Ouroboros

@DSOBug. That looks a very nice set up. Looks like your guiding is working and the stars are round out to the edges. Are you planning to stick with the DSLR for the time being or have you got your sights on a dedicated astro camera? Anyway, you should have some fun capturing some wide-field shots.

It’s ZWO’s new telepathic mode. You have to believe in it otherwise it doesn’t work.

I’ve just been looking at your image again, @R26 oldtimer, and have realised just how small a part of the Soul nebula it shows. It’s amazingly sharp. Good for a scope costing less than 300 quid isn’t it.

That really is good. Dark and menacing. 21hours. Phew!

If different applications produce more or less the same result then surely the two remaining considerations are ease of use and how long it takes. The former of those two is a matter of personal preference. As for the latter, does DSS do local normalisation? That seems to be the most lengthy process in WBPP. Also drizzle - not that I use that.

Very interesting question, @Bluemoonjim. It’s also one I can’t answer because frankly life has been too short to do a comparative test. But you have I assume, and you find no difference? Interesting. Mind you, I suppose there’s no reason in principle why there should be. I used to use DSS and then processed in Photoshop. I then got into Pixinsight and it seemed natural to try and preprocess the Pixinsight way. I did it manually for some years, which was incredibly slow, but it taught me a lot about what it’s doing and why. When more recently WBPP was enhanced to its current excellent state it seemed so easy compared with doing it manually that I never thought to compare it with DSS. What I like about WBPP is the way it correctly associates the relevant lights, darks, and flats from a mix of files. Actually, I’ve only ever done OSC, but I can see how useful WBPP might be when dealing with a whole bunch of subs corresponding to different filters and their appropriate calibration files. I really appreciate WBPP’s flow diagrams showing how different files will be processed at each stage because it is very useful when making sure it’s all going to work correctly before hitting the start button. I am interested to hear the thoughts of others on your question. PS. Adam Block’s collection of free YouTube videos entitled the Definitive Guide to WBPP are excellent. They’re split into different aspects like OSC and narrowband. Search for them in YouTube.

Certainly, @LaurenceT. Here in Oxfordshire I decided it was a binocular night. Jupiter and bright stars like Vega were sitting in a halo of glow. Pity because looking at the long term forecast, last night was the only one that offered the prospect of being clear for the foreseeable. 😐

I’ve been watching the weather all day to see if the promise of clear skies as forecast by the Beeb came true. Well, it’s clear in as much as I can see stars, but it’s very hazy. So I decided against setting up and contented myself with a stroll outside with the bins before bedtime. Moon looked good. Night all.

That really is a good capture! Was it really that clear in the early hours? I missed it.

Interesting question this. I also have the same problem here. I must say I’ve always assumed I was stuck with it so choose a target that doesn't have that problem. I guess you could just leave it running regardless and throw away the duff images. On the other hand what does the ASI do when it loses guiding for some length of time? Or rather more importantly can it re-establish lock once the stars are back in view again? It can if the stars go out of view for a short time. What it does after longer periods of lost guiding I don’t know.

If I had a Tak it would sleep in bed with me. 😉

I have kept my SW 200p reflector in my astronomy shed for many years. (10?) I store it vertically placed on a square of insulating sleeping roll mat (Mountain Warehouse) on a square piece of wood just to keep it off the wooden floor of the shed. OK some of the screws and what not have gone a bit rusty, but it doesn’t appear to have affected it optically or mechanically. I have sometimes kept my SW Evostar ED80 fully loaded with guide scope and camera in the shed for convenience between sessions. Mostly I bring the whole assemblage indoors though. Mainly for security reasons.

Thanks for your comments. The dust surprised me too. I assume it’s the OSC that pulls it in. When I first re-processed it I didn’t notice the dust until I was well down the processing path. I then realised I might have killed some of the dust when I did DBE at the very very start. This is a very rich area for stars and the dust was completely obscured behind them when I first applied DBE. So I went back and started processing from square 1. The first thing I did was to separate the stars. This is something I normally only do after spectrophotometric calibration, blurXterminator and noiseXterminator, and just before stretching to non-linear. I did the DBE on the starless image by carefully avoiding the dusty bits. I then recombined with the star image and carried on with colour calibration, blurxterminator etc. Anyway, I think that workflow worked with this particular image. You’re right, the image is disappointingly soft - especially Pacman itself. I had several goes with rangemasks doing just as you suggest. It was a matter of applying just enough before some ugly artefacts crept in. I used local histogram equalisation and dark structure enhance script. It’s a lot better than where it started, but a tad under sharp I agree. More data might help. Actually, I’ve recentky bought an Ha/OIII dual band filter so it might be worth trying that. Where the range masking really helped was in applying TGVN noise reduction to the dust.

That’s an amazing difference and improvement @teoria_del_big_bang isn’t it? Like you I’ve only recently realised how useful it is to return to previously processed data. Not only does it help keep my skills fresh but also I’ve picked up new techniques in the mean time and there have often been technical improvements to the software.

NGC281 Pac-Man Nebula. Yes, I know it’s rotated, but that’s how I prefer it. The three hours of OSC data was obtained in Cornwall in September 2022 with my ZWO ASI2600MC on my SW 80ED. I processed it last year but wasn’t happy with the result. Since then I’ve developed some of my processing skills and acquired some of Russell Croman’s add-ons to Pixinsight. I am quite pleased I managed to preserve and boost the dust. I’m less content with the colour and detail of Pacman nebula itself. I would welcome comments and suggestions. The previous 2022 version looked like this …

Yes, there seems to be a gap in support for Mac users as far as planetary imaging is concerned*. A gap that isn’t there for deep sky. * Unless someone knows differently.

Good image, @Matt S. I can’t comment on instrumental limitations or processing because I have very limited experience of planetary. It looks about as good as I ever managed with my 200p. (8”). Did you also process the image using your MacBook? Last time I tried there still weren’t good planetary processing apps for macs. I had to resort to Windows, but I no longer have access to a Windows machine.

My sympathies, @Swoop1. Having recently recovered from a week long nasty cold I know exactly what you mean. I saw several clear nights go by unused. Hope you feel better soon.

Yes. I’m the same. I want to see real satellite and rain radar data so I can make my own local forecast as to what the weather might do. The MET site did that until they changed, after which I could not be certain what was real and what was modelled data. So I ditched ‘em and found SAT24.

Thanks, @Craney. Is that the App or the website. I’ve used the website ever since the MET office version became IMO unusable. Howver, I didn’t like the look of what SAT24 have done. It doesn’t seem to fit properly on an iPad screen. Maybe I should take another look at it.

Yes, that was my thinking when processing an image of the crescent nebular recently. I applied a range mass and only applied scnr to the background. That seemed to help.

That’s helped I think. It might even have sharpened up the nebula a tad too. The thing I’ve found with the crescent nebula is the image is overwhelmed by stars. I should maybe revisit my attempt and this time separate the stars from nebula and process each separately.

That really is nice. Is that the Hubble pallet? It amazes me that you took the data last night. Processed it and produced a final result. It would take me about three weeks and would look about a quarter as good.

It’ll help. The disadvantage being more files to process of course. Have you tried some star reduction, blur exterminator or equivalent? Anyway, I don’t want to sound overly negative about the stars when it’s such a nice image.

I like the colours. Did you use guiding? The stars look a tad elliptical.