Now stacked, Cygnus region with 105mm prime lens and modded Canon 1000d

[tooth_dr]

Kinda been looking forward to processing this all day, now spent 3 hours at it and none the wiser.

I guess I was fooled into looking at the other excellent widefield images on here and thinking that equipped with a similar lens it was just a matter of point and shoot and stack.

I've tried as many iterations in DSS as I care to remember, some look better that others, but the best looking one was missing the bottom half of the image.

I took lights, darks, flats and bias frames, all in RAW, and processed in DSS and CS2.  I've attached an overstretched single sub.  I was hoping that the final stacked image would basically be similar but less noisy, but so far all the stacked autosaved tiffs look like a lot of the detail/stars are missing, they look smoother if that makes sense.

If at the very least, can you give some appraisal on the lens performace at F2.8, and any other issues.  I took three 20mins subs last night with another scope/camera, so the tracking was working ok as far as I can tell.  DSS says FWMW was 2.5-2.6, and there were 15000 stars in the images.  I tried adjusted the threshold to 75% and got it down to 650, but at 76% it said no stars!

 

Anyways some input would be much appreciate to try to avoid a repeat performance and a frustrating evening

 

/breathe

 

Cheers

Adam.

 

[tooth_dr]

This is what a typical stack looks like.  And I also noticed they are considerably smaller than the original, saving at 1959 x 1313, compared with the single 10mp subs.

 

 

[wxsatuser]

Your in super pixel mode, makes image 4 times smaller.

[tooth_dr]

7 minutes ago, wxsatuser said:

Your in super pixel mode, makes image 4 times smaller.

Thanks. That solves that problem! 

[MartinB]

That is a lovely single sub.  I'm not into super pixel peeping but looks like your optics are fine

[tooth_dr]

Thanks Martin.

maybe I'm expecting too much from under 2 hours data?

coukd I stretch to 300s subs also?

[tooth_dr]

So after putting it through DSS again, I selected to reject 10% of the frames, and although there was a weird frame stacked diagonally behind the image in the background, the result was much better.  I've hashed it PS, here it is.  Stars seem a good shape right out the edge, this was shot at F2.8 lens fully open, images hasnt been cropped.  C+C welcome.

 

The framing is unusual, but I really wanted NGC 6888 in the image.

 

Thanks

 

[tooth_dr]

Found a MW image (with cloud), and a close-up of NHC 6888, both taken by me, so I had a bit of fun here:

 

 

[toxic]

very nice indeed i am doing some thing similar with the 1100D and the star adventure  

[ultranova]

That's come out great, lots of detail coming through

There did seem to be a bit of a green cast over it,

hope you don't mind, I have got rid of the green

cast and reduced the star size a little to  help bring

all that lovely detail you have captured come to life

Paul

[tooth_dr]

On 03/09/2017 at 16:01, ultranova said:

That's come out great, lots of detail coming through

There did seem to be a bit of a green cast over it,

hope you don't mind, I have got rid of the green

cast and reduced the star size a little to  help bring

all that lovely detail you have captured come to life

Paul

Hi Paul

 

Sorry I missed your reply.  That looks miles better and what I was after originally, just that I lacked the processing skillz to do it!  The NAN looks particularly nice with plenty of detail.

 

 

Thanks

Adam.

[tooth_dr]

On 03/09/2017 at 15:52, toxic said:

very nice indeed i am doing some thing similar with the 1100D and the star adventure  

 

Hi Chris

 

Thanks, look forward to seeing your images.