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_through_the-_eyepiece_winners.thumb.jpg.236833c5815bb321211a43f4d5214ba8.jpg

tooth_dr

DSLR M63 with ED80 (Sunflower Galaxy)

Recommended Posts

Last season I gathered a lot of data using 2 DSLRs, but DSS couldn't stacked them together so I ended up just leaving it unprocessed.  Since changing to APP, and getting to grips with it, I thought I would go back and run the two cameras through this stacking software.

Details:

Camera 1: Canon 1000d modded

28 x 600s ISO800

 

Camera 2: Canon 40d unmodded

28 x 600s ISO800

 

Processed in Astro Pixel Processor and PS.  Cropped to removed stacking artefacts/overlaps/bright star at edge of field.

 

Thanks

Adam.

St-avg-33600.0s-LNSC_1_3.0_none-x_1.0_LZ3-NS-full-qua-add-sc_BWMV_nor-AAD-RL-noMBB-session_1_session_2-mod--90degCW-1.0x-LZ3-NS-lpc-cbg-St.jpg

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic pic, I wonder how many other DSOs are in that shot ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kev M said:

Fantastic pic, I wonder how many other DSOs are in that shot ?

Thanks Kev. I know what you mean about other DSOs! Apart from the 3 obvious ones there are a few others too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely done.

Certainly at lot less noise than I would have expected to see at ISO800. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice.  But I'm wondering why DSS wouldn't combine them - afaik the cameras have the same sensor.  Did you take the shots at different resolutions?

Cheers,

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, petevasey said:

Very nice.  But I'm wondering why DSS wouldn't combine them - afaik the cameras have the same sensor.  Did you take the shots at different resolutions?

Cheers,

Peter

Hi Peter

You are correct that both cameras have the sensors and this is why I bought the 40d to compliment the 1000d.

BUT

DSS reads the sensor size via what the camera tells it (sonething like that) and there is a difference in the camera sensors by 2 pixels. This means DSS refuses to combine them. I spoke to one of the members on here who works with the designer of DSS and he said there were no plans to change this and so it was impossible for me to use DSS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Hi Peter

You are correct that both cameras have the sensors and this is why I bought the 40d to compliment the 1000d.

BUT

DSS reads the sensor size via what the camera tells it (something like that) and there is a difference in the camera sensors by 2 pixels. This means DSS refuses to combine them. I spoke to one of the members on here who works with the designer of DSS and he said there were no plans to change this and so it was impossible for me to use DSS.

That's unfortunate. Frustrating and rather strange.  Who knows what goes through the mind of Canon designers 😉

Cheers,

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, petevasey said:

 

That's unfortunate. Frustrating and rather strange.  Who knows what goes through the mind of Canon designers 😉

Cheers,

Peter

I found the thread 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

Last season I gathered a lot of data using 2 DSLRs, but DSS couldn't stacked them together so I ended up just leaving it unprocessed.  Since changing to APP, and getting to grips with it, I thought I would go back and run the two cameras through this stacking software.

Details:

Camera 1: Canon 1000d modded

28 x 600s ISO800

 

Camera 2: Canon 40d unmodded

28 x 600s ISO800

 

Processed in Astro Pixel Processor and PS.  Cropped to removed stacking artefacts/overlaps/bright star at edge of field.

 

Thanks

Adam.

St-avg-33600.0s-LNSC_1_3.0_none-x_1.0_LZ3-NS-full-qua-add-sc_BWMV_nor-AAD-RL-noMBB-session_1_session_2-mod--90degCW-1.0x-LZ3-NS-lpc-cbg-St.jpg

Wow Adam that looks really good. You've got loads of detail there in the galaxy, well done! 

Can I offer a couple of pieces of CC? 

1. It could be my phone's screen, but the stars look a little green to me. A quick run of HLVG (on a Color layer) should sort that out. 

2. I would maybe try a bit of star reduction. The star of the show here is obviously M63, but with it being quite small, some of the larger stars can distract the eyes attention from it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Xiga said:

Wow Adam that looks really good. You've got loads of detail there in the galaxy, well done! 

Can I offer a couple of pieces of CC? 

1. It could be my phone's screen, but the stars look a little green to me. A quick run of HLVG (on a Color layer) should sort that out. 

2. I would maybe try a bit of star reduction. The star of the show here is obviously M63, but with it being quite small, some of the larger stars can distract the eyes attention from it. 

That’s Ciaran. CC always welcome. What does it mean to run a HLVG on a colour layer?

When you do star reduction do you apply it to the whole image or mask out the galaxy?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Xiga said:

Wow Adam that looks really good. You've got loads of detail there in the galaxy, well done! 

Can I offer a couple of pieces of CC? 

1. It could be my phone's screen, but the stars look a little green to me. A quick run of HLVG (on a Color layer) should sort that out. 

2. I would maybe try a bit of star reduction. The star of the show here is obviously M63, but with it being quite small, some of the larger stars can distract the eyes attention from it. 

I made a few changes, I think I followed it ok!!

 

St-avg-33600.0s-LNSC_1_3.0_none-x_1.0_LZ3-NS-full-qua-add-sc_BWMV_nor-AAD-RL-noMBB-session_1_session_2-mod--90degCW-1.0x-LZ3-NS-lpc-cbg-St.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent result Adam showing an all round range of techniques from capture through processing.  The ED80 scope really does gather quality data in cpabale hands and this is a fine example.  Chapeau 👌.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barry-Wilson said:

Excellent result Adam showing an all round range of techniques from capture through processing.  The ED80 scope really does gather quality data in cpabale hands and this is a fine example.  Chapeau 👌.

Thank-you Barry.  I’m always very grateful when anyone takes times to comment and especially so when it’s someone I look up to 👍🏻 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the size problems, I've had a look at a couple of my images from a 350D and 700D  In both cases jpeg images show the correct size in DSS version 4.1.1 (as also shown in Photoshop and Canon's Digital Photo Professional)  But the RAW (CR2) files show incorrect sizes in DSS although correct in DPP.  For the 350D as 3474 x 2314 instead of 3456 x 2304.  And for the 700D as 5208 x 3476 instead of 5184 x 3456.

Strangely when I convert the CR2 to TIFF within DPP the size remains the same at 5184 x 356. BUT when I convert it using Pixillion Image Converter the TIFF and jpeg sizes are then 5208 x 3476

!!???!!

Cheers,

Peter

Edited by petevasey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, petevasey said:

Going back to the size problems, I've had a look at a couple of my images from a 350D and 700D  In both cases jpeg images show the correct size in DSS version 4.1.1 (as also shown in Photoshop and Canon's Digital Photo Professional)  But the RAW (CR2) files show incorrect sizes.  For the 350D as 3474 x 2314 instead of 3456 x 2304.  And for the 700D as 5208 x 3476 instead of 5184 x 3456.

Strangely when I convert the CR2 to TIFF within DPP the size remains the same at 5184 x 356. BUT when I convert it using Pixillion Image Converter the TIFF and jpeg sizes are then 5208 x 3476

!!???!!

Cheers,

Peter

Exactly, that all makes no sense whatsoever lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing result from a DSLR camera.

Carole

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice indeed Adam,especially for DSLR cameras.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep it looks like you nailed it Adam. You basically just create a new layer, set it to blend mode Color, and then run HLVG on it. If you run HLVG on a Normal layer, it destroys the green data and adds a lot of noise. 

ps - Not to make any more work for you 😋 but i can see a couple of satellite trails (bottom and top-left). You could remove these easily enough with Carboni's banding reduction actions. 

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.