The "No EQ" DSO Challenge!

[The Admiral]

9 minutes ago, Filroden said:

Not yet.

I look forward to seeing what a proper astro camera can produce Ken.

I'm not sure I'd like to dispense with an all-in-one unit though, and the thought of doing LRGB doesn't excite me! Good luck with your new venture. There have been some interesting reports of micro-PCs being strapped to the OTA to avoid issues with laptops being used out of doors and to minimize a trailing cable jungle.

Ian

[Nigel G]

1 minute ago, The Admiral said:

In addition to close cropping, I tried upping the wipe aggressiveness a lot to get rid of apparent gradients, but who knows whether that got rid of nebula as well. I also tend to use a dark anomoly filter setting of 10 or 15, don't know if that helps.

Cheers, Ian

Ian

I used dark anomaly setting 6 and found upping the aggressiveness was losing sharpness and nebula, but upped it to 85 % anyway.  Then straight into isolate , getting the mask for isolate is very tricky, can take quite some time but worth it.

I wonder what it would be like if I missed out wipe and went directly to isolate ??? hmm must try that now.

Cheers

Nige.

[Filroden]

45 minutes ago, The Admiral said:

I look forward to seeing what a proper astro camera can produce Ken.

I'm not sure I'd like to dispense with an all-in-one unit though, and the thought of doing LRGB doesn't excite me! Good luck with your new venture. There have been some interesting reports of micro-PCs being strapped to the OTA to avoid issues with laptops being used out of doors and to minimize a trailing cable jungle.

Ian

I pretty much have those issues with the DSLR. I use a laptop with a 3m USB cable as I found it easier to focus and frame on the laptop screen than on the camera's live view. I found my mount goto was much more accurate using the laptop, helping me centre objects first time.

I'm going to try a new set up now the nights are getting colder. The new camera needs power for cooling so I only have one extra cable to deal with. I can set up the laptop in the kitchen and both the USB and the power cable should reach the scope easily from there. I only have an easterly view from the garden anyway, so I don't have to worry about cable wrap. I also figure that the increased sensitivity of mono should mean I spend about the same time capturing LRGB as I did with OSC. I also don't need to pause between subs, whereas with the DSLR I would build in a 6 second pause to allow the mirror to lock up and for vibrations to settle.

I'm more worried about the processing. Calibrating, aligning and processing four images rather than one just means I have more opportunities to miss something or mess up something!

Anyway, still 100% cloud cover atm though it's not forecast to clear for another couple of hours. Scope is by the backdoor ready.

[SteveNickolls]

3 hours ago, Nigel G said:

"...Then straight into isolate , getting the mask for isolate is very tricky, can take quite some time but worth it.

I wonder what it would be like if I missed out wipe and went directly to isolate ??? hmm must try that now."

Cheers

Nige.

Hi Nige, after I've had some good, and some poor attempts using isolate in the StarTools' LIFE module can I ask what mask option you use for making your mask-is it the lasso or something else?

Cheers,
Steve

[Nigel G]

1 hour ago, SteveNickolls said:

Hi Nige, after I've had some good, and some poor attempts using isolate in the StarTools' LIFE module can I ask what mask option you use for making your mask-is it the lasso or something else?

Cheers,
Steve

Steve, I try different options for different dso's,  for the veil I used simular colour and simular brightness,  click on the nebula until mostly covered with a web of mask then grow until I'm happy, it will often fill the image while trying to fill the nebula so just undo last move and continue it seems to learn what your trying to cover,  the veil neb took about 20 minutes to mask. 

I tried missing wipe and doing isolate,  a big no go.. I also watched Ivo StarTools live on YouTube,  it's clear to me that what works for eq mounts and long tracked exposures  does not for alt-az mounts and short exp's , it's a completely different set of rules we have to learn. I mailed Ivo, he is keen to see some of our images to see the results that star tools can bring from alt az mounts. 

Cheers 

Nige.

