IC-443 Ha

[PatrickGilliland]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Wow....I'm convinced.  That is amazing.  I'm curious why the FOV is smaller than mine when the camera and scopes were about the same.  Is that due to the DSW data (what ever that is).  I am thinking of getting some C11Edge data of the head and combining that with this data to improve resolution.  But the last time I tried that (with the bubble) I could not get the software to register and combine it properly.  Hope I have more luck with this.

That'll be the F ratio making it smaller - less focal length = faster but less FoV.  Funny you should say that i have just been working with some long FL data recently and PI does not want to calibrate it?

[Rodd]

22 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

That'll be the F ratio making it smaller - less focal length = faster but less FoV.  Funny you should say that i have just been working with some long FL data recently and PI does not want to calibrate it?

Paddy--I think you have it reversed---less focal length is faster and bigger FOV no? (Though I think its more focal ratio.  Think C11 hyperstar at F2.0 vs C11 at F7) But the FSQ 106 and the other one you used (101 I think) are about the same as my Televue, and the camera is based on the KAF 8300 chip no?  So FOV and scale should be similar--unless the DSW data throw this out of balance.

Regarding long focal length--I do not have trouble calibrating any subs--what I have trouble with is combining 2 different focal lengths in star alignment and then integration.  You have to calibrate separately usually because there are different flats involved (and possibly darks if you use different exposure times for the 2 scopes, or if you bin the long FL like I do at times)

[PatrickGilliland]

6 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Paddy--I think you have it reversed---less focal length is faster and bigger FOV no? (Though I think its more focal ratio.  Think C11 hyperstar at F2.0 vs C11 at F7) But the FSQ 106 and the other one you used (101 I think) are about the same as my Televue, and the camera is based on the KAF 8300 chip no?  So FOV and scale should be similar--unless the DSW data throw this out of balance.

Regarding long focal length--I do not have trouble calibrating any subs--what I have trouble with is combining 2 different focal lengths in star alignment and then integration.  You have to calibrate separately usually because there are different flats involved (and possibly darks if you use different exposure times for the 2 scopes, or if you bin the long FL like I do at times)

Yes of course doh!  Typing and not thinking.  The issue here in combining the data was simply the overlap hence the FoV left.

Yes calibrate separately then align to a master image, if that does not work you can first align you wide field data than use dynamic align (if star alignment does not work - but nice if you can get it to work as you can also use distortion correction to sort any curve variances) Align one long FL to the wide field then rest to the aligned frame.  SHould be OK from there.  I have registar which just works as does it no matter what the difference!  Much easier.

My issue seems specific to narrowband data on the RCOS 14.5" - calibrates all the data out for some reason.  A few hours testing settings needed there.

Paddy

[Rodd]

43 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Yes of course doh!  Typing and not thinking.  The issue here in combining the data was simply the overlap hence the FoV left.

Yes calibrate separately then align to a master image, if that does not work you can first align you wide field data than use dynamic align (if star alignment does not work - but nice if you can get it to work as you can also use distortion correction to sort any curve variances) Align one long FL to the wide field then rest to the aligned frame.  SHould be OK from there.  I have registar which just works as does it no matter what the difference!  Much easier.

My issue seems specific to narrowband data on the RCOS 14.5" - calibrates all the data out for some reason.  A few hours testing settings needed there.

Paddy

That kind of problem really frustrates me--there is nothing worse than troubles with software.....except trouble with hardware I suppose. Good luck with it. 

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, gnomus said:

Nice Rodd.  Don't let Olly talk you out of Plate solving.  If I can set it up anyone can.  And once you have it running, you'll wonder how you ever managed without it.  

You are probably right, that was certainly true for programming acquisition sequences, and dithering, shooting flats, and many other things--which at first I was unable to learn for the same reason....fear and laziness.  But also not wanting to sacrifice clear sky imaging time.  The things on my list are

1) Auto focus

2) Plate Solving

3) Polar alignment model using Pempro

And eventually I would like to get a cloud sensor and dome.  To tell you the truth, it would be nice if one of the billionaire entrepreneurs popping up like daisies would be interested in AP.  Then we could launch private satellites carrying telescopes (4-8 inches to start) for landing on the Moon.  Once set up, we could remotely polar align and control the scope very much like we do here on Earth.  Imagine the images that could be taken from the Moon.  Its dooable too.

