The EQ3 DSO Challenge

[alacant]

6 hours ago, Peco4321 said:

a lot of my images having a lighter patch in that area

Hi. I think you have to be more systematic. Again, JTOL, things you can try whilst it's still cloudy:

Does the collimation change as you tilt the telescope tube?

Does the collimation change if you hang a weight the equivalent of your camera on the Cheshire?

Is the primary fixed in its cell or does it float from side to side?

Does the primary have strong enough springs to hold it for ap?

Is the secondary correctly aligned for twist and tilt?

Does the secondary move when the tube is tilted?

Is the secondary spider centred in the tube?

Does the collimation show the correct offset whilst looking through the Cheshire?

HTH.

 

[Peco4321]

On 11/07/2017 at 17:31, alacant said:

Hi. I think you have to be more systematic. Again, JTOL, things you can try whilst it's still cloudy:

Does the collimation change as you tilt the telescope tube?

Does the collimation change if you hang a weight the equivalent of your camera on the Cheshire?

Is the primary fixed in its cell or does it float from side to side?

Does the primary have strong enough springs to hold it for ap?

Is the secondary correctly aligned for twist and tilt?

Does the secondary move when the tube is tilted?

Is the secondary spider centred in the tube?

Does the collimation show the correct offset whilst looking through the Cheshire?

HTH.

 

Collination just a little out, only got a laser to check not Cheshire  

Secondary a little loose

t ring seems tight enough  

will have another go tonight to see if little tweaks could have been causing it  

also I have put the eyepiece cover on, you never know  

 

 

[alacant]

2 hours ago, Peco4321 said:

only got a laser to check not Cheshire

Hi. OK, hang the camera on the laser then. If the beam stays put, you're fine. 

[Peco4321]

39 minutes ago, alacant said:

Hi. OK, hang the camera on the laser then. If the beam stays put, you're fine. 

Next time. Just packed up as work at 7. 

[Nigel G]

Finaly I got a chance to image despite the moon and few clouds.

Its been so long I almost forgot how to setup the kit . PHD2 worked a treat last night too.

A quick process of the Veil nebula, 2 pannels. Both 21x120s ISO 800. Modified 1200D, Equinox 80ED, EQ3 Pro.

PHD2 guiding.

Stacked in DSS, processed in ST.

I'll have another go later after work.

Cheers

Nige.

 

[wimvb]

Great mosaic. And just 40 minutes per panel!

[Stub Mandrel]

Fill the corners!

[Peco4321]

44 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

Fill the corners!

 

I know, how amateurish ??

Obviously joking, this is beautiful, an area of sky I am loving trying to image myself. 

Edited July 13, 2017 by Peco4321

[Nigel G]

Well I have had a re process and filled in the corners too  Pro now

I'm quite amazed at the amount of nebula emmisions for only 42 minutes each frame.

2 or 3 hours would be worth it I think for a cleaner image.  The trouble is I have a list of DSO's to do so find it diffucult to spend many hours on one target  but the times I have its paid off.

This has flats and bias - no darks.

Nige.

[Stub Mandrel]

Ok, this has sent me back to my data from last August, with my 135mm Sonnar.

[wimvb]

1 hour ago, Nigel G said:

Well I have had a re process and filled in the corners too  Pro now

I'm quite amazed at the amount of nebula emmisions for only 42 minutes each frame.

2 or 3 hours would be worth it I think for a cleaner image.  The trouble is I have a list of DSO's to do so find it diffucult to spend many hours on one target  but the times I have its paid off.

This has flats and bias - no darks.

Nige.

2-3 hours should still be only one night. That would be a night well spent. Imo, that's a no-brainer (if the moon plays nice).

[Nigel G]

1 minute ago, wimvb said:

2-3 hours should still be only one night. That would be a night well spent. Imo, that's a no-brainer (if the moon plays nice).

