CloudMagnet

I would honestly say that I prefer the bottom version. Mainly down to the smoother background but that is personal preference. In terms of the galaxy itself, I don't see much material difference in detail- I think if you matched the brightness of the galaxy in both pictures it would give a fairer comparision. Still a great picture either way

Gimp is a good option for just free software that will give you access to a lot of the basic adjustments that you need for astro images. The image above I used Gimp for starters and then Pixinsight as well to take care of the background light polution. I wouldn't recommed Pixinsight for a beginner though- a very steep learning curve. Youtube has plenty of tutorials for processing so watch some of them to get an idea of how people process and then find your own style

After some levels, trying to fix the background and some curves:

I can only JUST get them to show but there are others that can process it better than me. I would be more looking at why the edges of the image seem to be out of focus and producing double stars. Did you stack it with flats?

There still is no harm in going out just for practice. Best to learn how to set everything up correctly (in the dark) and ironing out any issues at this point rather than wasting good nights later in the year. Aim somewhere in the opposite side of the sky to where the moon is for the least impact. It will do for getting focus right and you might even get a pleasent suprise when you stack an image and find a DSO you didn't even know was there.

So i guess we need to find a definition for "well dithered" and sufficient input data amounts before coming to a conclusion. It does improve the image at the end of the day done correctly but i have only really noticed it when zooming close in to stars- at a trade of much longer processing time given the increased size of the images.

You can use programs like this one: https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ to get an idea of what FOV a certain camera/scope combination will give you for all types of objects. Guidecams will give small a FOV as they tend to have small sensors, for DSO's such as galaxies or large nebula, you need either a smaller focal length scope or a larger sensor (or both) If you are using the guidecam in a guiding role, the FOV of the guidecam isn't too important purely in terms of matching your main camera. What is important is image scale. This will help make sure that your guiding is accurate and the focal length of the guidescope is sufficient. This can be calculated by: (imager focal length) / (guider focal length) * (guider pixel size) / (imager pixel size). Most people will advise that this number should be 3 or less for the best guiding performance although this is rough. You also will want to use a monochrome guide cam as these are more sensitive to light and colour doesnt matter for guiding anyway. Its up to you though if you plan to use it for real imaging as well then colour may be worth thinking about.

Would drizzle make sense if you were looking to print out your pictures to put on your wall? Seems an easy way of making the image twice (or 3 times) the size without any loss of pixels per inch. I know its not ideal but any increase in noise shoudn't be too noticable when you stand around a meter away.

The easiest way to use the sliders in levels is to first use the grey slider (in the middle underneath your histogram) and move that left but stop before you hit the peak of the histogram. This will make the image a lot brighter but dont worry. Press OK to close and then reopen levels again. This time, pull the black slider to the right until you get a nice darker image. You can keep doing this as often as you want, and you find a nice balance. The more you compress the sliders together, the more detail you will bring out but at a cost of bringing out noise and gradients- so keep this in mind.

A lot of it is personal preference and also the type of target you are shooting as well. For galaxies, I tend to have a slightly lighter background to help show up some of the faint outer details. On the other hand, for a star cluster I would have a bit more contrast to show off the stars a bit more. I just tend to make sure that the histogram doesn't touch the left as past this point you just risk losing data wthout any real gain. Do what "looks" right and you wont be far off.

Interesting, i had the same issue with this camera and APT in my last session. Were you running the cooling at the same time? I only have run into this issue once, but simply disconnecting and reconnecting seemed to solve the problem.

You really dont need a Barlow at all to focus. I have been using my 200p for months with a DSLR and coma corrector and it has about 15mm of focus left over. Just attach the coma corrector to a M48 adapter and then attach that straight on to the DSLR.

It definetly fits as I use it on my EQ5, it only focuses with the 1x zoom but it honestly makes polar aligning painless rather than the usual yoga session without it. All you do it fit that brass ring over the end of the polar scope and rotate the eyepiece until you find focus. I find that you can also polar align at lot earlier in the evening than you would just using the standard scope as you can keep your eye steadier- saves time later in the night for other setup work.

On the polar scope issue, I found the best way to solve that was to use a right-angled eyepiece like the one in the link below. Makes polar aligning much less stressful. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/astro-essentials-right-angled-eyepiece-for-polar-scopes.html

Nice to see, the ring nebula was the first DSO I shot so one of my favorite. I always think to colour is tricky for this but good job bringing out the white dwarf and outer layers in such a short timeframe.

The smaller size of the sensor will give a smaller FOV for a given telescope, something to bear in mind. A good calculation to use to work out the resolution/quaility is how "sampled" your image will be is using image scale. This website gives a good background on what an undersampled image and an oversampled one will look like: https://www.atik-cameras.com/news/rules-1-2-arc-second-per-pixel-and-when-to-break-them/ The calculation to use for your cameras: (Pixel Size (μm) of camera / Focal length of telescope) * 206.3 = angular resolution (arcseconds/pixel) Aim for an image scale of 1-2 and you should be OK as this will avoid blocky or bloated stars.

The image circle is the size of the image that is actually projected out of the focuser tube into your camera. The issue arises when your camera sensor is larger than the area of light that comes out of the telescope. This creates a vignetting effect (the edges are a lot darker than the center) and is a pain to process out and really means that you are wasting the large sensor size as no light reaches the outside pixels. A flattener refers to an lens attached to your scope that corrects for coma, usually in smaller focal ratios. This is an effect that looks like the edges of the image is warping in a circle and makes an image look terrible. A flattener will help remove this effect.

I use the IDAS D2 filter and it gives a green tint to the picture. I normally adjust the sliders in DSS before saving the image so that each channel is layered into of each other to keep a natural tone.

Good start, it can be intimidating at first as there is so much to take in just to even get a quick image. It will soon become adictive and every clear night will be spent lugging heavy equipment around in the freezing cold

Thats really curious to see white if you are looking a a black sky, could there be a reflection from inside the house that could cause this? Also, ensure that the eyepiece is placed as far into the focus tube as it will go as this is the best place to get focus and use the low powered one like the 20mm. It is also worth checking the collimation if you feel up to it, look online for tips but it could be that something has been knocked out of alignment during delivery and it needs to be set right.

Agree with the IDAS D2 2", works great for LED polution. The first link you posted is advised for modified cameras so that might not be the best unless you plan to modifiy the camera in the future. Just to give a comparison, the first image below is without a filter and the second is with the IDAS D2. Both are 30 sec exposure looking almost directly at an LED steetlamp. Please forgive the poor focus on the first image :)

Looks like it, if the focus was off the other night by not using the mask, the stars will show as bigger in your images. So when you layer them together, you get that effect of a two-tone star. One way to check is to stack the each nights images separately and the effect should disappear- this rules out any other issues.

As above, the second picture looks like the wind. As someone that used to image with a single motor drive on the EQ5, you will get drift on your exposures as the motor just simply turns at a set speed and doesn't make any adjustments for drift. You could check to make sure that your clutch that connects your motor to the RA axis is tight as if this slips slightly it will cause issues. Also make sure that the motor is firmly attached to the mount, the gears are meshed together fully and the scope is well balanced. Otherwise, it could just be the limit of your setup and looking at upgrading to guiding will (almost) remove this issue. Your last picture is basically the best I could get out of my EQ5+RA motor combination. I know this would be a big investment, but for me it is worth it in the long run to guide and have no drift.

Wow, I basically took the same image on Saturday as well. Not as good as yours though

Fantasic for such a few amount of images and very smooth. Make sure to take flats as well- these will help remove any vignetting around the edges and can be done fairly quickly.