abmwinnoch

Thank you- you've been very helpful.

Just used it and it seems to work well- much reduced noise. Much smaller file too- from 51mb down to 1.84mg- does that seem right or do I need to alter some settings in ASTAP?

Hmm; this was just visually looking at the subs- I admit I've not been able to capture enough 3x3 subs yet to directly compare a stacked result- below is a screenshot snip of the subs with 1x1 on the left and 3x3 on the right at the same scale. The 3x3 looks far noisier to me.

Thanks, I've got ASTAP; i'll give that one final go, before abandoning the experiment and returning to 1x1 imaging and living with the noise.

OK, think I'll 'bin' this experiment and return to using the full resolution of the camera. I've never been able to wrap my head around the concept of throwing away a third or a quarter of the camera resolution I've paid for and I also don't understand how the focal length of telescope matters? Surely a camera is telescope agnostic in that all it's 'seeing' is an analogue image from the focuser; how can it 'know' whether this image is coming from my 360mm WO or from a reduced 2888mm focal length of the C925? It's all just billions of photons landing on the sensor. Sorry despite having it explained to me on various fora over the past year or more, still don't get it. Thanks for trying though!

Nope full colour, but noisier than the front row of a death metal concert.🤨

Just about to find out as I stack the meagre few frames I got before the rain. Don't think so though- sure I've tried stacking binned frames before ages ago. Will report back

No- binning at acquisition time. I can't seem to get binning to work in DSS and no idea how to do it after that, so simplest for me to Bin at source.

Just trying, for the first time to use 3x3 binning as suggested above. Started doing darks with this binning level, in preparation.

I've been dithering every 4 frames; more?

Caldwell 9-CaveLIGHT240.001002022-12-220076.fitsBetter example now it's dark. Actually I'll reserve judgment till I've stacked a few of these. Certainly the signal (target) seems nice and strong.

So, I'm currently imaging with 3x3 binninCaldwell 9-CaveLIGHT240.001002022-12-220070.fitsg and the subs look much, much noisier than 1x1; that shouldn't be should it? FITS file attached- note, it's not fully dark yet so the image is a bit of a mess but you get the idea.

Sorry, what do you mean by- "if you use them natively?"

Okay that makes sense and would explain the noisier data. I should probably have considered that before buying this model- The rarity of clear, windless nights means less time per target would've been a better outcome, at least until I buy a hyperstar one day! I haven't decided which way round is best yet- 294 on the Celestron C925 (usually with with reducer) and 533 on the WO ZS61iiAPO or the other way around. In terms of framing, the 294 gives a wider field of view so would probably be better employed on the William Optics scope with the tighter, square framing of the 533 being good for framing targets like planetary nebula and galaxies. In this case, the FITS image above was from the 533 on the WO.

Hi. On the suggestion of the good folk at FLO, I'm posting this query on here. I've just bought the ASI533MC so I can image on both my rigs at once, joining my existing ASI294MC camera. First impressions are good; very impressed with how quickly the camera cools and maintains temp amongst other things, but one thing I have noticed is that the noise levels seem higher than my 294. See a typical sub below. It means that I'm having to apply more noise reduction after stacking than I'm used to doing at same settings with my 294. Does anyone who has this camera have a sub with IC 1848 - SoulLIGHT180.001202022-12-200025.fitssimilar setting to me, that they can post for comparison? I had the camera at 120 gain (though I believe 100 is a better level for this camera), cooled to -20 and this is a 180 second exposure. Just seems a bit noisy to me- wanting to check I don't have a dud or there is a setting somewhere that needs set. Thanks!