Imaging advice please

[ScubaMike]

I am just embarking on imaging and would like some advice.

I see lots of fabulous photos, all, I presume, requiring much work to capture & process.

How much of this can you actually see visually?

Do you see a poor visual, capture several (hundred/thousand) images and combine to get the final result?

How much detail is actually visible when *manually* viewing?

I have just moved up to a 150p and would like to capture some images now that I have a *real* telescope, but am quite in the dark(if you will pardon the pun) about where to start.

I have no issues finding and tracking objects.

I have investigated getting an SPC900NC, modified to fit the telescope, but with no further modifications. Is this a reasonable start?

What should I use to capture the shots? camera settings, software etc etc. How should I then process the images?

Basically treat me like a complete beginner (which of course - I am).

Any advice is good advice, and please don't feel you are stating the obvious.

ScubaMike

[JohnnyD333]

Hey Mike,

You are going down a long road that can be quite challenging but extremely rewarding if you stick with it. Your setup is great to start off with. Using your webcam and having a mount that tracks can produce quality shots of the moon and planets. Make sure to download the big 3 (Deep Sky Stacker, Registax, and Stellarium) which I believe are all free. Every object has different settings and there are many more qualified people who will give you precise instructions on those. It is best to start off with a webcam and get the planetary stuff first, hell there are people on SGL that get DSOs with a webcam. If you become passionate about imaging, which tends to happen around here, then the next step is a DSLR and an Autoguider. These can be pricey and I wouldnt venture down that path unless you have the commitment and passion for it. You will spend hours on photos, capturing and processing, but I love it and Im sure you would feel the same. Good luck on you journey in the imaging field, it really is worth it in the end.

[ScubaMike]

Thanks for the encouragement Johnny,

Already downloaded stellarium (It was that which got me out at 3am this morning to view Jupiter!).

Will look to d/l the others.

[ollypenrice]

Deep sky and planetary imaging are two entirely different things as suggested above. With a webcam your 'tracking' is, in effect, done afterwards when hundreds or thousands of images are aligned and stacked. The individual frames are so short as not to need tracking.

When you say, 'I have no issues finding and tracking objects' any deep sky imager will turn round and say, 'Oh yes you do!!' The degree of tracking precision required in long exposure deep sky imaging is extraordinary. Short sub exposures of a couple of minutes can be caught unguided but that is limiting and many exposures will be thrown in the bin. More serious deep sky imaging needs an autoguider to correct the tracking in real time. In order to achieve the very best tracking, amateur imagers with the means to do so can and do spend £10,000 on high end mounts. Don't panic, you don't have to spend that but it shows how important the tracking is! We are aiming to track with sub pixel precision and pixels are not very big...

You can read up on deep sky imaging by reading Steve Richards' book Making Every Pixel Count. He is the ever helpful Steppenwolf on SGL.

DS imagers can use either a DSLR camera, sometimes modified to be more sensitive in the deep red, or dedicated cooled CCD cameras which can take very long exposures at higher sensitivity and price. Yes, price does keep coming into it!

Olly

ollypenrice's Photos

[RikM]

Visually through an eyepiece in a 150P you can 'see' a great many objects, but appart from the moon, you will not get the same level detail by eye as you will with a camera. (The moon seen through a scope is something wonderful!)

While collecting all the frames you need to build up a good image, each individual frame shows more than can be seen by eye, but you don't get the full effect until they are calibrated, stacked and processed.

If objects are bright enough to find and observe manually, you should be able to get images using 30 - 90sec subs unguided with a DSLR. Stack them with Deep Sky Stacker ready for processing. When/if you want to get into the serious deep sky stuff you will want a serious mount with an autoguider to allow longer exposures and either a modded DSLR or CCD camera to pick up the very faint signal.

To start out with a webcam on the moon is a good move. Planets will require a barlow to get the image scale somewhere usable. Registax is a good application for stacking and initial processing of your avi files. there are planty of tutorials out there to talk you through how to use this.

[ScubaMike]

Olly,

I didn't mean to denegrate the effort that I know goes into accurate tracking. Perhaps I should have said "I have had no issues tracking objects visually". I appreciate that this may be far from the accuracy required for detail in extremely faint objects requiring long exposure times.

Rik,

Thanks for the asdvice - I'll be acting on it.

[Psychobilly]

Good advice

Has Steve got a new book out ? I have a copy of Making Every Photon Count and its superb

[ollypenrice]

Olly,

I didn't mean to denegrate the effort that I know goes into accurate tracking. Perhaps I should have said "I have had no issues tracking objects visually". I appreciate that this may be far from the accuracy required for detail in extremely faint objects requiring long exposure times.

Rik,

Thanks for the asdvice - I'll be acting on it.

No I was just trying to be amusing. But sometimes people do think that having an object sit in the middle of the EP for a few hours means they have photographic tracking and I was just being sure you knew this wasn't so. I wish it were!

Olly

[RikM]

Just re-read the OP. Sharpcap is a good program for controling the Phillips webcam. I run it on a little netbook with my Skymax.

[ollypenrice]

Good advice

Has Steve got a new book out ? I have a copy of Making Every Photon Count and its superb

Doh, you got me!!

Apologies to Steve.

Olly