away after lights, darks and bias. I have used manual mode to take it. I just looked on histogram to make sure data is on the middle of the graph. On manual mode because I have spotted that on AV and ISO lower than 800 data is not presented in the middle oh histogram what was recommended by a lot of users.

edit: another experienced user has convinced me to try with APP. I will go with trial and see what I can get from it.

Andromeda Galaxy M31 08-12-2020 ISO 800 90sek without LPF 60 lights, 20 darks, 25 bias, 25 flats (AV mode). If you would like to take a look into it as well to see the difference - would be great, thank you.  

@Phillyo in session pasted above dust is visible also od flats. For ISO 800 I have taken it on AV camera mode. Regarding darks - most of the users recommending to take it if you have a time. Afaik darks adding noise so it is recommended to take minimum 30. Please note I am very beginner. 

Thank you Guys again for replies!

So I had a chance to throw this new set through APP.

First an uncalibrated single frame

You can see that you have lost that square border by removing the clip in. In exchange you have normal vignetting - especially bad cause you are a full frame camera. Still quite a few dust bunnies etc.

Then calibrated with your darks, flats and bias - this is a high stretch so we can see what we have.

And there you have a good calibration, dust bunnies and vignetting removed very well, hot pixels gone and some level of noise reduction. There is a gradient (probably your LP) remaining bottom right to top left but thats easily removed either in APP, with DBE in PI or with Gradient Exterminator in PS.

Unfortunately your stars have gone to ****. First off I think your focus is soft (do you use a Bahtinov mask?) Then look out from the centre and you see mishaped stars - elongated streaks in top right, classic coma in bottom left. Because they are not all showing the same orientation of mis-shape, I think what you may have is some kind of tilt. Knowing that your scope is the 80ED (same as mine) and your camera is quite heavy Id suggest that you double check that you dont have slump in the focus tube, make sure the screw under the focuser is tight once you are in focus. Also make sure that the camera is tightly connected attached and perpendicular to the scope. Is your FR connected directly to the focuser tube or are you using a nosepiece on the reducer held in the standard eyepiece holder - that would be a classic location for slump/tilt. If its the Skywatcher FF/FR then remove the eyepiece holder and screw the FR straight on to the focuser tube. Did you adjust the t-ring at all. You did not have this in your earlier subs with the clip in filter so its not your sensor. Anyway, these stars are a real pity because you were heading for a good image there. So get that sorted now and you'll be in good shape.

As indication of where you can easly get to, here is a link to my M31 using very similar gear to you, SW 80 ED/0.85FR?EOS700D - Im bortle 5 or so.

david

2 hours ago, Phillyo said:

Interesting comparison and I agree that the second one looks better than the first, there are always exceptions to the rule. That being said, if someone just snaps 50 darks at the end of the nights imaging and uses them as darks I don't think it'll make much of a positive effect during calibration. Throwing it in the fridge is a good idea, or a freezer to get even colder but how many amateurs go to that trouble and is it well documented that that's a good thing to do? 

There's also the option of using in camera noise reduction whilst imaging which can work well. The camera captures a dark frame and subtracts it from the light raw frame directly after each image is taken. That can work well if you're imaging when it is fairly cold outside, if it's warm then it won't make much difference. 

Hot pixel removal and bias removal is very important for DSLRs. It would be interesting to see your comparison above done with just dark frames and not bias to see what difference dark frames alone make to a DSLR image?

Thanks for the comparison. Very interesting to see.

if someone just snaps 50 darks at the end of the nights imaging and uses them as darks I don't think it'll make much of a positive effect during calibration ..... I think that if the ambient temperature remains close to what it was during the lights, (as shown by the camera sensor temperature in the data) and scaling is used, it will do just as good a job as above.

or a freezer to get even colder but how many amateurs go to that trouble I'd say that any amateur who wanted to get decent DSLR calibration and who was told this would help and what the limitations were (Rather than being told darks are no use with a DSLR) would give it a go- lets face it - we do a lot more crazy stuff than that for the sake of AP!! I spent one miserable rainy week-end at it and not had to do it again, yet! and is it well documented that that's a good thing to do - the point of the fridge/freezer is to replicate the ambient temperature to which the camera is exposed during image capture anyway. How could it be a bad thing? I do stick it in a ziplock to keep it dry.

I cant talk to in camera ND as I've never used it

It would be interesting to see your comparison above done with just dark frames and not bias to see what difference dark frames alone make to a DSLR image? Excellent question! Below is just that - same image, same stretch, almost same crop, - calibrated in APP with the same masterdark but no bias used so no scaling. No real difference in the noise (or hot pixels etc) but this masterdark was within a degree or two of the lights anyway. there is a difference in the star colour and I dont really understand why not having the bias would do that.

