Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Recommended Posts

Seeing was actually quite good this particular night so decided to image my favourite galaxy M51.
Here are the acquisition details:

Date: 2017-05-02
Mount: EQ5 Pro
Scope: SkyWatcher 130 PDS
Camera: ASI 290MM (from FLO earlier this year - love it!!!)
Lights: 553x8s
Darks: 173x8s
Gain: 400
Binning: None

 

Post processing was done in DSS and then GIMP. Also used an application I wrote myself to remove the background gradients and ampglow. It is similar to how DBE works in pixinsight but less advanced of course. I have a thread over here about it (sorry in swedish): http://astronet.se/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14890

I can upload a ZIP of the raw files if anyone would like to try out some short exposure image processing :happy7:

Also have an image over in the huge 130PDS thread that uses these subs along with some from april (so can't use that image here...). It does look better with less noise.

M51_553subs_proc4.jpg

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an amazing image for such short exposure times! 

is there a reason your using such short exposure times? Because I'm getting the same equipment you have, an EQ5 and a 130PDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic image. I thought that images like this were only possiblle with much larger apertures when using such short exposure times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Galen Gilmore said:

That is an amazing image for such short exposure times! 

is there a reason your using such short exposure times? Because I'm getting the same equipment you have, an EQ5 and a 130PDS.

Thanks a lot!

The reason for short exposures is that it makes everything so much easier and less expensive. Since these new CMOS cameras have so low read noise there is no need for long exposures that is required with most CCD cameras. Long exposures either requires guiding (which is a pain in every possible way not to mention an extra expense) or a mount that costs a lot of £££. You could even use an Alt-Az motorised mount to do short exposures :icon_biggrin:

Another good thing is that it has made it possible for me to image even on nights with windy weather. Sure, I have to throw away a couple of subs those nights but imagine the pain of trying 5 minute exposures and have them ruined by a gust at the last second, NOT fun!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cuivenion said:

Fantastic image. I thought that images like this were only possiblle with much larger apertures when using such short exposure times.

Thanks! Yes, I was skeptical as well, but truth is I have had so much fun ever since I got this camera :)

I did at lot of testing in the beginning, more information in this forum thread (sorry swedish again): http://astronet.se/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14495

 

Edited by SvartSork
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SvartSork said:

I can upload a ZIP of the raw files if anyone would like to try out some short exposure image processing

Oooh yes, please!  Would like to compare my gradient removal with yours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AKB ok will do. Just that it will be several GB in size so need to find somewhere else to upload it  :(

I'd say that is the main drawback of short exposures - you need a lot of disk space and patience while stacking.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. In fact, just to compare gradient removal, I guess the raw stack would be a start (you don't remove the background on each sub separately, I assume.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That's incredible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AKB said:

Thanks. In fact, just to compare gradient removal, I guess the raw stack would be a start (you don't remove the background on each sub separately, I assume.)

Here is the full set of lights and darks if you are still interested (or someone else is). It is 2 GB compressed :icon_biggrin:
I used 553 of the lights subs but there are some hundred more in the ZIP file. Just pick the ones with best FWHM and score and you should have roughly the same set as I used in DSS.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26920912/SGL_M51.zip

 

41 minutes ago, Ant said:

 That's incredible!

Thanks!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's my attempt using 262 subs.  It's only that number because it became rather tedious to manually pick the alignment stars for each sub... there seems to be quite a bit of movement between each.  You don't dither?

Also, this camera is not cooled??  Amazing data!

I may have stretched it just a bit too far, but you can clearly see some small fuzzies in the background – not sure of their actual designation.

Basic processing chain was:

Nebulosity:

  • Grade image quality, picking those with HFR below 2.25
  • Align, simple translation with manual star selection (rejected just one with satellite trail)
  • Stack

Matlab:

  • Background removal (homemade, fully automatic with no manual placement – perhaps like ABE??)
  • Stretching (mixture of automatic and manual)
  • Noise reduction - weak bilateral filter and ONR ('Olly Noise Reduction' – raise lowest end of curve)

Nebulosity (again):

  • Slight star reduction
  • Image rotation
  • JPG generation

So, really, very similar to usual processing, just that there are a lot more files!