[ollypenrice]

Rodd's desire for more FOV and smaller pixels came tantalizingly close with a chip that many of the camera makers tried to turn into an astro camera. Some prototype results appeared but it seems that the chip wouldn't play nicely in astro applications. I think it was a 29 meg full frame but so far as I know it hasn't happened, or not from the makers who work to real world price tags. As CCD is going out of fashion from the chip makers' point of view I fear that the full frame with 7.2 micron pixels may be as good as it ever gets.

Olly

PS Registar will combine any image with any other image provided they overlap. Curvature, pixel size, pixel scale all get dealt wth in a click.

 

[James]

On 15/11/2016 at 19:06, Rodd said:

..I can never seem to take clear sky time away from imaging to learn these methods...of which plate solving is one.  I guess I am a dinosaur.

Lovely image I know what you mean re getting the framing set up. I insist in using a Mac for my entire imaging process (well, a camera, scope and mount for the actual acquisition!) and some of the options you've mentioned just aren't available to me. So no, I wouldn't say you're a dinosaur, just what we'd call 'old school' over here.

I started this object with a DSLR recently using a Borg 55 (200mm focal length) and am sorely tempted to pop an ASI1600mm-cool on it as the field of view is only slightly smaller...

James

[Rodd]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 03:36, ollypenrice said:

3 hours ago, James said:

Lovely image I know what you mean re getting the framing set up. I insist in using a Mac for my entire imaging process (well, a camera, scope and mount for the actual acquisition!) and some of the options you've mentioned just aren't available to me. So no, I wouldn't say you're a dinosaur, just what we'd call 'old school' over here.

I started this object with a DSLR recently using a Borg 55 (200mm focal length) and am sorely tempted to pop an ASI1600mm-cool on it as the field of view is only slightly smaller...

James

 

I've had my eye on the ASI 1600mmcool ever since they were on pre-order.  Same FOV as my STT-8300 but with much smaller pixels.  So far though, I have not seen an image that completely eliminates my doubts regarding the bit depth and amp glow.  Also, having to fine tune gain every time you image would be one more potentially time consuming and frustrating endeavor.

[ollypenrice]

22 minutes ago, Rodd said:

I've had my eye on the ASI 1600mmcool ever since they were on pre-order.  Same FOV as my STT-8300 but with much smaller pixels.  So far though, I have not seen an image that completely eliminates my doubts regarding the bit depth and amp glow.  Also, having to fine tune gain every time you image would be one more potentially time consuming and frustrating endeavor.

Agreed, Rodd. The camera is 'nearly but not quite' for me as it stands but reckon it won't be too long before it gets there.

Olly

[Rodd]

59 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Agreed, Rodd. The camera is 'nearly but not quite' for me as it stands but reckon it won't be too long before it gets there.

Olly

Then again, I have not yet seen a photo taken using the parameters I would use to compare it to the ones I usually take, or the ones others take using other CCD cameras.  Most of the images I have seen consist of very many very short subs (30 sec or so with a fairly high gain) because that is what the camera is sort of marketed for.  I would like to see an image made with a good number of 5 min or 10 min subs .  I'm thinking Ha subs, if I shoot 30 min subs with the STT-8300 I would like to see 10 minutes subs from the ASI 1600 (maybe 5 min if that would be a better time).  For LRGB, if I shoot 10 minute subs with the STT-8300, I would like to see 3 minute subs with the ASI 1600 (again, maybe 2 min if that would be better).  In other words, I would not concentrate so much on the high gain-short exposure issue, but would try to concentrate more on the cooling-longer exposure issue after I determined what the longest sub I could take for my sky was.  For me, I would try and dial the gain down and the exposure time up so that I could mimic what I get out of the STT-8300 but with less exposure time.  I would take the "lucky sampling" flavor out of the equation completely and concentrate on traditional long "ish" exposure AP.  The results may be very different.  If that makes sense.  I feel like I am circling the point I am trying to make.  Suffice it to say that it would be a pleasure to play with it for a few nights!

[Fay]

Fantastic image, Rodd, like it a lot!

 

Fay

[Rodd]

35 minutes ago, Fay said:

Fantastic image, Rodd, like it a lot!

 

Fay

Thanks Fay--working on a full color image but it will take some time (too much unfortunately--weather).

[Rodd]

Well--I added 2.5 hours of data and reprocessed.  Trying to decide How much data I need.  I'm at 15 30  minute subs.  I am toying with 20 or 25 for each filter.  I can definitely see more structures with the additional 2.5 hours.   I think there is allot of faint stuff around the edges that will only become visible with much more data.