[Nigel G]

I found this quote in StarTools forum,  must check this when stacking 

Any chance you could stack with Per Channel background calibration also 'no'? If left 'yes' it meddles with the colors and noise levels...

http://forum.startools.org/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=696&p=2826&hilit=alt+az+mount#p2826

Nige.

[SteveNickolls]

Hi Nige,

Thanks so much for this. Not tried the similar brightness or colour mask options so will give them a go, I think it also might be that I rush the mask step and then am unhappy with the end result, I need to be more precise. I'm also interested by what Ivo has said regarding Alt-Az images. I'd considered StarTools as being in somewhat of a dichotomy-meant to appeal both to advanced users (I took that to be the EQ hardened souls) as an alternative to the other products out there and beginners as StarTools was also, "attempting to lower the bar to entry into astrophotography". As a beginner I mistakenly interpretted that to mean Alt-Az imaging-Doh! 

In an interview made available on the Internet- https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/1n7p63/im_ivo_jager_uverylongtimelurker_author_of/

There Ivo makes it plain- 

"AP is for everyone, and I wanted to remedy a certain air of elitism that I felt hung around some communities;

• just because you've been doing AP for years, sunk a lot of money into it, or know how to operate a certain piece of software, doesn't mean that your work or opinions are automatically superior or even good.

• just because you haven't been doing AP for years, haven't sunk a lot of money into it, or don't know how to operate a certain piece of software, doesn't mean that your work or opinions are automatically inferior or bad.

• 'just buy a better mount' is not an acceptable answer to a request for help with, for example, rounding stars, nor is suggesting that anyone's efforts are inferior just because people have to make concessions to budget, imaging time, location or otherwise due to their circumstances - some of us have day jobs to take into account, some of us have families to spend quality time with, some of us have limited means, live in rentals, etc.

In short, I wanted to do away with the notion that you needed to have been "paying your dues" to get anywhere in this field. I wanted to create something that leveled the playing field a little - something that gave newbies a running start (ease of use) and ameliorated the influence of investment into time (learning curve), into gear (software solutions to hardware problems) and up-front money (ST is cheap and not-for-profit - I don't cover development and support costs by a longshot)."

I hear what you say about the YouTube video Nige and am enthused Ivo wants to see some of our images as he may be able to develop StarTools a little along what we need or give advice to us. I guess at the end of the day our data will mostly be among the poorest, quality-wise to develop considering the restrictions Alt-Az work places on data collection, but that's also part of the challenge-right? It will be fascinating to see what comes of this.

This is a market area that has somewhat of a vacuum in it right now-but it's a cheaper, accessible starting point for many and a good way to dip your toes into the practical world of astro-photography and see if it is for individuals. I see it as a market set to grow as mounts become more sophisticated and decent images can be made at the entry end of the hobby. Some of the equipment (the DSLR's are already in many households and thus) serve a dual purpose and help moderate costs. 

I hadn't seen the idea on the StarTools forum of stacking "Per channel background calibration as 'no'. Must take a look in DSS.

Good luck in your processing.

Cheers,
Steve

 

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by SteveNickolls

[The Admiral]

11 minutes ago, SteveNickolls said:

I hadn't seen the idea on the StarTools forum of stacking "Per channel background calibration as 'no'. Must take a look in DSS.

Good luck in your processing.

Cheers,
Steve

I think it's mentioned on p18 of the StarTools Manual Steve.

Ian

[SteveNickolls]

Thanks for that Ian,

I've checked my DSS settings and changed the, Per channel background calibration as 'no'. I'm going to reprocess my latest image of the Heart and Soul Nebulae and see if there's any noticeable change. I was sure I'd followed the suggested settings, though couldn't recall specific ones, it goes to show.

Cheers,
Steve

[The Admiral]

Steve, in the past did you use "Linear, was not Bayered or is whitebalanced" or "Linear, is Bayered, is not whitebalanced"? Presumably, if "Per channel background calibration" was set to "on" then the first option would be expected by ST, if "off", then, with your Bayer sensor, the second? If I understand things correctly (and that's a big if!)