On 12/12/2020 at 22:05, Phillyo said:

Also, I wouldn't bother taking dark frames with a DSLR. They're only really useful for a set point controlled cooled astro camera; they can add more noise than remove it from none cooled cameras.

Phil

This is one of those pieces of "recieved wisdom" which is handed down as undisputed fact to all new DSLR imagers - myself included. I dont think it takes into account several things;

1. Many DSLRs (most canons which is what the OP has) provide a temperature reading for each frame
2. With this, a bit of ingenuity, and a wife who turns a blind eye at a camera clicking away in the fridge/freezer it is fairly easy to collect reasonably temperature matched dark frames.
3. Some astro processing software will now scale darks. APP will scale for time, temperature and ISO (I confirmed that with Mabula some time ago) although I usually match time and ISO.

Below are two tight crops taken from one of my own M31 images. Each is a SINGLE frame (the same frame) with exactly the same stretch applied in APP. The first is uncalibrated. The second is calibrated with a master dark and a master bias (which allows for the scaling)

To my eye the calibration has given a positive benefit and certainly has not added any noise..

First with out cal

Second with Cal

So, perhaps, at least with Canons and APP, there may be value in using darks with uncoolled DSLR's.

Just my own beginners assessment/opinion.

I think thats a really great image. You have got lots of the really faint whisps.

One of the difficulties I found on this target was that there are just so many stars that they can overwhelm the nebula.  Since you are using ps there are a few methods of star reduction you could try. Look ar carbonis actions plugins it has a "make stars smaller" action that could work on this.

Another option would be use your extracted Ha image as  a luminance layer. Search for Ha luminance on Astrobackyard.com. He has a good tutorial to do this.

But really thats a great image in my eyes as it stands.

Hi

I'm surprised you have not had some help with this so let me see what I can do. But please understand I am not far off beginner myself and am certainly not the expert help you are looking for.

Anyway, I took your second set of data and ran it through Astro Pixel Processor for initial calibration and stacking. I highly recommend APP over DSS because I find it easier to use, it gives me much more consistent results and its easier to view your masters than in DSS. It will also give you a good gradient removal, colour calibration and take you 90% of the way to finished image.The following frames have had a moderate stretch (I found APPs stretching really useful too until I moved to Pixinsisght) applied so we can see whats going on.

1. Single uncalibrated light

2. Single flat

3 Single calibrated light (strong stretch to see whats there)

So we can see right away that there is something strange going on around the border of the image in both lights and flats and while it calibrates out a bit its far from good. I've never seen this before but maybe some of the other guys on here may have?? its not normal vignetting which is circular. I see you are using a Full frame camera and a full frame clip in CLS filter. My guess would be its something to do with that and I'd suggest you fire off a few flats without the clip in filter in place (save as JPG then you can view them easily). If that nasty border is not there on these new flats then thats whats causing it. If  its still there then hopefully someone else can help cause I have no more ideas!!

4. stacked image

Now that was after I rejected the worst 10% of lights - i did not have time to review them and the fist stack I did had nasty trails etc suggesting there were some bad frames. So what have we got? Well that nasty border looks even nastier now. And the black dust motes. The border I've addressed above. The dust motes are there in the lights (not easy to see but they are there), but not on the flats and thats why they have not calibrated out. I dont know how thats happened but it would be suggestive of the image train being changed/moved /reassembled between lights and flats (did you by any chance do the flats before the lights?)

BUT, on the positive side you have some nice data in there, Star shapes are not too bad in terms of tracking but you've got a fair bit of coma at the corners. That could suggest you need to check the backfocus distance or it could just be because of your big sensor (I dont know as I only use APSC)

Heres a very very quick hack job at processing - cropped in hard to get rid of the border issue.

This is just to show you that you have data worth working with. With more time than I had to do this tonight it could become a pretty reasonable first image (starting with raising the black point a bit!)

On your own processed image the red and blue dots are hot pixels which have not been removed by dss in calibration. Someone else needs to tell you how to handle that in DSS. (Get APP!!!)

If you want the masters and the full files of the above PM me and I'll get them to you.

Stick at it, I tell people that AP is the most difficult and complex thing I've ever done but it is worth it when you get somewhere. Don't be disheartened by your first effort , there is good data there - you just need to learn how to pull it out and resolve the problems we can see above.

Good luck

David

Another HOO from DSLR with L-eNhance filter.

Another tough night in the West of Ireland  - really high humidity - the scope was dripping - so a lot of high haze and some mist later on. I was actually surprised to get as many usable subs but I did chuck away a good amount also.

So this was with the SW80ED and the EOS700D and around 100 X 240s at ISO800.

The l-eNhance has done a reasonable job but I think with 80%moon, (and probably too close close to the target) and high haze making for a very bright sky it was probably at its limit. I was fighting noise really hard all through the processing.

C&C Welcome and appreciated

They are fantastic images.