2 or 3 hours on each frame. Last night I only got 1 hour 20 mins total out of 3.5 hours because of clouds. If a clear night happens soon then yes for sure, but not often happening unless there's a moon or I'm away :/

We will see  

I'm still after the bubble nebula as well as topping up the elephant, plus the other half dozen DSO's atm  

[Stub Mandrel]

Here we go, still a bit short of blue, with Lum partly from the reprocess and partly from last year's version. About 100 minutes with modded 450D and Zeiss Sonnar:

[mikey2000]

Nigel, that is seriously impressive!  I'd like to see it rotated 180 degrees though.  I always see the right bit of your pic as a face with a thin veil wafting over it, so seeing it upside down jars my expectations a little.

[mikey2000]

As things work out, I was also aiming at the Veil last night.  I was feeling super-bold so tried 7 mins subs.  But I had a few unexplained guiding glitches and an aircraft.  So out of 7 pics, 3 were usuable.  I managed to add in some 6 mins subs too for a total of around 40 mins.  Not much red in this one but judging by the bloom around the main star, I'm not sure the sky was really that clear.

[Peco4321]

First go at Dumbbell Nebula this year, only 13 x 30 sec, at end of session last night, but work at 7 gets in the way of late nights through the week, darks and bias, no flats yet, will add at later stage, need to try and get more data on this target as its lovely.

 

[Peco4321]

I still seem to be getting an oval area of lightness on my images and looking back over all my pictures this is fairly consistent. Any suggestions or will better use of flats reduce this? 

[Stub Mandrel]

49 minutes ago, Peco4321 said:

will better use of flats reduce this? 

Yes.

If you use photoshop, consider getting gradient exterminator, it also does a brilliant job of balancing the background colour and would get rid of the slight magenta cast you have.

In you image you woudl just draw a selection around the nebula, invert it so the nebula is excluded, then run gradient exterminator. I would use coarse (as there are no fine or complex gradients), agressive (as there are no real subtle gradients to keep) and balance background colour.

[Nigel G]

1 hour ago, Peco4321 said:

I still seem to be getting an oval area of lightness on my images and looking back over all my pictures this is fairly consistent. Any suggestions or will better use of flats reduce this? 

 

Hi Peter.

I like the dumbell  it reminds me of Star trek, I see Captain Kirk and Spock trying to work out what this strange mass is drifting around the universe. LOL

Have you trialed StarTools yet, its a free download and no limit to the trial, the only thing you can't do with the trial is save your final image but you can screen grab and crop it.

A dedicated processing program will make a world of difference to your post stacking processing.

There are tools just for removing gradients and vignetting which do wonders.

If you like ST it costs about £30 to buy a license, Well worth its value and the funds go to charity.

Theres no end of help here on SGL or tutorials on YouTube for ST.

Easy to use, its always the processing that will make or break your hard work.

Photoshop express is very limmited for processing but great for finishing an image.

Worth a trial  

Nige.

 

[Nigel G]

@mikey2000 Some good detail showing up, looks like a bit of moisture was in the air though. got to be worth collecting more data if the sky's allow  

I setup last night with a nice clear sky and a lot of hope, but on que the clouds rolled in

Hope your sky's are better than South east corner 

Nige

[alacant]

2 hours ago, Peco4321 said:

oval area of lightness on my images and looking back over all my pictures this is fairly consistent

Hi. I believe we know why that is. However, before you correct that, take flats AS IT IS to help correct this image. HTH.

[Peco4321]

@Nigel G

Will give star tools a try, hopefully my old laptop has enough RAM.

Thanks. 

[happy-kat]

If your machine spec is low just make sure to use Bin and Crop before you start to use the other tools in StarTools.

[Stub Mandrel]

49 minutes ago, alacant said:

Hi. I believe we know why that is. However, before you correct that, take flats AS IT IS to help correct this image. HTH.

I would guess that correcting collimation will put the light patch in the middle, but not get rid of it. You will still need flats.

[Peco4321]

@Nigel G

Will give star tools a try, hopefully my old laptop has enough RAM.

Thanks.