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.

  • Announcements

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_nb_dso.jpg.eb6cd158659331fd13e71470af6da381.jpg

Horwig

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    979
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

695 Excellent

1 Follower

About Horwig

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Location
    Caernarfon, Gwynedd
  1. Pixinsight reports the Raws generated by my 5d3 as 5920x3950 pixels, but when I take these RAW frames and integrate them as XISF, it then reports the size as 5792x3870, what's going on? Huw
  2. Thanks all, yes I forgot to include the tech details for the image. It was shot with Canon 5d3 mounted on a Star Adventurer Canon 24-105mm L lens, at 48mm and f4 14 subs of 120 seconds at ISO 3200 Huw
  3. I've been trying to get my head around using PI with RAW images from my Canon 5d3, but the results have been very patchy, noisy and lacking any smooth detail in the dust. So here I've tried a different workflow as an experiment. Firstly, convert the RAWs to 16 bit non linear Tiffs in Lightroom applying lens correction, then registration and integration in PI, then into Photoshop for final tweeking. No control frames were involved! It's still way off perfect, but far better than any version I've got out of PI on its own. Huw
  4. Same as Sara I'm afraid, I can't offer scientific reasoning, I just take the same number of darks as lights Huw
  5. I've been playing with a DSLR again after using mono for some time, and trying to use PI with it, here's the result of 15 lights, 20 bias, 20 darks and 20 flats. proc in PI, and then tweeked in photoshop: and here's the same lights, with no control frames this time, converted from RAW to non linear TIFF in lightroom, then PI for alignment and integration, and photoshop for adjustment. Now I know there's still plenty wrong with version 2, but I know which I prefer, so where was I going wrong with the time honoured pre-processing routine?
  6. faulty all sky camera

    Don't they have to be illuminated by the Sun? Mine are illuminated by mercury vapour lamps
  7. faulty all sky camera

    I could lend you some if you like, do you have a bucket?
  8. faulty all sky camera

    I must have a faulty camera, for as long as I can remember, the night sky has looked like this... I must have been doing something wrong Huw
  9. Full Frame APS-C "crop factors" etc.

    Sorry Olly, could you speak up, I missed that bit, my eyes are not that good
  10. RDF placement.

    YESSSS!!! sometimes the low tech answer is the right one, very impressed. Huw
  11. DIY large inexpensive flat field panel

    Yes indeed, opal plastic, two layers of it, just to be sure: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/White-Acrylic-Perspex-Sheet-Colour-Cut-to-Size-Panel-Plastic-Matt-Satin-Gloss-/172107516062?var=&hash=item281268489e:m:m7HwpRF6NxxTSFYywY_IoBA Huw
  12. DIY large inexpensive flat field panel

    I use a diy panel made from an LED ropelight and two diffuser sheets. I used a combination of sheets of white paper and a PWM dimmer to give me exposures in the seconds range on an f3.5 scope Huw
  13. Simple video editing software?

    Yes it is, but it must be 64 bit pro version
  14. Simple video editing software?

    For me it would have to be Avid media composer, they now do a free version: http://www.avid.com/media-composer-first#Overview-Download Huw
  15. Thanks Gina, will attempt to resist temptation.
×