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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_constellations.thumb.jpg.6034fe99df7fe590f77a776877551964.jpg

michael.h.f.wilkinson

M42-M43 and the running man from last night

Recommended Posts

While I was hunting supernovae with the C8 on the Great Polaris mount, I also grabbed a huge load of data with the APM 80mm F/6, with TRG-2008 0.8x reducer and modded Canon EOS 550D, on the modest little EQ3-2. Just finished the first process with just the data from last nigh on M42 and environs, a total of 212 subs of 30 s each. I am really impressed with what I got out of this 6360 s total exposure time.

M42-43-20180213.thumb.jpg.09043282cab3edfe8d8e2fb0a3579862.jpg

All processing, except cropping in APP. I am now going for my first multi-night stacking exercise, combining these data with those from a week ago. As I am already getting some faint gas and dust in the background, I wonder how much more nearly doubling the data will do.

 

 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, good data for barely an hour of data, Michael.

Good luck for your "multi-night stacking exercise". Looking forward to seeing the result.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes, good data for barely an hour of data, Michael.

Good luck for your "multi-night stacking exercise". Looking forward to seeing the result.

Actually, it is 6360 s, or 1 hour 46 min, but the scope/reducer pair is F/4.8, so pretty fast, and transparency was good. The previous batch would add another 4600 s or so, so a significant increase. The overnight process ran out of memory (probably due to Java garbage collection being garbage), so I restarted APP, and it is stacking data once more.  An alternative is to combine stacked frames weighted by quality. I will see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

Actually, it is 6360 s, or 1 hour 46 min, 

Sorry - brain freeze! I looked at 106min and for some reason translated it into 1.06hr! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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