Ian

[SteveNickolls]

Hi Ian,

 I have PM'd you over the likely cause of my DSS settings being different (I think it's because I have been reworking off some old DSS lists when I was experimenting with settings).

In the dim past when I worked on my first M31 image last December I tried both options in StarTools. However I have for a long time since only used the 'Linear, Was Bayered, Is not white balanced' (second) option in StarTools. As I mentioned earlier I think the change in DSS settings occurred very recently.

Here's the reworked Heart and Soul Nebulae image after changing the DSS settings back and then reprocessing the resulting file in StarTools and using Nige's mask ideas. The nebulosity is more pronounced-yes?

Cheers,
Steve

[The Admiral]

Yes, that's a much more emphatic nebula now Steve, though I suspect this has rather more to do with general processing than with switching off colour calibration.

Ian

Edited September 29, 2016 by The Admiral
Removed facetious comment!

[Nigel G]

I still am not a hundred % sure if I  use the correct opening tab in StarTools,  My camera is set to auto white balance so I use the first option is white balanced. 

Steve, yep both heart and soul are there, I must try my stack again, I have 3 hours of 60 and 90s subs with my 210mm lens. I need to take some flats and a few more darks to add to the stack,( Why didn't I think of doing that sooner) I'd given up hope with it as the noise and mainly gradients are awful.  The extra darks and flats might do the trick. 

In fact I think someone mentioned it recently but it didn't really sink in. I'm doing it right now.

Nige.

[wxsatuser]

On 27/09/2016 at 14:04, Nigel G said:

This is the image before any noise reduction work, Just binned, developed, cropped and a touch of HDR. and a load of noise

To me this looks much sharper but I loose the sharpness during noise reduction and further processing.

Theres a link to the fts at the bottom if anyone is bored and wants something to process  

 

https://1drv.ms/u/s!Av3mI1-jgAvwcIvZwbzjRcPwXIU

Had a go but could'nt get rid of the orangey/brown, PI could'nt shift.
Someone with more skill than me might do a lot better.

[Nigel G]

31 minutes ago, wxsatuser said:

Had a go but could'nt get rid of the orangey/brown, PI could'nt shift.
Someone with more skill than me might do a lot better.

Thanks for your image, nice colours in the nebula, there's very different final images from this stack, it needs many more subs to rid the noise levels, its on the list  

This is the best I could do using StarTools, it took a couple of hours to process, Its not bad considering the lack of exposure time. The trouble is it starts to look fake the more processing you do.

Cheers

Nige.

[wxsatuser]

There is a fair bit of data in there but I'm not the best processor in the world to get it out.

[SteveNickolls]

9 hours ago, The Admiral said:

Yup, I can see it now! Always helps to be able to reveal the target object in the image .

Ian

He, he perhaps I have discovered a new mask tool for StarTools.  Now if only I could invert it...!

Thanks everyone for the help btw. 

Cheers,
Steve

[SteveNickolls]

9 hours ago, Nigel G said:

"...I need to take some flats and a few more darks to add to the stack,( Why didn't I think of doing that sooner) I'd given up hope with it as the noise and mainly gradients are awful.  The extra darks and flats might do the trick." 

 

Nige.

Unsure how many flat frames and dark frames you already have but x50 of each will be fine. Again unsure what you do to combine different dark frame lengths when you have different light frame lengths as I have never tried that approach. Good luck trying. Do let us know how you get on.

Cheers,
Steve

Edited September 29, 2016 by SteveNickolls

[Filroden]

Just now, SteveNickolls said:

Unsure how many flat frames and dark frames you already have but x50 of each will be fine. Again unsure what you do to combine when you have different light frame lengths as I have never tried that approach. Good luck trying. Do let us know how you get on.

