ONIKKINEN

Those rings are faint enough that i wonder if they are easily visible once you add the stars back in? If the goal is to have stars in the final result that is. Some clever use of the clone stamp tool just to break the shape of the circle (not completely try and remove) would probably also hide it in a way that its less recognizable as an artifact. *Another fix is to paint them out with the lasso tool and content aware fill in Photoshop. Seems to have worked well for the JPEG above.

Was not aware that ASTAP had this option. Have to try it now for sure!

Probably not the answer you were hoping for, but paid software make short work of mosaicing (and are the least headache inducing). Astropixelprocessor works well for most simple mosaics, and the Photometric mosaic script in PixInsight will surely mosaic any panels together if they can be. Astropixelprocessor can be rented for i believe 60€/year or something like that last i checked, and they have a free trial too. PixInsight costs 250€+tax, but they also offer a free trial on request. The tool in PixInsight is more complicated to run and requires you to read the instructions thoroughly. Astropixelprocessor mosaicing is a lot easier in that you first just stack the panels individually and then re-run integration with the panels in mosaicing mode.

Thank you! Wasn't sure how to feel about the closeups so i am glad you liked them. I think i suffer a bit too much from the pixel peeper syndrome.

Taken with an 8'' newtonian + APM coma correcting barlow and a ZWO ASI678MC. Average seeing, but some possible image train issues with the setup that could have thrown a wrench in the works (not enough focus travel). Still not the worst Jupiter i have taken. -Oskari

All taken with my 8'' carbon newtonian and an ASI678MC. The full disk image was taken at prime focus through a paracorr at 1018mm focal length, the barlowed ones through an APM 2.7x coma correcting barlow at a reduced, roughly 2.5x barlow factor. 3 panel mosaic, 3000 frames each with 20% best stacked: Archimedes, Aristillus, Autoclys and surroundings: Ptolemaeus, Alphonsus, Arzachel and surroundings: The barlowed images have a slight comatic look to them, especially towards the top left. I had rearranged some focuser accessories and now could no longer reach focus with the imaging train fully inserted, so the barlow train was slightly hanging out of the focuser which is likely the culprit for that. Something to fix for the next outing. The mosaic came out well, but this imaging scale is very forgiving so it often does. Really enjoying the 678MC + 1018mm focal length combo for Lunar with its relative ease of producing a full disk image. Still 80 gigabytes though... Seeing was average at best with very thin high cloud above which messed with the levels occasionally. Still could have been a lot worse so no major complaints. -Oskari

The rest of your images are probably not stackable in this case, at least from DSS point of view. Check the list of images after registration and see if there are ones that have a very low number of stars detected compared to the rest of them? If there are, then these will probably not stack no matter what. DSS is quite picky with images, and wont stack bad subs but you could try some other stacking software and see if they can be salvaged. Siril is a bit more complicated to use, but you can force it to stack pretty bad subs too if you change the star detection settings. But i should point out that the subs probably shouldn't be stacked if DSS rejects them because they will end up hurting the end result if mixed in with good subs.

Detail is better on the rework, but i have to say i overall prefer the original with its pleasing colour palette. The rework looks a bit too blue, and too saturated in general with specifically the Ha regions harshly contrasting against the surroundings. Still a damn good M31 i should say.

Time to update the IT security level of the observatory then. The attacker has to only get lucky once, but the IT security system needs to get lucky every time in order to stay secure. Why someone would hack an observatory is beyond me though, unless it was done just because they could. I suppose it could be the typical extortion racket where the hacker hopes the victim just wants to pay to make the problem go away instead of potentially losing data which could be valuable since you cant always just go and re-take the data in a timely fashion.

Here is how i do it: First i have stretched the image in Siril to a point where i think the stars are close to where i want them to be, but you could do it in any software of course (i do it in Siril because i do preprocessing there anyway). Open the image in Photoshop and duplicate it twice to create 2 extra layers Run StarXterminator on the top layer Duplicate the starless layer once the process has completed and then hide the top starless layer. Put the other, unhidden, starless layer into blend mode "subtract" and merge down. Now i have a starless layer, a stars only layer, and the original image as background for comparison purposes mostly. Once i have processed both layers the way i like i combine the starless and stars only layer using the blend mode "linear dodge(add)" and merge them. In my opinion simply adding the star layer back instead of screening the starless layer in front of it yields a more natural looking end result. With the blend mode set to screen you can end up with transparent looking stars, or stars that are hidden behind nebulosity. Entirely a matter of taste of course, and i think i may have the minority opinion here with preferring linear dodge over screening. I have created a GIF of the difference between screening nebulosity in front of stars, and simply adding them: The difference is barely noticeable outside nebulosity, but very easy to see for stars that are in front of nebulosity and appear to be muted with the blend mode set to screen.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Well, i am biased since i have an 8'' newtonian, but i think this is as close to a jack of all trades scope as can be. Planetary and lunar is easy with the right corrector/camera combo, as is high-ish resolution seeing limited DSO imaging with a good quality coma corrector. Wider field is plausible with something like the Starizona 0.75x corrector, although dont have myself so maybe shouldn't advocate for it. But mosaics at f/5 are still reasonably fast, although not competing against the RASA. I think a newtonian still has the best chance of being a scope that can fit all imaging purposes even somewhat.

