ONIKKINEN

Thanks, maybe the reason why i feel its not nearly done and i feel mixed about it is how many processing tricks and little adjustments i had to make to make it a presentable image. Processing feels like walking on thin ice, one slip away between way too noisy or the faint outer edges disappearing and that is a telltale sign of not enough integration to pull the detail from. Also, if you're curious this is what it looked like at 6 hours although i would probably process that image differently if done today, but that's how it goes. Im sort of extrapolating from that image and this image that around 25 hours would get the result i have in my mind.

I revisited the mountain of unprocessed data that i have and put this together. Most of the 13 hours in this shot is not great in quality and shot from skies between SQM 18.5-20. Only a sliver of the data is from actually nice skies of closer to mag 21, but judging from how its going so far i will need a lot more of the good stuff to bring this swine of a target to justice. Shot with 8'' F/4.4 newtonian, TS- Maxfield 0.95 CC and Rising Cam IMX571 OSC camera. 30s and 60s subs at Gain 100 and 251. Also shot on 2 different mounts 😁. This is my go-to testing target so acquisition is a mixed bag of different ideas and troubleshooting efforts, but since this is always visible from my latitude its a great calibration target. Subs were bayer split after calibration resulting in somewhere around 4000-5000 subs to stack and recompose into a colour image. All of that done in Siril and then i attempted some luminance and colour processing in PS to maybe tickle some extra stuff out of it. Not sure if that worked, but it didn't make the image worse so maybe it did, also i resampled down to 2.3'' per pixel to maybe improve noise somewhat. Its very much a work in progress and i intend to at least double the integration over the next season and see if the faint outer regions start to make an appearance without a nuclear stretch that brings out all of the noise. Comments, critique and ideas welcome!

I would say dither, but you already do that. Perhaps the amount and frequency of your dithers are not enough? Judging from the fact that there still is clear walking noise points to your current dithers being insufficient. 1 dither for every 10 minutes sounds a bit optimistic, maybe half that to no more than 5 minutes per dither but preferably maybe 3 minutes per dither. For processing later if for some reason going back and shooting more is not possible (like this time of year) i dont know of any foolproof method. Attempting to denoise the pattern away turns the image into a painting, but desaturating the background could work OK. The pattern on my 550D is somewhat biased towards purple so selecting that colour in PS and desaturating can improve the image. Then select background and desaturate and it could salvage the mess, but if it was really bad its not going away.

Interesting result, but maybe not that surprising given that expensive apochromat lenses are probably cared to better than inexpensive achromat lenses are. The idea of a cheap achromat for some purposes is alluring but if the lenses are lemons and the focuser is plastic its not worth it. I wonder if there is a model of achromat scope out there with good lenses, but just with CA. Vixen or one of the longer bresser ones maybe? Would be interesting to compare a good achromat and a good apochromat in this way and my gut says it would be near impossible to figure out which was the 300€ scope and which the 1000€ one.

How is the focuser in your scope? If its not rock solid 100% reproducible with every accessory you have, you will simply not have good reproducibility in collimation. I thought my focuser was OK until i fitted a baader diamond steeltrack to my scope and found out just how much better than OK a good focuser can be (in truth the focuser i had was kinda bad). The laser and cheshire you used are, i would imagine, different lengths so they are at different focuser positions or just at different distances from the primary. If you have any side-to-side movement when racking the focuser in and out you will also have different collimation readouts at different focus positions so you will again be unable to get a result that agrees with some other method. You could try to eliminate the sideways movement but that might not be possible. I find that i need to collimate with the laser at the focal plane and the focuser at the same position as a camera would be, and also most importantly, through the coma corrector. Collimation without the coma corrector is irrelevant if the corrector sits in the focuser when imaging, so i collimate through that with a laser. Try setting up a bunch of extenders and spacers with your laser to make it be basically a camera replacement and have the laser originate from the focal plane and see if you start getting some reproducibility.

Lots of reasons posted already why this time of year is not great for DSOs, but ill chime in on the expectations part. I too was sorely disappointed when trying to look for DSOs for the first time with both my 130mm and 200mm newtonians, but found that over time an attitude adjustment made the disappointing smudges into exciting smudges. I was trying to match the faint object in the eyepiece to something i had seen online, but this is a hopeless endeavor and it just will never look the same as a picture online - the 2 fields of observing and imaging are hardly comparable and this is something i suspect most beginners dont realize. Then i tried to not match the object into anything i had seen but just tried to observe the most detail i could from them and this makes it enjoyable. Not trying to "progress" or "tick boxes" of milestones makes the act of observing a visually not-that-exciting puff of smoke in the eyepiece much more enjoyable. Even though primarily i do astrophotography and try to create the most exciting picture i can, the rare treat of observing faint smudges occupies about an equal part of my fondest memories in the hobby. Then start thinking about the brain shattering distances involved. Why would i be disappointed that this bunch of photons from another galaxy isn't brighter. It traveled millions of years to reach my eye. MILLIONS! Its a miracle there is anything at all!

I see how it is, a scope for every occasion and why not a couple of scopes for the same occasion when you feel like it. I ordered the rich field scope because thats what i wanted but then figured i might as well use it for solar and get solar observing equipment for that. But then i of course thought that what if i had a long refractor too to be better suited for solar and maybe lunar and maybe a maksutov for plan... i have to STOP 🤣. Thankfully my disposable income has been well and truly disposed of so not even a sliver of a chance that there will be another scope so soon.

At a quick glance the second image has an unfortunate silouette...

