DSS won't read RAW files.

[Galen Gilmore]

Ok, I will try the Adobe converter with the 6.6 version. If that doesn't work I'll try the Lightroom and/or iridient option.

[NeoObserver]

I thought Ian had a great suggestion to use the latest Adobe DNG converter with Camera Raw 6.6 selected, and downloaded the latest version of Adobe DNG converter (9.10.1 is the latest I could find) here:

http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=6167&fileID=6201

I selected recent images of M101 as a test and used default parameters assuring that "Camera raw version 6.6 or later" was selected. The resulting DNG files were loaded into DSS (version 3.3.4) with no darks, flats, or bias (just wanted to see if this works... in retrospect I wish I had used them). The resulting file was saved as a FTS file with changes not applied. That file was loaded into StarTools and the resulting TIF had minor tweaks in Lightroom. The resulting image of M101 is attached.

Ian is correct - the Adobe DNG converter 9.10.1 worked and appears to represent a free path to use of Fuji XT-1 files in DSS.  I have not compared the Adobe DNG converter with Iridient X-Transformer and so don't know about the relative merits of one versus the other. Of course, I wish I had used proper darks, bias, and flat frames in DSS. I will try to reprocess with these, and maybe try a parallel processing using Iridient X-Transformer,  when time is available.

Thank you, Ian, for your suggestion!

Galen, I hope this helps.

David

[Galen Gilmore]

25 minutes ago, NeoObserver said:

I thought Ian had a great suggestion to use the latest Adobe DNG converter with Camera Raw 6.6 selected, and downloaded the latest version of Adobe DNG converter (9.10.1 is the latest I could find) here:

http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/thankyou.jsp?ftpID=6167&fileID=6201

I selected recent images of M101 as a test and used default parameters assuring that "Camera raw version 6.6 or later" was selected. The resulting DNG files were loaded into DSS (version 3.3.4) with no darks, flats, or bias (just wanted to see if this works... in retrospect I wish I had used them). The resulting file was saved as a FTS file with changes not applied. That file was loaded into StarTools and the resulting TIF had minor tweaks in Lightroom. The resulting image of M101 is attached.

Ian is correct - the Adobe DNG converter 9.10.1 worked and appears to represent a free path to use of Fuji XT-1 files in DSS.  I have not compared the Adobe DNG converter with Iridient X-Transformer and so don't know about the relative merits of one versus the other. Of course, I wish I had used proper darks, bias, and flat frames in DSS. I will try to reprocess with these, and maybe try a parallel processing using Iridient X-Transformer,  when time is available.

Thank you, Ian, for your suggestion!

Galen, I hope this helps.

David

Awesome and thank you. May I ask what exposures you used to capture your photo? It's absolutely gorgeous.

[The Admiral]

3 hours ago, NeoObserver said:

Thank you, Ian, for your suggestion!

Galen, I hope this helps.

David

 

You are more than welcome and I'm pleased it worked for you. I can't claim originality though as it was suggested to me, in the thread I posted, by dyfiastro.

That's a nice result you've got there too, and I too would be interested in some details about your capture. I think the Fuji had a lot to offer for astrophotography if one can get around its quirks!

Ian

[NeoObserver]

Thank you for the kind comments. I am glad to provide details of image capture:

Telescope: TeleVue NP101is (540mm, f/5.4)

Camera: Fuji XT-1, ISO 1600, 240 sec subs x 28 = 112 minutes exposure (limited by clouds and my forgetting once to change the ISO back to 1600 after refocusing)

Mount: Atlas Pro

Guiding: MGEN-II

Filters: none

Moon: not sure, but it was not up while I was taking subs

Location: near Nashville, TN

I really missed having more time, and I think the relatively dark sky (SQM 20.6) that night helped out a lot!

[Galen Gilmore]

Changed the preferences to camera RAW 6.6 and later, it worked! 

[NeoObserver]

Great!!!

You are on your way with an excellent camera. The Ha response is really pretty good compared with non-modified DSLRs.

Please post your results when you are ready.

[Galen Gilmore]

59 minutes ago, NeoObserver said:

Great!!!

You are on your way with an excellent camera. The Ha response is really pretty good compared with non-modified DSLRs.

