Clarkey

18 hours ago, Grant93 said:

I will also upload the TIFF if anyone wants a go at editting (Would be much appreciated to see if anyone else could pull more out)

Hi,

I have had a very quick go at editing your image. Might be a bit over-done but I think there is a little more to get out of it. (I also do mono usually so OSC is not something I normally do).

There does seem to be some walking noise in the image, which is a bit more tricky to remove. As always more time would improve the detail. I rarely image more than on object in a night to get the most detail I can.

2 hours ago, Astro Noodles said:

The Skyguider is on its way back to FLO tomorrow

I think this is the right thing to do - from what you have said there does seem to be something wrong with it (or you are polar aligning on Mars😂). Are you getting a replacement or something different?

I don't use PI, but could you not re-size your flats to match the others?

12 hours ago, woodblock said:

Just a quick question. I've been looking at various videos about how to collimate an RC scope which I understand is important. Most of the videos recommend various gadgets to assist and these come to a significant cost. I wondered if you'd looked into it and had ordered any of these gadgets or are you going to wait till you get it?

I got the StellaLyra RC8 a few months ago. It was actually pretty good out of the factory but the collimation is out slightly and it does show on some photo's. So far I have not touched it - largely down to the horror stories regarding collimation. I have ordered one of the REEGO type collimators as I want a better alignment of the optical and mechanical axis. I am hoping this plus some additional adjustment using the DSI procedure will give good results. Unfortunately due to the current supply problems I am still waiting for it. It seems daft to spend nearly as much on collimation equipment as the scope itself. I have also ordered a SteelTrack focuser and M90 tilt adjustment ring. The stock focuser is OK but not brilliant.

I also have a supply of paracetamol for when I start banging my head on the wall in frustration!! 🤣

I sometimes use NINA for planning - as I use it for capture also it Is convenient. On the framing assistant you can select the area of sky and the type of object you want and it will list all the options. If you have downloaded the image library it will also give you the images of the target plus other info such as surface brightness.

Just to add to the comments above - I would only look to change the bearings if the performance shows an issue. Before the bearings I would look at adjusting the end float on the worm gear and the worm carrier. These both needed quite a bit of adjustment on both my SW mounts as they were poorly set. I also belt modded the HEQ5. I now get about 0.5 RMS from the HEQ5 and better for the AZ-EQ6 - which is about as good as can be expected from these mounts.

It's not that a dew shield stop the moisture from reaching the optical surface but it prevents the optical surface radiating heat too quickly and thus does not reach the dew point temperature. From what I know about SCT's a dew shield or heater is 'mandatory'. One of the reasons I went for a RC.

There are a number of comparisons on line between APP, DSS and others for stacking. APP always does well and I have found it the best of the ones I have tried. Although I do not normally used APP for the full processing it does give a pretty good indication of what the final image is going to be like with the standard digital development tools. I also like the way you can weight the channels when combining RGB or narrowband to give the colour balance you want.

I moved from DSS to APP as I found it better. Also, the gradient removal on APP is very good as is the star colour calibration. The only negatives with APP that I have found is that there is not a proper user manual and it is quite slow compared with other stacking packages. I suppose the cost is the other negative with APP, but given the £££'s spent on the kit a few pounds for software is not a biggy.

Does the camera cool ok with other software? Is it just APT being a problem?

I used the defaults with APT. But if you set to -10 set point with a step of 3 degrees it should work OK. The pause can be set to 10 seconds and the timeout to a couple of minutes.

The manual for APT is quite good and can be downloaded online.

I agree about the leisure battery. I have a 110 amp hour battery with a case I built myself which has 12v and USB outputs etc. It will run my full imaging rig for a 12 hour session without problem - but it is very heavy. I use a small collapsible trolley to move it around.

With regards to the laptop, I will get at least 4 hours from mine and once up and running with the screen off probably nearer 6. I also have a lithium laptop specific power pack which will double the battery life and supplies 19V directly.

Krisdonia Laptop Power Bank 25000mAh Portable Charger with Type-C Port + DC Port + Dual USB (QC3.0 Quick Charge) for Laptop, Tablet, Cell phone, Macbook, Camera, Projector and more: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics

If you are only getting a couple of hours I would look for a new laptop. It only needs to be a low spec to run imaging kit and a smaller processor will use less power. I picked up a second hand Lenovo for £100 which works fine.

I think from the drift on your subs it will be a long way off - and should be quite obvious. The only other issue is how smoothly it runs. It might do 360 degrees in 24 hours but if it does it in one minute intervals it is not too useful. (If my analogy makes sense).

I agree it is better than previously but it should be better. What do the individual subs look like? Are they all showing trails or are they very variable?

