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.


Test - M81 and M82 10s subs with ZWO ASI 183

Recommended Posts

Disclaimer - My processing skills are at best, average. This thread is by no means a definitive test. Its just my observations.

I took some long exposures in Narrowband at 600s using the ASI183mm Pro camera and found that sometimes I could eliminate the Amp Glow from the middle right hand side using Darks and Flats and sometimes I could not. No idea why! Any help appreciated.

I found it easy to remove the glow when imaging at under 120 seconds a sub. This gave me the idea of trying to eliminate amp glow and noise by imaging at short, 10 second exposures, to see the results.

The one thing I failed to realise is the amount of disk space needed to process 200 x LRGB from a 20Mp camera ? The Registered and Calibrated files where 60Gb each!!

Processing on a External USB3 disk on a USB3 port on i7 with SSD and 16Gb RAM took best part of an hour. Not counting the restarts due to having other things running or lack of disk space etc.


Here is the result. Slightly cropped as it was taken over several nights and I did move the camera.

200 x LRGB at 10s

ZWO ASI 183mm Pro

TS 65/420 Quadruplet

Mesu 200

SGPro, Pixinsight.


Thanks for looking.

M81 and M82 ZWO ASI183mm Pro and TS 65 420 Quadruplet.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good. That's about 2.2 hrs total integration time if I have done my sums right?

It is a totally subjective comment, with no science behind it but the level of detail in the galaxies to me  doesn't look that dissimilar to what would be achieved with fewer but longer individual subs? I guess you would have to run back to back comparisons with your rig to see if it has improved on the noise issue.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks tomato,

Yes, 2.2 hours but there is a delay between each sub. Then dithering set every 4th sub. I think this image took around 6 hours in total to collect the data.

I agree, maybe a 1 or 2 minute sub at 2.2 hours comparison is needed. I will try that in the coming weeks.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a great result!. I'd be happy with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like your flats didn't really fit to your images as you have some brighter circles in the left right part. Also consider dithering more as the noise has a distinguishable pattern. Overall I thing that if you'll add couple of hours you'll get a really nice image. 

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I redid the flats last night, after posting this. I will try a reprocess when I have time. I also have dither set to small, I will increase it.

Thanks for your thoughts and comments. Much appreciated.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Galaxyfaraway
      This is maybe my 3rd attempt at a galaxy and I am trying to figure out the best way of doing it since I live in a red zone of London suburbs.
      I took this over 2 nights (well, 1.5 really, as my guiding wasn't working and plate solver wouldn't comply after meridian flip...) with my 8" EdgeHD SCT with 0.7x reducer and Atik 490X. Around 20 Luminance subs at 10 mins each  (1x1) and around 15 RGB subs at 5 mins each, but binned 2x2. I use Astrodon filters but also have an LP filter permanently in my image train. 
      Question: should I only use RGB and create a synthetic L channel, given LP, or continue trying with the actual luminance? Gradients are horrible with luminance but RGB doesn't have as much detail (only red filter seems to be more sensitive).
      My stars are all over the place (colours pop out everywhere, in the wrong way), how can I control this better?
      Also, as I wrote, the red filter seems to have much more detail than the rest and when I add all the channels into PS, the red colour just overpowers everything (and in general, how can I keep the star colours as they are and not have the red and blue go crazy - I am not sure the name for it, but it looks like chromatic aberration on steroids).
      Any other general tips would be great...
      Thank in advance. GFA
      PS: I cheated with the core: just changed the temperature to make it look a bit more glowy; for some reason, I barely had any yellow colour from the data...I will post stacked images, if of interest.
    • By Xiga
      Hey guys
      So with no new data at hand (or on the horizon it would seem) i decided to go back and re-process my short stack of M81 & M82, being the glutton for punishment that i am! The last time i re-processed this was about a year ago, so i was curious to see if i could get any more out of it. 
      It's hideously low on data (nothing new there!), this is just 9 x 600s of colour (with an IDAS-D1) together with 7 x 1200s of Ha (which i only used to Lighten the Reds in the Ha jets of M82 and the small spiral regions of M81). AstroPixelProcessor used for stacking and gradient reduction, and PS for everything else. 
      I mistakenly shot the colour at ISO 800, instead of the usual 200 i always use. A mistake i imagine every DSLR user has made before! And i have to say i really noticed it during processing. There was noticeably less colour in the stars. 
      That being said, i was still able to bring out more colour in the core of M81 this time. And i think M82 looks a bit better as well, it was definitely over-sharpened before. 
      I really love these targets, but they just make me wish i had more reach! 
      Here is the original thread:
      And here's the new one, including a cropped version:

    • By The-MathMog
      A new camera, means a lot of testing and seizing every possible clear night at your disposal. I used the first nights with my "ZWO ASI183MM-Pro" shooting hydrogen alpha, but now I wanted to test it on a broadband target.
      And what better test-subject than good old Bode's Galaxy/Nebula, for this image size!

      Upon processing the 3,6 hours worth of luminance data, I then realized that I missed the color in the image. So I went digging for the last images I shot of M81, which was with a Nikon D5200 sometime last year.
      I aligned the images and set the old image to color, and got this as my final result.
      I must say though, that I've probably gone through 20 different renditions of this one, as I kept trying to improve it, and finding a new favorite image   But here is the last one I came up with, together with the separate luminance data and the 2017 M81 image

      Upon further investigation, I've noticed some dust-motes that has snuck into the image... Guess I need to figure out how to do flats.. They were never really necessary when shooting with the DSLR as noise would be too high anyway if you stretched it this much.

      Shot with: ???⭐?
      Skywatcher 150PDS
      ZWO ASI 183MM-Pro (Nikon D5200)
      Celestron Advanced VX Mount
      Explore Scientific Coma Corrector
      Baader Neodymium Filter

      213 Minutes Luminance (4 Minute + 8 Minute Subs)
      136 Minutes of Color DSLR (2 Minute Subs)

      Combined Image (5.816 hour data)

      Luminance Data (3.6 hour data - ZWO ASI 183MM-Pro)

      DSLR Image (2.26 hour data - Nikon D5200)

      Any advice or thought are accepted with open arms!

      One thing I know myself, is that I need to improve my mounts PEC data-set, to improve my guiding. It worked very well when I first did it, but that is like 1,5 years ago now. 
    • By maxchess
      M81 Bodes Galaxy and M82 Cigar galaxy.  Taken last night 23rd April despite a bright moon. 120 x 60 sec lights, 40 darks. No bias or flats as I'm having a bit of problem with my flats at present, they seem to make things worse not better. Taken with Canon 1100d unmodified with a Celestron C8 on an HEQ5-pro. Processed in DSS and Star Wars (Sorry Star Tools).
      The Star Wars connection?, well you can see that M82 is better illuminated while M81 is on the Dark side.  It was reported that a supernova was observed in Bode’s Galaxy in 1993, however it is much more likely that M81 was  the location of  Alderaan. destroyed by the Death star in the first 1977 movie and we viewed this event 12 ish million years later given that  M81 is 11.8 million light years from Earth. If this sounds a bit far fetched remember that the story was set "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" so it sort of fits. If you don't believe this then all I can say is that "I find you lack of faith disturbing"

  • Create New...

Important Information

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