Please post your results when you are ready.

Here ya go

Fuji XT-1, Skywatcher EQ5 w/single axis motors (no guiding), Skywatcher 130PDS

30 x 30 seconds, 15 minutes exposure.

No filters, coma correctors, or anything else.

Moderate light pollution

No flats or bias

 

[NeoObserver]

Excellent result! Congratulations!

The issue of XT-1 files with DSS is behind you, so now you can enjoy the telescope time more. 4.5 inches of aperture gives so many possibilities.

One suggestion: I think that getting to a darker site will do more for your images than any other single thing. It's not convenient, but it is so helpful. It took me too long to get to my first dark(er) sky site, and then I saw how much it helped.

Also, just FYI, I borrowed an XT-2 and took some images of M13, and using the same trick of selecting "Camera raw 6.6 or later" worked for XT-2 files in DSS as well. There was some trouble with processing the flats and I will have to learn about that more, but it did work (great without the flats, but not as great with).

 

[Galen Gilmore]

54 minutes ago, NeoObserver said:

Excellent result! Congratulations!

The issue of XT-1 files with DSS is behind you, so now you can enjoy the telescope time more. 4.5 inches of aperture gives so many possibilities.

One suggestion: I think that getting to a darker site will do more for your images than any other single thing. It's not convenient, but it is so helpful. It took me too long to get to my first dark(er) sky site, and then I saw how much it helped.

Also, just FYI, I borrowed an XT-2 and took some images of M13, and using the same trick of selecting "Camera raw 6.6 or later" worked for XT-2 files in DSS as well. There was some trouble with processing the flats and I will have to learn about that more, but it did work (great without the flats, but not as great with).

 

Thank you! The telescope I have is 5" though, not 4.5"

I've only had my scope for about a month now, and I've taken it out 4 times now. But my dad has some business to do in Michigan, I'm coming and I think we might be camping. Certain parts of Michigan are pretty dark!

[The Admiral]

4 hours ago, Galen Gilmore said:

Here ya go

Fuji XT-1, Skywatcher EQ5 w/single axis motors (no guiding), Skywatcher 130PDS

30 x 30 seconds, 15 minutes exposure.

No filters, coma correctors, or anything else.

Moderate light pollution

No flats or bias

That's a great start Galen, you are on your way

Yes, a dark site will make a big difference I'm sure, but there are a few things that can help you on your way. Don't ignore the value of using flats and darks, try to get them if you can. If you use darks, make sure that you take a decent number of them otherwise they'll introduce more noise than improve the picture. I'm talking of 50 or so here! Also, try to get (a) as long a sub as you can without stars getting out of round or increasing the sky background too much, and (b) increase the total exposure time. As an Alt-Az imager stuck with a maximum of 30s subs, I take anything up to ~250 subs with a 102mm refractor! I'm sort of thinking of at least an hour's worth after stacking only the good subs. It may be a case of diminishing returns, but 15 minutes is a bit on the low side. And it does use up the hard drive capacity, especially as they're converted to DNG as well! I don't know what ISO you use but I generally image at 1600, though if I have bright objects in the field and I want to capture with as much colour as I can, I drop it down to ISO400.

6 hours ago, NeoObserver said:

You are on your way with an excellent camera. The Ha response is really pretty good compared with non-modified DSLRs.

I agree, the Ha response is pretty good for a non-modded camera, and it's noise is low and resolution delivered excellent.

I wondered about about the X-T2's performance as it has rather smaller pixels, perhaps too small? Is the red response just as good? If you look at the read noise vs ISO here, for both the X-T1 and X-T2, you'll see a different behaviour. The X-T1 is ISO-less, but the X-T2 appears to use two different amplifiers depending on ISO.

Ian

[NeoObserver]

Quote

Yes, looking at the dynamic range and the noise / ISO curves, the XT-2 seems to be different than the XT-1. And, as you note, the pixels are smaller (and perhaps that is not a desirable decrease in pixel size). I probably shouldn't say much of anything, given that I have only used an XT-2 one time with the telescope, so please take the following observations as very fresh eyes on the XT-2 coming from 20 months of use of an XT-1. Given the curves you reference, I plan to initially stick with ISO 800 or 1600, where the XT-2 seems to have an advantage based on the dual amplifier system it apparently has.

