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

Recommended Posts

The subs from my ATIK 460 seem noisier than the ones from my uncooled SXV-H9, though I never used to go longer than 300s with that.  Below is a sample from a single unbinned and unprocessed 600 second sub of IC 443 taken with the Atik. Sky conditions were excellent at the time.

Image1.jpg.b1f80e6b79bd051aa1a7e2332016b3d7.jpg

Is this a "normal" amount of "graininess"?   Just wondered what other folk's subs looked like...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being new to this I'm very curious. Here is same area of IC 443 taken last night - ZWO ASI1600MM Pro with ZWO HA filter (version ii). 600 seconds at unity gain (-20c).  

Jellyfish-centered_600sec_1x1_H_frame5_c_r.jpg

Edited by AbsolutelyN
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like my version (also taken last night) is a bit more stretched than yours.  When I tweak your version in PSP it looks about the same as mine wrt "graininess".  It'll be interesting to see if anyone "experienced" replies... 

The final effort didn't come out too bad with only 16 Ha subs (plus some RGB for the stars).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how much you stretched it, you say no processing but you have stretched the image, otherwise it would be near black.
This is one PI STFed stretched 600sec sub from an Atik 383L, the more you stretch the grainier it will become.
The second image is a single PI histogramtransform stretch to the first vertical line.

jelly_387.jpg.0d134adde96aed88a8878b0988098888.jpg

jelly_387-one-stretch.jpg.4c4307a15aeb835a9aec5496b1a5efc6.jpg

Edited by wxsatuser
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a single 10 minute sub with an Atik 460EX mono with a 6Nm Ha filter. Cooled to -20

Its a fit file so cannot upload it. I will try later

 

Edited by m.tweedy
remove link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is mine, 5MInute single sub with QHY163M

 

5862022

 

 

 

 

Edited by artem
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Hallingskies said:

The final effort didn't come out too bad with only 16 Ha subs (plus some RGB for the stars).

Excellent image ... also really enjoyed looking through your website, great work!

Share this post


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

Excellent image ... also really enjoyed looking through your website, great work!

Thanks.  Just seen your wider field shot on the imaging forum - very good indeed!

On the subs front, looks like mine are not as bad as I thought l from what I've seen above.  I run my camera, filter wheel and dew heaters through a hub on the scope and I was wondering if the rat's nest of cabling was inducing some electrical interference that the camera was picking up.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wxsatuser said:

Depends on how much you stretched it, you say no processing but you have stretched the image, otherwise it would be near black.

You are right, of course - I use Astroart and that applies an auto-stretch to displayed images.  An unstretched image is very dark, as you say.  It is hard to compare background noise levels between images without (literally) a level playing field.  Unfortunately I have no idea what you mean by "single PI histogramtransform stretch to the first vertical line."  

Looking at my sub histograms though, there isn't any junk to left of the main "cliff" however - when I've had REALLY noisy images, there's loads of fuzzy stuff there.  Don't know enough about the theory to know if the two are related, however...

Share this post


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

You are right, of course - I use Astroart and that applies an auto-stretch to displayed images.  An unstretched image is very dark, as you say.  It is hard to compare background noise levels between images without (literally) a level playing field.  Unfortunately I have no idea what you mean by "single PI histogramtransform stretch to the first vertical line."  

Looking at my sub histograms though, there isn't any junk to left of the main "cliff" however - when I've had REALLY noisy images, there's loads of fuzzy stuff there.  Don't know enough about the theory to know if the two are related, however...

No stretch in PI, sub is and very black, histogram hard left.
pi-no-stretch.jpg.e9ee9d6f8c10be56611992dec5b61eaf.jpg

One histogram transform stretch.

pi-stretch.jpg.3b58f6757639d6742c45403827996736.jpg

The more we stretch, this is three stretches and you can see the noise appear as spikes on the peak.

pi-stretch-3.jpg.ae8a91ce26acc30e26d27c1422e1af2d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  I fully understand that  “stretching” an image brings up noise as well as signal.  It’s one of the first things I got to understand when I started astroimaging about 15 years ago.  What I don’t know is a way to measure or express a signal to noise ratio in a way that would allow consistent assessment of the noise in any given image. 

I realise the example I posted here is a bad one: IC 443 is a faint object even on a 600s sub, so the act of making it visible on a single shot will always bring up noise - it’s why we stack subs of course.  But how can you objectively assess noise levels in individual subframes?  How would you know if the background noise you see in any single sub is “natural” e.g. from haze or light pollution, or if it is down to some sort of camera fault?  Would darks or flats always address the latter if it the problem was of a random, non-uniform nature, e.g. electrical interference?

Edited by Hallingskies

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.