I have recently purchased a generic manual 1.25" filter wheel from Amazon for £40 which does a reasonable job and saves handling filters in the dark. There is also a 2" version I believe.

Just to add a couple of extra points to Craney's comments above.

Firstly at the sort of FL you are looking at you will really need to be guiding - which for a Mak I guess would be a OAG and new camera

Secondly you need to consider pixel scale - it is not all about the FL. If you have a long FL and small pixels as typically found in DSLR's you will be greatly over-sampling.

To be honest the main reason people recommend a small refractor is that it is relatively easy to guide (or use unguided) and is more forgiving on the mount tracking errors. I use an RC8 at 1600mm with an AZ-EQ6 which is probably the limit for the mount. Fortunately I have managed to get the RMS to around 0.3 so it is OK.

Finally AP is great - but it is expensive and addictive. The n+1 rule no longer applies. It becomes n+N and an enormous load of kit you never realised you 'needed'😂.

For a first image and at this time of year that is a great image. Hopefully all the troubles are now behind you.

With regards to the clouds - get used to it! One of the many frustrations of this hobby.

I have just has a look to see if there are any known issues with the Skyguider. I found this link on Cloudy Nights.

Skyguider Pro tracking issues? - Beginning Deep Sky Imaging - Cloudy Nights

Although there is a lot of discussion there is a 'calibration' procedure which might be worth a punt. (Post #15)

Hi Noodles,

I have read through this thread and I must admit I feel quite spoilt as I went the 'whole hog' in one go with guiding / scope / mount etc. However, I do understand your frustration. Even with some better kit I have still have times when things just did not work and I was tearing my hair out.

With regards to the level of the mount, providing the PA is correct it should not be critical - you are rotating around the point of alignment. Looking at the amount of star trailing you are getting, are you sure there is not an issue with the sky-guider? I would expect you to be able to get perfectly good subs at 20s without issue providing you PA is close. Have you tried to leave it tracking without imaging to see how far it drifts? I know this obvious, but it is set to 1X tracking?

9 hours ago, Grant93 said:

What data capture software would you recommend?

If you are going down the PC route there are lots of options - but it does get more complicated. Astrophotography Tool (APT) has an option to mark stars in the images so you can go back and re-frame your target. If you can get close with a widefield it does help with repeatability. As you do not have 'goto' you will still have to find targets yourself though. I used this before I had got to grips with plate solving (but I did have goto which made it much easier). You could still plate solve images just to calculate where you are in the sky and the relative error to your target.

To be honest your M51 is pretty good given it is the summer. If you can get a slightly longer session on targets you could still get some great images with the kit you have. Unfortunately as everyone on the forum will tell you, AP is a slippery and expensive slope - but you can still get good results on a budget.

9 hours ago, RoloFanatic said:

Is there any merit in using a combination of subs with different exposure lengths?

Yes in some cases. For objects with bright areas and more diffuse parts can benefit from different exposure lengths. The Orion Nebula is a prime example. However for most nebula and galaxies you would not need to.

3 hours ago, Jay6879 said:

What kind of hobby is this?

Expensive and addictive - trust me. 😀

9 hours ago, RoloFanatic said:

Any advice on exposure times and number of frames needed would be really appreciated,

I think this is something you have to work out on your own set up and where you are imaging from and how well your kit performs. For RGB I typically use 3-5 minute subs but this will vary depending on the brightness of the target. I always take at least one test exposure before imaging and use this as a guide.

As for the number of subs - the more the better. It is diminishing returns, but for more DSO's I would only image one per night and get as much data as I can. It's all about improving the signal to noise ratio. Again, this will vary depending on your location, processing skills and equipment. I would suggest you experiment and see what works. The images you have are a really good starting point so you are definitely on the right track.

There is an intereting post showing the benefits of integration time here:

Testing increasing integration times (OSC, Bortle 8) - Getting Started With Imaging - Stargazers Lounge

If you can get quite close most of the stacking software will adjust the position to stack the images. You will get some overlap at the edges but it should not be a problem. Are you using any data capture software? Most of these have some form of assistance in finding targets. If you are just manually locating the target and using an intervalometer you will find it tough.

I think in most cases you can trial the various bits of software which is worth doing and comparing your results.

Personally I use a number of different options including Startools and more 'traditional' software. Both have advantages and disadvantages. One benefit of the more traditional approach is to understand what and why you are doing certain things and the effect they have. As Alacant says, Startools does most of the same things in a different way - but I found Startools easier once I had used APP and Affinity as I new what I was trying to achieve at each stage of processing.

17 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

tag line 'supermoon' when you and I know perfectly well that the moon varies in apparent diameter by an entirely trivial amount

It was 'super' in that it was bright red last night. Still the same size though....