The camera itself seemed a bit easier to use at the telescope. Focusing seemed to benefit from the increased pixel count and the screen seemed better suited to focusing. It works with the same external intervalometer that I used with the XT-1 (I did not use the internal intervalometer, but that might work just as well). The raw images were about 50MB, which is about 50% larger than what I usually get with the XT-1. I tried M13 at ISO 800, and comparing the cameras, it seemed like there was a bit better dynamic range, as the brightest stars were easier to keep without overexposing them. The noise also seemed incrementally less with the XT-2, though nothing dramatic. The controls were similar, but just enough different to keep me guessing. I'm sure that would not be a problem if I were able to use it more.

Right now the XT-2 seems promising to me, but it is too early to tell. I hope to borrow it and use it at a darker sky site this evening, as we have clear weather forecast and a few of us are planning to go out. If I can sort out the flats, I will try to post a photo later... or maybe post one without flats, though I hate to leave them out.

 

[NeoObserver]

Ian,

I would like to report back on a brief test using the Fuji XT-2 for astrophotography. I have only taken photos of two objects, and really that's not enough to learn the camera and how to process it very well. Additionally, clouds came in when photographing the Eagle Nebula, and I only recorded 11 x 4 minute subs, which is just not enough to do justice with a 4" refractor.  It has been hot here with temperatures of 22 - 24C, so this is a pretty tough test for a non-cooled camera. And it is not modified, so the Eagle Nebula may  also be a tough target. I had hoped to be able to go back out this weekend, but that is pretty unsure due to weather. To add insult to injury I messed up the flats for the Eagle Nebula and so the processing does not use any.

With all of these caveats, here is the information and the photos:

M13 56 minutes, VC200L, ISO 800, 22C, urban sky (SQM 18.5) processed with Iridient X-Transformer, DSS, StarTools, and final tweaks in Lightroom.

M16 44 minutes, NP101is, ISO 1600, 24C, darker sky (SQM 20.3) processed with Iridient X-Transformer, DSS, StarTools, and final tweaks in Lightroom.

I hope this helps someone a little bit in thinking about using the XT-2. Imaging does work with DSS and the ability to capture details seems enhanced over the XT-1. Sensor noise seems well controlled, even at 24C, but clearly it suffers some at the higher temperature and longer exposure. I

don't have enough experience with the camera to give a detailed or firm opinion yet and it seems unfair to try any real comparison with the XT-1 of Ha sensitivity with only 44 minutes on the Eagle Nebula. I'm not sure if or when I will have more opportunities to image with this camera.

David

[Galen Gilmore]

30 minutes ago, NeoObserver said:

Ian,

I would like to report back on a brief test using the Fuji XT-2 for astrophotography. I have only taken photos of two objects, and really that's not enough to learn the camera and how to process it very well. Additionally, clouds came in when photographing the Eagle Nebula, and I only recorded 11 x 4 minute subs, which is just not enough to do justice with a 4" refractor.  It has been hot here with temperatures of 22 - 24C, so this is a pretty tough test for a non-cooled camera. And it is not modified, so the Eagle Nebula may  also be a tough target. I had hoped to be able to go back out this weekend, but that is pretty unsure due to weather. To add insult to injury I messed up the flats for the Eagle Nebula and so the processing does not use any.

With all of these caveats, here is the information and the photos:

M13 56 minutes, VC200L, ISO 800, 22C, urban sky (SQM 18.5) processed with Iridient X-Transformer, DSS, StarTools, and final tweaks in Lightroom.

M16 44 minutes, NP101is, ISO 1600, 24C, darker sky (SQM 20.3) processed with Iridient X-Transformer, DSS, StarTools, and final tweaks in Lightroom.

I hope this helps someone a little bit in thinking about using the XT-2. Imaging does work with DSS and the ability to capture details seems enhanced over the XT-1. Sensor noise seems well controlled, even at 24C, but clearly it suffers some at the higher temperature and longer exposure. I

don't have enough experience with the camera to give a detailed or firm opinion yet and it seems unfair to try any real comparison with the XT-1 of Ha sensitivity with only 44 minutes on the Eagle Nebula. I'm not sure if or when I will have more opportunities to image with this camera.

