CKemu

21 minutes ago, Erling G-P said:

Very cool!  Which scope did you use for the image ?  Would like to have a go at it myself, but if you used the Meade, there's probably not much point, as the target will be too small for my 200mm Newton

Ahh, sorry - I should have mentioned the scope in the post - I used the Esprit 100ED - so this is the view with a 550 mm focal length. Good luck giving it a go and clear skies!

SN2020zqv - discovered by the Zwicky Transient Facility at the Palomar Observatory in California on the 31st of March this year.

This is my photograph of the event, taken tonight. I have marked the nova in the main image and the zoomed insert. (Host galaxy is 4568, nova is around mag 15)

Image is 14x600s exposures in Red using my ATIK414ex. Conditions where poor, cloud and 25 mph gusts of wind made tracking a pain. Also my ATIK414ex has developed a grim flaw in it's imaging sensor, so I cropped that out.

Camera is an ATIK 414ex mono

Two weeks ago I had the camera and scope out for photographing the Fish head nebula, and managed a successful session with no issues.

Past few nights I have been photographing the Heart Nebula, and noticed that the image had a few curved black lines through it, they morphed over time, but eventually vanished. However I am noticing that I've got this pattern to the right of the image, that whilst the noise varies, you can see it's leaving a distinct impression on the image. This is a single 1 second sub to show the noise. Though it shows up on the 20-30 minute exposures I have been using, the white in the right third of the image is just a star.

Any thoughts as to what could cause this change in behaviour? Nothing about my configuration has changed compared to the last imaging sessions. Really hoping not, but suspect the camera has developed a fault. 

Rather than making a new thread, I thought I'd drop this here with the original images. Ended up playing with Star Net++ and Photoshop to remove all the stars from the image. I love the fact that your focus is now solely drawn to the nebula. Why I have only just heard of Star Net now is beyond me. But glad I have.

Lovely image, it's been my target for the past few nights! Impressed you managed to keep the core with 4 minute subs, or did you have shorter subs to?

4 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

Yes. Very nice indeed. And as others have said, very natural colours. 

I've never done a panel. How do you make sure you can't see the join? 

I use a couple of tricks:

1) I have about a 25-30% overlap, to ensure that Photoshop's photomerge or Microsofts' Image Composite Editor (ICE) can stitch.
2) If using PS, I make sure it's set to "reposition", so it doesn't distort the image in any way, and blending is set to on.
3) Each panel I "calibrate", so if P1 is my reference, then when I stack P2, I check that the same points between images (normally background space near a recognizable star formation) have the same grey value, so if P1 reads 44,44,44 then the same region in the overlap on P2 should also read 44,44,44 - or very close, if not, I go back to DSS, darken/brighten accordingly and resave the image.

I also recommend if you are doing a colour image, build your colour composites after the above process, and then stitch the colour raw images together, this helps with overall alignment.  

Six hours later and I managed to grab two more panels to give me the running man, this is by far the largest image I have produced (in terms of x*y dimensions). Perhaps to balance the image a bit better, I should do a run that fills out the space at the top. Though that may be a decade from now with how the weather goes.

It has been six months since I last used the telescope! Urghh that sentence is heart wrenching, but between the awful wet weather, running a bar (this time of year, it's only open evenings) and moving house - I simply haven't had chance.

It was hard enough remembering how to configure the telescope, and my guiding was "SLOPPY", 0.8"-1.2" for long periods, and then periods of 2"-3", so those stars aren't perfect - but honestly the sheer joy of getting back out there and imaging overrides the usual stress about perfection, and went with whatever came my way.

My new location is more "in town", it's not bad, but it's not as good as the empty beach I used to image from, that and my Southern window is smaller, so I expect to image more "Northern" objects over the next year or so.

Anyhow this is my first serious crack at M42, it was one of the first things I ever looked at, and had a bash at imaging, but despite it being the ever popular winter target, I've never really bothered with it in the time since,.

This image is made from four panels, imaged over three nights. Each panel being 12 x 300 s in R, G, B with no flats/bias or other faff, just straight up, 12 hours of data, stacked in DSS, and combined/stitched in Photoshop, and tonight might be clear to, so going to slew left and capture in that direction.

I left the core blown out, I did shoot short exposures for the trapezium, but I confess, I like it blown out, it gives it a proper sense of brightness to me.

Thank you for looking, if it happens to be clear tonight, I shall post my results from that in this thread.

14 minutes ago, almcl said:

You can use the FOV calculator (http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/) to see what the image will look like, but another thing to consider is your mount's guiding performance. 

At 1.38 " per pixel imaging (490 on the Espirit 100) the recommendation is to be guiding at half that so .69 " RMS error in PHD2 (if you use that).  My AltAz EQ6 sometimes achieves that level of accuracy but there are also nights when it doesn't.  What mount are you using currently and what sort of guiding performace does it achieve?

 

Thanks for that. I use the NEQ6 with PHD2 and the ASI120mm as a OAG gives me a range of 0.58" on good nights and with stronger wind conditions, I get up to 1.2", I average around 0.7", so that's within threshold.

I just ran it through https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability to, and that gives me a Green in "OK" and "poor" seeing, and reasonable in "Good".

