ampleamp

To keep me sane, last January i made one from bits when i was off work, and followed the allsky info verbatim; everything went well (unbelievably if you knew my lack of electronic/Pi knowledge). "I have had problems with dew on the outside of the dome and condensation on the inside. This time I used an anti-fog wipe on the outside and put a fresh silica gel bag inside next to the battery" - i also had trouble with internal condensation and found the only solution was to increase the size of the box thereby increasing airflow. For the last few months I haven't had any trouble and happily this solution also allowed me to capture all night aurora in May. In retrospect i now think that everything was just a bit too neat in the box and the camera was getting very warm - over 70 degrees on occasion.

you got more than me so probably worth pursuing if nothing else just for the novelty value, but for me, no it was not worth it. The attached image of a raw frame was typical of what i got so i'll review the subs before i bin them, just in case there is anything of interest, but i'm not expecting much. My shed opens and closes automatically and i couldn't be bothered to stop it so let it run, and just enjoyed the spectacle 🙂.

Instead of renewing my pc, I’ve kept my 5yr old machine but recently upgraded to the extent the motherboard could take. This has meant two new m.2 drives (one as c drive and one as swop and storage). I’ve maxed out the RAM (very cheaply as it is now deemed old) and I also swopped out the video card for a second hand NVIDIA cuda card (RTX4000). The speed of general processes and scripts like WBPP which use processor and RAM have noticably improved, but the current whizzkids BlurX, StarX and NoiseX are transformed from minutes to seconds with the NVIDIA. I was going down the rabbit hole of chasing PI benchmark numbers, but as the ££££ mounted I decided upgrading a known machine would keep me going a while yet. Benchmarking the renewed machine suggests it is decidedly average according to their lists but I don’t care. One day maybe I will transfer to PI on a Linux computer, maybe even this one 😁

As Fegato says, this all depends on location as well as fl, camera etc, determining pixel scale and field of view. Using 650mm and a scale of 1.44", I took this image the other night using 60 seconds subs and running through RGBRGBRGB.... in 15 minute blocks before moving the scope to push the comet back to where i wanted it on the screen. Its not the best and i hope to improve next time, but remember the comet is moving fast across the screen so give plenty margin around the comet so that when you align stars, and then the comet, there is enough surrounding sky (unlike here).

Adam Block has had a lot to do with the development of WBPP and has a really good set of videos that he has made available on his Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/AdamBlock/videos both mono and OSC, and includes cosmetic correction, normalisation, integration etc. Well worth as look. Coming from an entirely manual approach with individual PI modules, i have now swopped entirely to WBPP, just press 'run' and walk away for an hour (usually around 200 frames of 12Mb)

Thanks Rodd. I admit having to go in close to see what you meant 😃 but I see it now. Something to remember for the future when checking images 👍🏼

Thank you both.

Below is my SHO version of the Cygnus Wall in the North American Nebula. This was my setting up image at PixelSkies and was taken between 24-30th July with an APM650/105 and an SX H694 camera. The image comprises 51x600" Ha, 28x600" O111 and 21x600" S11, entirely processed in Pixinsight barring a final tweak in Gigapixel. Obviously the region is commonly imaged though this is my first attempt at this specific area. I made the conscious decision to retain a little of the green and not go too blue purely because i preferred the final result. Thanks for looking.

I have had two goes at this very feint object over the last few months, once from home in limited skies, and once from my remote imaging setup at PixelSkies. I'm sure you can guess which image came from which location. Home - four hours of Ha and O111 data, plus some lum, all form a widefield setup PixelSkies - eighteen hours of Ha and O111, from a medium focal length setup, plus consistently darker skies 😉 The home image was challenging in that despite being at a much higher altitude, my sky was just never good enough for such a dim object and whatever the rights and wrongs of processing, there really is no substitute for dark skies and time. thanks for looking

this is light years ahead of my effort! great result for your dedication

That's quite an effort from sun-kissed Grimsby, and dedication to a long term project! 👍

I would be spending some time in the classified section here, or at https://www.astrobuysell.com/uk/browse.php In my experience the vast vast majority of second hand kit is of very good quality and the vast majority of people who sell would declare any imperfections anyway; i would be more cautious about placing a 'wanted' ad and always try and speak to someone on the phone before parting with any money but this may well be your fastest way to find what you want with some longer nights being more apparent now

Glad to hear you have made progress 👍

With clear nights still forecast, you can still take your subs while you figure out what has gone wrong; then you will have lots of processing during the next lot of clouds 😁 This does look like an over-correction and to me looks like an overcorrection of the flats, at least with the above that’s where I would start, temperature differences??. When I struggled once with calibration I used the trial version of APP; changing software made me rethink what I was doing. What I liked about APP was you just throw everything into the same folder, let it sort everything out while you enjoy the sunshine before you pick up the result. At least you will know if you can get a result with your existing data before you spend ages taking more. If you use the old calibration files first and then compare with a new stack recalibrated with the new calibration files you can start to tie things down with existing files, swoping different old/new groups in and out etc. I often create a raw uncalibrated stack, ie a baseline right out of the camera. Sure there will be vignetting etc but assuming it is better than above, you have removed the camera from the list of possibilities. If things were working, why did you update the calibration files? Unfortunately I dint think there are shortcuts here.