Cheers,
Steve

If I remember right, DSS has tabs you can load your different length subs into and it works it out from there. In PixInsight it scales the darks to match the lights (so long as the dark is at least as long as the longest light) as dark current should scale linearly. 

I've just taken a set of 120s darks as that covers me for anything I can do with my mount. 

[SteveNickolls]

2 minutes ago, Filroden said:

If I remember right, DSS has tabs you can load your different length subs into and it works it out from there. In PixInsight it scales the darks to match the lights (so long as the dark is at least as long as the longest light) as dark current should scale linearly. 

I've just taken a set of 120s darks as that covers me for anything I can do with my mount. 

Thanks for this Ken, very useful to know.

Cheers,
Steve

[The Admiral]

10 hours ago, Nigel G said:

I still am not a hundred % sure if I  use the correct opening tab in StarTools,  My camera is set to auto white balance so I use the first option is white balanced.

Nige, if you are stacking RAW frames then auto white-balance shouldn't affect the colour balance, as the colour balance is only applied to the creation of the JPEG. RAW is RAW data, though the file header will have information about the colour balance setting of the camera so that RAW developers can apply an appropriate setting from the off. In the case of DSS I shouldn't think it uses the header information, as the file interrogator used, DCRaw, should just read the channel information directly. That's my take on it anyway.

Ian

[The Admiral]

9 hours ago, Nigel G said:

Thanks for your image, nice colours in the nebula, there's very different final images from this stack, it needs many more subs to rid the noise levels, its on the list  

This is the best I could do using StarTools, it took a couple of hours to process, Its not bad considering the lack of exposure time. The trouble is it starts to look fake the more processing you do.

Cheers

Nige.

Looks good to me.

Ian

[Nigel G]

Heart and Soul attempt.

I added 50 flats and 65 dark- 15 @ 90s and 50 @ 60s I asked DSS to stack 66% of lights due to lots of disturbance on the left and especially top left, so 106 lights total time about 1h 45 mins.

DSS sorts all the frames into order so I just added all the darks in one mixed batch, same as lights.

There is a big difference to no flats and less darks, the new stack is workable although still noisy, I managed to find some detail in there, the lights are not that good, think I went to long on exp times. ( I checked through the darks and was surprised to see quite a difference in some of them )

I didn't spend too much time processing this as I really don't think the data warrants it. I have learnt however, flats and lots more darks are worth it. So here it is  

210mm lens, around 40% cropped out. Its 100% better than my first try.

Thanks for the tips guys.

Nige.

[Filroden]

Your Soul is definitely more Elvis than Baby! I still find it amazing what you can capture in such short exposures. I definitely want to try more wider frame imaging.

There's something weird going on in the Heart. It's almost like DSS isn't aligning the frames right on the left hand side and it's introducing a noticeable blur. I don't think it's our normal "friend' of field rotation. I wonder if that's lens distortion? Did you have the aperture wide open? If so, it might be better to drop it down a couple of stops. If not, do you have either Lightroom or Photoshop? Both can "undistorted" lenses. In Lightroom you tell it which lens you are using (it can often auto detect it from the RAW metadata) and it warps the image based on known distortion models for that lens. Unfortunately, you have to do this on each sub individually then re-save/export each file. I'm not sure if other photo packages can do the same (it's a feature of Adobe Camera RAW module which is included in both Lightroom and Photoshop). You would probably have to do this with lights, darks and flats, as they would all have the same distortion. (I'm out of my depth on this part having not used wide angle camera lenses yet)

Edited September 29, 2016 by Filroden

[Nigel G]

Ken. I'm really looking forward to seeing an image from your new CCD  probably almost as much as you. This might make me start saving some ready's.

I found a stack from a couple of weeks ago I had forgotten about, I took this while waiting for another DSO to rise above my roof top.

A nice easy one to process,

M2. 30 minutes of 30s lights no dark or flats but 50 bias. 150p DSS & StarTools.

Nige.