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.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About gilesco

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. CEWE foam backed print test sample arrived today, it looks great, so will use them. Quite reasonable for the price, once I managed to remove delivery costs with a voucher code.
  2. OK, well I've given CEWE a try, it'll take a week or so, we will see how it turns out.
  3. Yeah, but as it is a hack, and I would need to do it with photo box (did manage to eventually upload, but they modified my photo to make the background grey, and found no way in their tool to undo that), I am looking for a company that might allow me to tag the photo for non-processing in that regard.
  4. I'm looking at Nebulous DSOs, which might not work so well as planetary imaging.
  5. I'm working on a Mosaic, and have a H-alpha channel that looks pretty good so far, so was thinking about using an Internet Photo Printing service to get the final results printed. Anyone have any experience with using these? I used photobox.co.uk in the past for normal photos, but found that they just error when I upload my astrophotography photo, I'm wondering whether they're trying to do some post-processing or something and deciding that it is too dark. Anyone who can share successful experiences in this regard?
  6. I would check with the Optic Adapter manufacturer whether the S20 is supported. Which camera will you use?
  7. Oh I would never base my purchasing decision on availability...
  8. I do this (ST120), you can see some results on my website. I find it difficult to focus Blue in particular, the stars are always larger than in say the Red and Green wavelengths. It is partly because the focuser isn't particularly good on this scope, and the motorised focuser only pairs with a DC motor, not a stepper motor, you can get a replacement focuser for the ST120, but to be honest I am saving up for an apo and I'm not now going to continue the investment in the ST120, but I will still use it until I can afford an apo (and a stepper focuser etc...)
  9. Well it's been a pleasure trying to get something more out of it, look forward to the results of something with 60s or higher exposures.
  10. Go with the 130PDS... or hold the money and go for something in the future...
  11. oh and, here are the master flats, darks, bias + a bad pixel map for your Canon EOS 80d https://drive.google.com/open?id=15qrX-pL9jPcUsLsA2vvk1Iudd_ki-s5q The Bad Pixel Map might come in handy if you haven't one already.
  12. So dug myself into a ditch here, the "red rain" as you put it, still remained after integration, despite various methods to try and remove it. I can only suggest that you increase exposures to maybe 60s, or if your guiding can take it, even longer (I love my 180s exposures on a CMOS camera, when I get the chance), what we are battling with here is noise in the sensor - and, less noise, or more signal will definitely bring better quality to the show. I've not been able to improve upon the overall integration result that I've already posted before. It is always worth keeping old raw data though, as new techniques do come up all the time, and sometimes you wonder - "I wish I had put that through that"
  13. Starting first integration, I took a note of some of these though, here are the worst frames in each of the categories, if the Integration doesn't produce anything better then I will manually exclude these and repeat it: Lowest Quality Images: 5137 5135 5053 5138 5131 5100 5107 5122 5066 5106 Noisest Images: 5137 5135 5053 5138 5131 5100 5107 5122 5100 5107 Most Poorly Registered: 4932 5041 5097 5006 5008 5019 4984 5075 4953 5137 Worst SNR: 5138 5100 5123 5107 5125 4983 4970 4936 5053 4995 Worst on Star Shape: 5019 5006 4953 5066 5122 5137 4093 5008 5053 5000
  14. I might be able to identify it for you, on the next run I am going to omit outlier / low quality frames - I've also posted on the APP forum as to whether they could introduce a feature to export in CSV format the quality information that it calculates for each frame after they've been analysed, as this would help any third party to the software get an insight into the data.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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