David

Looks fantastic, I agree that it needs flats but it looks brilliant otherwise.

[The Admiral]

Thanks for doing the test David. They are very nice images and it certainly looks as though the X-T2 performs at least as well as the X-T1. The Ha response seems to be every bit as good, which is a key thing. I'm not sure about noise, I think more experience with it would be needed, especially as the two M13 images have different black point settings which makes comparison harder. That Vixen certainly resolves the stars well, even if it does take 2 hours to collimate (!), and I like the star colour in the X-T2 process. As a matter of interest, I would have thought the X-T2 image would have been well over-sampled, so how much, if any, binning did you do in StarTools?

Regards, Ian

[NeoObserver]

Galen,

Thank you for the kind remarks. I was more pleased with the  M13 image. It was hard to see the clouds arriving so early with the Eagle Nebula image, because everything was working well (finally, after a couple of simple mistakes on my part in setting up). That's the way it goes, it seems. You do your best, still make mistakes, and then make the most of what you are able to capture. I hope to try the Eagle Nebula again this year or next. It is such a beautiful nebula!

Ian,

As for the use of binning in StarTools, neither image has been binned. That is really not by design. I just did not think of it. I will go back and try binning the Eagle Nebula image. I don't consider myself all that proficient with StarTools. I have a regular workflow that is getting more comfortable, with a few variations on the theme. That workflow has not included binning, so I did not think of it. What would you suggest? 2x2 binning to start? Are there considerations in applying binning that you would recommend?

Thanks,

David

 

[The Admiral]

1 hour ago, NeoObserver said:

As for the use of binning in StarTools, neither image has been binned. That is really not by design. I just did not think of it. I will go back and try binning the Eagle Nebula image. I don't consider myself all that proficient with StarTools. I have a regular workflow that is getting more comfortable, with a few variations on the theme. That workflow has not included binning, so I did not think of it. What would you suggest? 2x2 binning to start? Are there considerations in applying binning that you would recommend?

Thanks,

David

 

Well it's always worth looking at the user guide for StarTools (http://www.startools.org/downloads). This is a refreshed guide which I've not studied, but it should be in there like the original.

To be honest, I'm not that consistent with StarTools and I'd probably start with a 50% or 33% bin in the first instance, depending on my mood , but it all rather depends on how noisy my image is, and I may push this higher if things look too ragged. Of course, the image gets quite small. On the other hand if it's a bright target and I think I may want to print up the image I might try without binning. I suggest that you try to see what the effect is on any particular image. Now don't forget that I image with a 715mm FL refractor with the X-T1, which gives about 1.4 arcsec/px native, or 1.75 with reducer. This is most likely to be below the seeing conditions anyway, and so is providing empty resolution, so binning won't make any appreciable difference to the final image other than improve the noise. Your Vixen will give about 0.5 arcsec/px even with the X-T1, even less with the X-T2, so unless your seeing is exceptionally good you could bin significantly without losing any 'real' resolution. Again, try it an see. Repeating a StarTools process where you might want to change just one or two parameters is not made easy as the software doesn't store the settings in a sidecar file for example, but you can look in the StarTools log file where each setting is listed in a text file; you just have to re-enter them again.

That's my understanding anyway. There are a number of ST users on this site so if you've specific questions, then post them. The ST Forum is reasonably good too, and Ivo is quite responsive.

Ian

[NeoObserver]

Ian,

Thank you for the detailed reply. I am sure I was oversampling with the XT-2 (and often with the XT-1). Our seeing here is not exceptionally good. I tried binning in StarTools and it did reduce the noise considerably. It also reduced the image size considerably, as you predicted. That is where I struggle: there are other ways to reduce noise and to increase image size. It's hard to balance both. With this particular photo, I think using the original oversampled image gives the better result and yet that clearly won't be the case every time. I will keep trying binning to get more familiar with it. Maybe the "take home message"  might be to know from the outset that images taken with the XT-2 need to be well exposed and adequate numbers of light frames are needed. The exposure on M16 was OK, but I if I could retake it, I would have chosen a longer exposure time to decrease noise and would have taken more light frames, if possible. I was aiming for 25 to 30 light frames, but conditions did not allow it.

