Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

Lancebloke

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    45

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

17 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lancebloke
    Ok... so here is my second attempt. 46% waxing moon to the left didn't help anything but not sure how I ended up from quite a red picture (from general light pollution) to a very white one. Not sure if that is because of the data quality captured or processing. Likely both since this is only the third image I have shot and processed.
  2. Lancebloke
    I am new to this but I normally focus a good as possible at the zoom I want, then use the digital zoom, refocus and the same again until I cant (normally twice). That has seemed to work ok so far. With exposure time, I used 180s exposures for my last attempt which got quite a lit of the fainter detail but blew out the core. Next time I am going to do the same for the detail and then some much shorter (15 - 30 seconds) for the core. See how that goes.
  3. Lancebloke
    Hi, Yes, I adjusted the star threshold down to 3% to try and fix the issue. I also used 100% of frames as I manually check them all to remove dodgy ones beforehand.
  4. Lancebloke
    Hi, Yes, I am using a Canon 90d DSLR. Thanks. Will try again when I get some favourable skies.
  5. Lancebloke
    Hi Happy-kat, The data I captured was trash for that target anyway but I also captured what I could of Andromeda yesterday too. Am I better trying to stack just the 16 light frames and none of the calibration frames I took? Would you recommend a certain ratio of each per light frame or just as many as all of them as possible in the time?
  6. Lancebloke
    Hi all, I tried imaging the horsehead nebula yesterday as a bit of a target of opportunity for learning. I have been trying to stack the images with the darks, flats and bias frames I also took at the time but when I do so it tells me it will only be using one frame to stack. If I do the same thing without any calibration frames it seems to work ok. Am i using too many calibration frames? For reference I have: - 12 Light frames (detected c.200+ stars when registering but had to set threshold to 3% because of street and moon light pollution) @ 2 min exposures, ISO 800. - 10 Dark frames at same exposure/ISO etc - 8 Flat frames at same exposure/ISO etc - The potential of 17 bias frames (only using 8 at my cameras quickest shutter speed. Why would DSS tell me it can only use 1 light frame to stack when I use those calibration frames but be fine when I dont? Any help appreciated as not experienced that before. Thanks Lance
  7. Lancebloke
    Managed to get some more colour in the image. Learning the whole processing thing but more luck than judgement at the moment. I will try and get both the colour and the detail/nebulosity when I get a few hours tomorrow. Well... final process below. Think that is about as good as I can get it.
  8. Lancebloke
    I just had my first attempt at m42 this evening. The histogram looks like I blew out the image a little bit but it came out ok with a quick bit of processing. I will look for a good tutorial of processing the nebula at the weekend... might get a little bit more out of it before I can try and shoot it again.
  9. Lancebloke
    Thanks! I will be giving it a go without as soon as the moon stops being so bright! I had a quick go of the Pleiades and Orion nebula earlier in the week and were just completely blown out!
  10. Lancebloke
    Tell that to these guys!
  11. Lancebloke
    @happy-kat It is part of a hospital so they have to keep the lighting on all night which is unfortunate. @MartinFransson I am going to give the same target a go without the filter next time. Also going to wait for the moon phase to change as that isnt going to help over the next couple of weeks!
  12. Lancebloke
    Hi, My general area is class 5 I think, however my back garden happens to back on to a building that had lots of safety lighting around it.
  13. Lancebloke
    Yes, I had everything else on mains at the time... I just didnt think about the camera. One of many learnings! I am trying to work out PHD2 at the moment for guiding. My graph was all over the place at some points but since I didnt stay with it all the time I dont know if all of the problems were self inflicted (e.g. cable snagging) or something else.
  14. Lancebloke
    @happy-kat I am going to give it a go without a filter next time I get a clear night but it is not great. Below is 20s straight through my DSLR (ignore the tree branch) without that filter. @Tommohawk I used ISO 800 for M31. I had lots of facepalm issues (cable snagged when tracking the sky, camera battery died quickly as it was very cold etc) that resulted in my planned 30 x 180s images turning in to 9. I was going to attempt a bunch of shorter exposures for the core (maybe 30s) and then longer exposures (5 mins) for the rest next time I target Andromeda. No idea how to process that but thought it might help. Lance
  15. Lancebloke
    Hi Olly, Thanks. I attempted to do that. My main problem, aside for inexperience, was that inised a light pollution filter which meant there was a lot less data in the red channel. I would be interested what other people could do with the TIFF file from my stack as deep sky stacked had quite a good preview image after the stack that I cannot seem to recreate!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.