Huh, thats weird that there was no ND3 filter included. Mine is from astroart-store.fi and has a preinstalled ND3 filter in it. Weird that its sold without one as even with the ND3 in the wedge it isnt enough dimming for viewing according to everything i have read.

Be careful with the plastic bits around the pegs, they break off easily! I broke all 3 from mine on a cold night out.

Since you're currently in Finland, have a look at this scope from a Finnish retailer: https://www.astroart-store.com/product/2170/founder-optics-106mm-f6-f636mm-triplet-refractor Never heard of Founder optics but from the surface looks like a Long Perng scope in a different colour. 106mm/636mm and comes with a 1x flattener.

Postman brought a Lunt 1.25'' Herschel wedge: Sadly, what was not included was the Baader solar continuum filter, or the scope to put the wedge in😬. The solar continuum filter seems to be out of stock everywhere so will have to make do without it. I have a red #25 filter and a #80A filter, along with some neutral density filters to try with. Some combination of these should cull chromatic aberration and dim the image to safer viewing. Or the scope is in post long enough for the filter to arrive, who knows!

Quick hop outside to see Jupiter rise with the 7x50 Aculons and could just about see some moons pop out against the light blue background. I am sure i saw at least 2, maybe 3. Wont say there was a 4th. Very difficult to spot since the skies are lit up so brightly but its something at least! Also, some noctilucent cloud. Last year i had seen NLCs with vibrant spinal structures and filaments on filaments several times by July, but this year they have eluded me and these ones are the best ones so far. Didn't think of imaging them back then, thought they were more common but i managed to snap a picture of them this time with a 550D and a kit lens. 6 quick panels stitched in microsoft ICE:

You could also connect your laptop to your mount with a USB -B printer style cable. You can plug it into the mount or to the bottom of your hand controller. Should you use the USB to hand controller route, you dont need EQMOD or the proprietary cable and you can also initiate go-to from either the HC or your laptop and both are aware of where the mount is pointing. Most prefer EQMOD (i dont), but just saying there is a way with just USB.

The second one looks a bit green, at least on a phone screen. Other than that it does look much deeper with far better visibility of the nebula.

Are you aware of the reputation the 294MC has? I dont own one so its purely third party advice from my part but i have browsed forums enough to see the same kind of thread pop up consistently regarding weird gradient this, flats problem that, 294MC disappointnent and quirky and so on. You might not get the simplicity you are after. If i were buying a camera today i would choose the 1600MM over the 294MC. As for the filter question, yes you will need one as the camera has none of its own and with a refractor you really dont want to let in the extremes of UV and IR.

Probably just the raw frame, so no debayering used. Colour cameras output a monochrome image with the bayer matrix on top, which looks like a checkerboard pattern over the image. Only after debayering is there any colour in the image at all, and since debayering uses interpolation that will change pixel values/guess them, it is not helpful for guiding.

An eyepiece with good eye relief and a wide field of view does wonders to reduce the squinting effect. With my pentax XW10mm the experience is very smooth and easy to my eye which is not at all the case with a simple plössl for example. Still just one eye though, but the difference in comfort (and price...) is huge.

I am unfortunately sometimes a neanderthal when handling equipment. Many telescope shaped dents in my walls, corners, my car door 🙄 and so on... I trust the product but not myself with it.

Yes, this is what i will do. Convenient excuse to buy the solar continuum filter as i was already eyeing it for lunar photography with a mono camera to help with seeing. For visual, its green though? Does it bother you at all or is the extra contrast clearly winning in this argument? I reckon it would also help with chromatic aberration since the scope will be a 90mm ED F5.5 and will definitely have some chromatic aberration when viewed at high power.

Hmm i had not considered the fragility of foil type filters discussed in that thread. Think ill rather go for a wedge then. I already have some eye damage from various stupid teenager things like watching magnesium burn and welding without goggles and would want to limit the damage to that. Nothing major, just a few extra floaters that pop up every now and then but still, lesson learned.

Why is there so much price difference between that Lunt wedge and say this one: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p8732_Lacerta-1-25--Herschel-Prism-Set-with-ND3-Filter-and-Adapters.html Just premium kit vs not so much premium kit or some other kind of difference in how they work? Yep, what i had in mind. Couple of zipties to act as shadows and something to project that on. Easy to make and costs nothing at all.

I want to observe the sun with a 90mm aperture refractor, what is the way to go? I see there are foil filters, full aperture glass filters, masked partial aperture glass filters, Herschel wedge diagonals, blocking filters at the eyepiece side and so on. As i understand it no kind of eyepiece threaded filter only will do the trick but some kind of full aperture thing (or the wedge?) is needed. Looking to not spend a fortune but dont have set in stone budget, but around a couple hundred euros or thereabouts would have to do the trick. I see there are a number of options with this kind of budget but have no clue what is the best way to go.

Looks very nice and sturdy, but perhaps a bit too bulky for what i had in mind. When i bring out the big guns i am going out with an AZ-EQ6 and an 8 inch newtonian with all the related astrophotography gear so there is a mountain of stuff to be hauled already. The ED90 on the AZ5 will just tag along for the ride for little to no extra gear to be hauled so i reckon it might actually get used more than the big guy because its easier to handle.

I survived the urge to get another scope... by buying another scope 😆 This one: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p11438 Looks right about what i had in mind, and is (suspiciously) cheap. Well see how i get on with it, but since its my first refractor it is guaranteed to also be the best refractor i have ever owned so probably will not be disappointed. I also threw in an AZ5 to complete the grab and go setup. I should be able to stuff all of that into a large backpack and set off wherever, whenever i feel like it without much in the way of excuses to not bring it with me.