What an image! So much to look at everywhere in the image.

Siril will happily stack images with any (reasonable) difference in pixel scale to a single stacked image. I have stacked 0.76''/pixel, 0.91''/pixel and 1''/pixel images to a single file and it all worked like it should. Its not always a good idea because there can be signal to noise ratio issues if the datasets are too far apart in quality but your 2 cameras are reasonably similar so I'd say it will work out fine. There is one thing to keep in mind, and that is the end resolution you want to go for. Whatever image you import as the first file in the input sequence to Siril will be the reference image, and all images will we warped and transformed to match that. So if you want the stack to have the pixel scale of the 533, input a 533 sub first or vice versa for the 585 data.

The backyard universe spider assembly is that CNC machined solid piece right? I dont see how that could do this since it pretty much guarantees a central (to the tube) secondary. How high is the target? Cant figure out from the example image what it is. Anyhwere within i would say 10-15 degrees of Polaris will be tricky if there is cone error and personallh i think its too much trouble to shoot there. My setup wont really even plate solve and go-to properly too close to the pole. Wish i could offer better advice for the last part, but i have had repeated weird issues from night #1 onwards more than 3 years ago 😐. I have accepted that this is how it goes, for better or for worse.

If you have a lot of cone error, you get this. Also, the closer you are pointing to the celestial pole the stronger the effect becomes. My setup has enough cone error to cause a roughly 2 degree rotation change pre/post meridian when imaging M81 for example, but the difference in diffraction spikes is not really at all noticeable in that case so you probably have some serious amount. I think severe polar alignment issues will also cause "effective cone error" like this, but it would have to be pretty bad and you would notice it in guiding performance. Since its a newtonian you could be out of collimation, which will introduce cone error as the light path is not exactly central through the mirrors then. Has this ever occured before? If not, my bet is something was knocked out of alignment. Or something too simple to think of, like the scope not sitting well in the mount clamp and something like that.

There was an update a few days ago and something may have been broken by it. A number of people have reported issues with tools related to mosaicing for example. But it will be slow anyway, at least its way too slow on my PC so i dont bother. I have had the Astrometric Solution box ticked off from the Lights tab in WBPP when i stack with it so it doesn't stall on that process forever.

You can put the dewed up eyepiece in your pocket to warm up for a few minutes and use another eyepiece in the meanwhile, shouldn't take too long if you do the swap as soon as dew starts to form. For the scope lens you will need a long dew shield or a heating strip around the lens cell, or both if its really humid.

I think you misunderstood my point, either purposefully to make further fun of it or unintentionally because my idea didn't come across so well in text. Either way i dont think i should reply, but i am petty. I dont think you, or some other purely visual observer is likely to turn into an astrophotographer. What i meant is going forward those who pick up the hobby and buy their very first scope are likely to be more interested in imaging vs observing, at least compared to those who started the hobby 30 years ago. And this part i didn't want to write because its a bit morbid, but those who started the hobby 30 years ago are probably not around for as long as those who started the hobby today so in time this is the "evolution" of the average astronomy userbase where the purely visual observer is less common than it is today or was 30 years ago. I thought that was fairly obvious to read as my point between the lines. Its funny to me how you got so defensive, when my comment was not at all meant or written as an attack. The idea that imaging is somehow "superior" in general to visual was not at all what i said, it is what you wanted to interpret from it because you clearly think observing is superior. You say "To me visual observing is actually experiencing the night sky, while imaging is time spent obtaining a picture of it," . So from this i can gather that imagers just spend their time and not enjoy it, and the superior observer actually experiences the night sky which is apparently not what imagers do.

You managed to nicely deconstruct the entire comment. I'm sure you got my point, which is that over time i think imaging will keep getting more popular for a lot of reasons while observing less so. My point for arguing that imaging is a better use of my time (not someone else's) was easy to understand, yet you managed to make this about yourself and twist my words to something i did not mean to say.