At your suggestion I am going to check out the StarTools forums and will post questions! If I purchase an XT-2 I think it will be for landscape photography primarily. How it might be best used in astrophotography is still uncertain to me, but perhaps with the short focal length refractor to give larger image size, especially with a focal reducer. Although the sample size is only two images, it does seem that the sensor in the XT-2 is giving cleaner images than the XT-1 at the same ISO, temperature, and exposure length. More time would likely tell if this is really the case.

With the VC200L, I forgot to mention that I usually use it with a 0.71x focal reducer, giving a focal length of 1278mm. That seems more manageable to track given my level of experience. As for collimation, I feel pretty nervous still about tweaking... when people who have a VC200L and comment online to complain, they seem to most often complain about how sensitive it is to collimation and how difficult it is to collimate. So most of the two hours I recently spent were due to caution and inexperience. I was fortunate enough to have a much more seasoned club member help me that night and he taught me a lot about how things should look in this telescope (versus in photos in a book or online). I hope next time that collimation will be quicker. The process was effective, though. The image quality improved significantly after tweaking the collimation - even in the end only turning one pair of push-pull screws on the primary mirror about 1/16th of a turn each. The magic was in knowing which set to turn, which way to turn them, and when to stop. And the results were well worth it!

[NeoObserver]

An unexpected clear night presented itself two days ago, and it was our astronomy club star party night! It was also really hot (28C) and clouds hung on the horizon in the southwest. After visiting and observing with others, I set up the mount and, after some difficulty with Go To (which I think was due to having slightly different readings of latitude and longitude from a phone app, which I don't understand). As the night progressed the sky got better and better, so I set up for a test photo of M16. 

I appreciated all of the discussion about oversampling with the XT-2 and long focal lengths, and I was worried about the primary mirror of the VC200L flexing in the high temperatures. But in the end I had access to an XT-2 again and decided to give it a try because it seemed to have at least as good or better noise than the XT-1 and a bit better dynamic range.

I used ISO 1600 and to try and match the previous exposure with the 4" refractor (540mm f5.4 and 4 minute subs). I used the VC200L with focal reducer (1278mm f/6.4 and five minute subs), taking 26 subs. Flats worked well this time, and darks were nearly right (though slightly off in temperature), while bias frames showed less noise than I feared given the uncooled camera at 28C and ISO 1600. I used 24 of the 26 subs.

I think the focus drifted a little bit, and I'm not really sure about the colors, but overall the result was OK. The primary mirror seemed to tolerate the warm conditions fine and  the noise was a little higher than when imaging at 22C to 24C (though less of an increase than I expected).

I believed the math and logic of using larger pixels with longer focal lengths before this image, and now I have seen that detail is really limited by seeing, and not by the number of pixels. I don't have any plans to use the XT-2 on the VC200L going forward, unless noise is significantly lower than the XT-1 or the dynamic range is significantly higher. I don't think either of those improvements are dramatic, but rather incremental improvements for the XT-2.

I am posting this to get some information about the XT-2 out and for input and corrections to my thoughts. Thanks in advance for advice and perspective.

[The Admiral]

14 hours ago, NeoObserver said:

I am posting this to get some information about the XT-2 out and for input and corrections to my thoughts. Thanks in advance for advice and perspective.

Thanks for that. It looks as though your cat is showing a bit more resolution than the refractor, as you'd hope, but I'm not sure that I don't prefer the refractor version* . One thing I did spot was that on the full-sized version there are a number of, possibly pixel sized, black spots. I don't know whether this is a characteristic of the sensor, or the processing.

Besides limited seeing of course, when you are imaging at the 0.5 arcsec/px level (using a 0.71x reducer pretty much nullifies the change when you go up from 16Mp to 24Mp I reckon), you are really asking the mount to track at better than 0.5 arcsec, and from what I've read that would be quite challenging.

Anyway, thanks for giving us a bit of an insight into the X-T2 as an astro camera.

Ian

Edit. But then, I think the colour in the new one is better! I suppose the black dots could be star forming regions, but I don't think so as they are fairly widespread.