Thanks so much for letting us have a play with this.

M51_262subs_akb.thumb.jpg.acf263ce432cc0f878e07d532f1bed94.jpg

Edited by AKB
forgot to add ONR in processing (how could I?)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry!  Just realised that this is a competition entry thread... probably shouldn't have posted here.  Apologies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8sec exposures!   It's a lovely image and an excellent example of how sensors with low read noise are changing the rules of the game :)

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-07-12 at 02:21, sharkmelley said:

8sec exposures!   It's a lovely image and an excellent example of how sensors with low read noise are changing the rules of the game :)

Thanks Mark!

I have another version with almost double number of subs that looks much better:

Cant use it though since half of the subs are from april :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By chriscoles
      Hi, I have taken mono LRGB images of M51 with my new ASI1600mm-PRO.
      I have a mix of 30s, 60s, 120s subs. 100 darks, and 100 flats for each filter. About 4 hours total.
      I Used DSS for alignment and stacking, then Pixinsight for LRGB combination.
      My issue is that i'm not happy with the colours, the stars all appear white and the background is strange.
      I have attached the Aligned LRGB images.
      Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks!

      Green.TIF red.TIF Lum.TIF B.TIF
    • By EyeGuy
      This is from a couple of nights ago.
      It clouded in quickly, so I didn't get much data. The temp was 2C, and I'm self-isolating - so that was also a factor! I only took 5 darks before I gave up and went to bed. I'll take more when the temp is right.
      This is 140 min integration time on a new Canon EOS Ra with 17x500s exposures, and no filter (from the city).
      Processed in PI and Photoshop - I should have used more star masks but the data aren't good enough to warrant the effort I think. I also had difficulty with flats - I tried a range of exposures with a Gerd Neumann panel, but I think they were all too short. Will go longer than 0.3s next time - very hard to figure out flat exposure on DSLRs, and APT's tool doesn't work for DSLRs yet.
      I think I'm obsessed with M51 - and I know I'll be back to it again.
      Stay safe everyone,
      Barry
       


    • By knobby
      First attempt at any DSO other than the brighter stuff like M42 or Andromeda.
      Learning to use the AZ-Gti /Sharpcap polar align / windows synscan app / APT platesolving ... And guiding ! all in one night ?
      all went well so had a quick 30 mins on M51 (first time I'd ever managed to actually frame it ... Plate solving is amazing)
      90 second subs gain 420 and 5 darks and synthetic flat for dust bunnies / gradients
      Wish I'd have gone longer now as tried a 5 minute sub once guiding was working which looked good .
      Very noisy but only 30 mins .

    • By alan4908
      I decided to try to maximize detail by collecting a large quantity of Luminescence data and then applying strong deconvolution to the areas of high signal to noise.  I also decided to try out Mure denoise, a Pixinsight routine that reduces camera noise.  The final result is an LRGB and represents just over 17 hours integration time. 
      I hadn't noticed before the rather strangely shaped fuzzies in the backgroud - have a look at the annotated version for IC4278 and the triangular shaped galaxy PC2292105. 
    • By alan4908
      Yet another attempt at the Whirlpool galaxy (M51).
      This time, I decided to try to maximize detail by collecting a large quantity of Luminescence data and then applying strong deconvolution to the areas of high signal to noise.  I also decided to try out Mure denoise, a Pixinsight routine that reduces camera noise.  The final result of this LRGB processing approach is shown below and represents just over 17 hours integration time. 
      I hadn't noticed before the rather strangely shaped fuzzies in the backgroud - have a look at the annotated version for IC4278 and the triangular shaped galaxy PC2292105. 
      Alan
      LIGHTS: L:46, R:20, G:23, B: 15 x 600s; DARKS:30, BIAS:100, FLATS:40 all at -20C. 

       

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.