I think that visual astronomy, or at least the purely visual crowd will keep becoming more and more unpopular as time goes on because of what has been mentioned many times over in the thread already: Light pollution, and generally technology progressing to the point where most people have a pretty good camera in their pockets at all times and the whole ordeal generally getting easier and easier as time goes on. What i dont believe for a second is that the crowd will disappear completely, there is a certain charm to visual observing which I'm sure will always have its fans. There is also the fact that those who started the hobby a few decades ago had no option to take images with their scopes, or at least not in the very easy way we do today with digital imaging. These veterans of the hobby are likely to keep doing what they have enjoyed for decades already, so probably feel no rush or allure to do astrophotography (as mentioned many times by several people in these threads). But those who start the hobby fresh today do have that option and i would argue most have a wish to take images of some kind through the telescope because they learned of the hobby by seeing an image posted somewhere in the internet. So in time the crowd will likely naturally evolve to be more astrophotography than visual (i will argue that it already is, even including the "silent observer" that does not post or talk about their adventures at the eyepiece online). I am not purely imaging, however i am mostly so at maybe 90-95% of my efforts under the stars are imaging related. I personally find it significantly easier to enjoy the hobby through imaging, and significantly more time efficient too. That last part sounds odd to most of you (probably), but hear me out. Imaging takes research before going out, planning the night, setting up the gear, babysitting the setup while it works its magic and also a small portion of EEVA as i watch the images come in. Then the work does not end after the clouds reappear and the night ends, i get to process the image however long i want so in effect the 5 hours under the stars can turn into dozens of hours of time that i still equate to astronomy time. Then at the end of all that there is an image that i can look at whenever i want to and where ever i am. With visual, the initial hurdle is a lot smaller in that i can simply put my telescope on an alt-az mount and be observing in a few minutes. But also the gains are much smaller in my opinion in that most objects are really just a puff of smoke in the eyepiece that takes some imagination and a certain type of mind to enjoy, which i do have and appreciate the views when considering that puff of smoke in the eyepiece spent potentially millions of years to reach my eye. My most used visual instrument would be my Nikon Aculons, which are 7x50 binoculars. No setup time and couldn't be easier to use, so really no reason not to while the imaging rig is ticking. Personally i am very interested in seeing nightvision hopefully become more affordable as time goes on. My idea of a perfect visual instrument would probably be some kind of image stabilized binocular system with night vision capabilities to make the best out of observing time.

The images show a moon and skyglow filter, which could improve contrast on the horsehead if it acts like a broad spectrum light pollution filter like the Baader moon and skyglow. I think this one is just mislabeled as a moon filter instead of a moonlight and skyglow filter.

Obviously the scope needs to be balanced in both axis for there to be any chance of using it with any stability. Did you buy the scope and mount as a package deal from a reputable seller? If so, the included counterweight(s) should absolutely be enough to balance the scope. If not, you definitely need more weights but its weird you didn't have them to begin with. If you bought the mount and scope separately, then yeah i suppose its not enough to have just that one small (3.4kg?) weight for the scope.

For a tripod, everything and anything on it consumes the supported weight. For just the mount head counterweights are excluded from the payload. But you should ignore whatever the manufacturer claims about the load. The claimed payload limits are not very helpful. For astrophotography you can typically cut in half the claimed number and youre pretty close.

I echo the advice regarding the tripod, if it is the aluminium one that is. Something must be done to stabilize that, or even replace with a steel tripod. Other than that, your best bet with imaging using this scope/mount combo is to go for northern targets at high declinations. The higher the better, because closer to the celestial poles the sky will move slower, and so be easier on a weak mount. It will not solve any issues with the mount, but will hide some of the symptoms in your images and you will have an easier time getting pleasing results.

Thank you Peter! New OSC cameras are pretty good, but i do wonder how different the image would be with mono. Surprising amount of Ha here even with just 1/4th of the pixels active for that. Thank you! 2-panel mosaicing is fairly straight forward with for example AstroPixelProcessor as long as there was enough overlap in the panels. You stack the images to their own panels and then let the mosaicing software figure out how to stitch them. Like you suspected the panels will look out of place if conditions changed significantly between them though, which is why i used the at the moment probably best tool - photometric mosaic script in PixInsight because there were changing sky brightness conditions for this night. There is a bit of user input required with the PI method (and you have to read the instructions to make sense of it all), but its not too difficult for a 2 panel image where you only have to make sure the one overlap area is sound.