[Galen Gilmore]

13 hours ago, NeoObserver said:

An unexpected clear night presented itself two days ago, and it was our astronomy club star party night! It was also really hot (28C) and clouds hung on the horizon in the southwest. After visiting and observing with others, I set up the mount and, after some difficulty with Go To (which I think was due to having slightly different readings of latitude and longitude from a phone app, which I don't understand). As the night progressed the sky got better and better, so I set up for a test photo of M16. 

I appreciated all of the discussion about oversampling with the XT-2 and long focal lengths, and I was worried about the primary mirror of the VC200L flexing in the high temperatures. But in the end I had access to an XT-2 again and decided to give it a try because it seemed to have at least as good or better noise than the XT-1 and a bit better dynamic range.

I used ISO 1600 and to try and match the previous exposure with the 4" refractor (540mm f5.4 and 4 minute subs). I used the VC200L with focal reducer (1278mm f/6.4 and five minute subs), taking 26 subs. Flats worked well this time, and darks were nearly right (though slightly off in temperature), while bias frames showed less noise than I feared given the uncooled camera at 28C and ISO 1600. I used 24 of the 26 subs.

I think the focus drifted a little bit, and I'm not really sure about the colors, but overall the result was OK. The primary mirror seemed to tolerate the warm conditions fine and  the noise was a little higher than when imaging at 22C to 24C (though less of an increase than I expected).

I believed the math and logic of using larger pixels with longer focal lengths before this image, and now I have seen that detail is really limited by seeing, and not by the number of pixels. I don't have any plans to use the XT-2 on the VC200L going forward, unless noise is significantly lower than the XT-1 or the dynamic range is significantly higher. I don't think either of those improvements are dramatic, but rather incremental improvements for the XT-2.

I am posting this to get some information about the XT-2 out and for input and corrections to my thoughts. Thanks in advance for advice and perspective.

Great image, I have a question. How are you able to get 5 minute exposures!?!? I can't get my Fuji xt-1 to go past 30 second seconds of exposure.

[NeoObserver]

Galen,

I use an external intervalometer by JJC. It can be purchased many places. Here is one link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GGANE1A/ref=psdc_14015071_t2_B00FPOIQ98

It works with the XT-1 through the USB connector. It is easy to use once you get the four step programming down, which isn't very complicated but did require actually reading the brief manual.

Hope this helps,

David

[NeoObserver]

Ian,

Thank you for your observations. I think there is more information in the much longer exposure XT-2 photo, but the processing was not as good overall. One problem was that my darks were not taken at the right temperature (too low) because I'm not as familiar with the XT-2 camera and I failed to set it properly for the first set of darks at the observation site. I later took more darks back at home, but did not match the temperature well enough. I think the black dots might be related to the less-than-adequate darks.

I plan on retrying the darks again with close attention to the temperature and then reprocessing. Overall, the main message for me seems to be when replacing the XT-1 as an astrophotography camera, aim for a cooled camera with larger pixels and (in an APS-C format) fewer of them. That won't likely happen soon, which is fine with me. I have lots to learn using the XT-1 and am understanding-limited, not camera-limited right now.

Thanks again,

David

[Galen Gilmore]

1 hour ago, NeoObserver said:

Galen,

I use an external intervalometer by JJC. It can be purchased many places. Here is one link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GGANE1A/ref=psdc_14015071_t2_B00FPOIQ98

It works with the XT-1 through the USB connector. It is easy to use once you get the four step programming down, which isn't very complicated but did require actually reading the brief manual.

Hope this helps,

David

Thanks, that's just what I was looking for. The Fuji is a great camera, the pictures it takes are fantastic, but to many switches and dials to acciedently press.

[NeoObserver]

To close the loop on the XT-2 discussion, I reprocessed using DSS and only the best 75% of the light frames and then reduced the star sizes a bit more in post processing. The colors are still the most uncertain for me, but I think they have improved some. Now back to the good old XT-1 for me.

It is reassuring to know that modern cameras can take astrophotos without cooling even in hot (28C) weather, given reasonable darks, bias, and flats.

Thanks to Ian for suggestions and constructive feedback. And clear skies to Galen with an intervalometer and dark site!