Hi!

So currently running an ATIK 414ex with my Esprit 100ED and Meade LX90 8", and mostly keeping my deep sky work to the Esprit. The ATIK 414ex has a resolution of 1392x1040 with 6.45um pixels, and it's a great camera, but I've had interest in making DSO images that are of a more printable resolution, and 1.44mp isn't really going to cut it.

Now my budget won't stretch far, but I am looking at the ATIK 490ex, 3380x2704 resolution with 3.69um pixels (9.1mp, which is closer to something printable).

I am curious as to how the small pixel size will effect overall resolution, I get the overall gist that shorter FL's do better with smaller pixels..but looking for the hive mind to help me out here.

How will image quality be affected with the Esprit, would it be worth holding on to the 414ex for the Meade 8" setup?

Any help and thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
 

First time seeing and then imaging this object. Given the weather I decided to try and do the RGB in one night, so this is made from 180s x 60 (20 per channel). One thing I didn't take in to consideration, was shooting the blue when it got in to the muck on the horizon, so the data there got a little fuzzier.

Wind was also a factor for once, I've found with the Esprit that wind speeds can be quite high and tracking isn't too bad, but every now and then (couple of minutes apart), I'd get a good 30mph gust.

I am still trying to find methods for star reduction, this has had a "minimum" filter applied to the tars to reduce some of the stretch/bloat, and whilst smaller stars would be nice, I kind of enjoy the overall brightness and richness of the star field, it's extremely rare I shoot this directly in to the Milky Way..

Otherwise, very little processing, just a stretch and pretty much done.

Messier 13 imaged with my Esprit 100ED and ATIK414ex using Baader RGB filters (30x240s in each channel). I have Bortle class 4 skies here, but I also have neighbours who love two VERY bright halogen lights, a street lamp and of course the Moon was about last night and the night before.

NGC6207 and IC4617 are clearly visable, despite the insane distance involved with IC4617, which is very pleasing, as I've only ever tackled this object with my LX90 8" SCT. I am also enjoying "find the galaxies", and noticed a small cluster of them mid right, not looked them up yet, but always a thrill to capture more than you bargained for.
 

On 16/02/2019 at 12:45, vlaiv said:

Don't think you need to be concerned with this - this is something that flats can easily remove.

I've found similar thing with my ASI1600 - but not in form of vertical stripes - more like checkerboard pattern.

Here is H alpha flat (not solar, but regular Ha filter for night time imaging):

Pattern is readily shown, but it calibrates out with use of flats.

I think such artifacts are consequence of manufacturing process - micro lenses or something else when creating sensor on silicon can lead to this. Even additional circuitary between pixels - maybe not each pixel is exactly the same size - some of them might have small part of pixel dedicated to integrated circuits for readout or amp stage.

Thanks for that, flats I'd considered for dust etc, but removing the vertical stripes I'd not considered, need to figure out how to take a solar flat, but otherwise this does seem like a reasonable solution. I am surprised at the "intensity" of the column response every other line - seems excessive/abnormal, so still waiting upon ZWO to make a response on their support forum.

Recently purchased a the 290mm through FLO and broke the astronomers curse by actually having a clear day to use it within the same week of purchase! Madness!

However whilst taking it for a test run on my Coronado Solarmax II 60 (BF10) I discovered that upon stacking and normal processing the sensor displays vertical bands every other pixel, they aren't solid, but it's as if the chip is reading every other column as darker on average.

This happens with or without gain, independent of number of frames stacked, or software used, attached is a "raw" image and one that's had levels and a sharpen applied. It shows faintly in the raw and obviously enhanced with the sharpen.

I have also attached one that's 5x zoom, just for clarity and detail.

I have checked all software/drivers, they're current and tried different USB ports with no change in results.
Did a little research and found about 4/5 of the way down in the following link, the page talks about pixel response non uniformity. http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/CMOSvsCCD/index.html - But I would not have expected it to be this apparent, and so badly interfering with processing/the image.

I've posted on the ZWO support forums, and await a response - but thought I'd share here for discussion and thoughts.

FireCapture v2.6 Settings
------------------------------------
Observer=Chris Kennedy
Location=Cornwall
Scope=Coronado Solarmax II
Camera=ZWO ASI290MM(80453643)
Filter=L
Profile=Sun
Filename=Sun_112444.ser
Date=150219
Start=112414.267
Mid=112444.274
End=112514.281
Start(UT)=112414.267
Mid(UT)=112444.274
End(UT)=112514.281
Duration=60.014s
Date_format=ddMMyy
Time_format=HHmmss
LT=UT 
Frames captured=338
File type=SER
Binning=no
ROI=1936x1096
ROI(Offset)=0x0
FPS (avg.)=5
Shutter=100.0ms
Gain=15 (2%)
Brightness=1 (off)
AutoHisto=75 (off)
AutoGain=off
FPS=100 (off)
AutoExposure=off
SoftwareGain=10 (off)
USBTraffic=100 (off)
Gamma=50 (off)
HighSpeed=off
Histogramm(min)=29
Histogramm(max)=219
Histogramm=85%
Noise(avg.deviation)=n/a
Limit=60 Seconds
Sensor temperature=22.6°C