Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Images from Epsilon 180ed and QHY9 mono


tooth_dr

Recommended Posts

These were taken with an Atik 383L+ and the Epsilon, a few images, clear skies in short supply.

Jellyfish Nebula - 3 hours total, Ha and Oiii, not much to see in the 40 mins of Oiii:

Jellyfish-10800s.thumb.jpg.27c58b5c7dbca141bcfc55cab7292e64.jpg

 

Leo Triplets - 1 hour 40 mins, Luminance only - looks a tad out of focus:

St-avg-6000.0s-LNMWC_1_3.0_none-x_1.0_LZ3-NS-full-qua-add-sc_BWMV_nor-AAD-RE-noMBB_1stLNC_it1-lpc-St.thumb.jpg.67e010793dee23e55d7f2916154555fe.jpg

 

Rosette Nebula - 6 x 10mins, hydrogen alpha, including starless version:

 

St-med-3600_0s.thumb.jpg.9fb5aa9703d268b43b00cb3cb53d4ea2.jpgHArosette-starless-processed.thumb.jpg.6e468eb08bb5ffde8d59b1dbce5ddead.jpg

Edited by tooth_dr
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

A starless Ha version of IC410 using the Tak, 5.25 hours.  Stars removed using Starnet+

I havent done much processing to this, but thought it was really decent for 5 hours with the full moon and 7nm filter at F2.8.  900s exposures.

 

IC410-Ha-TAK-18900-lpc-St-starless.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

The new focuser is working really well, thank goodness, and autofocus is fantastic.  Collimation is still a little off, but reasonable.

I've started a four panel mosaic of the HH, a quick test of the first two panels below, and I have just finished a quick two panel mosaic of the Soul Nebula, again just a test.  1200s subs, 6+2 on the HH, and 8+8 on Soul.  Resized and attached below.

 

 

IC1848-Ha-test.jpg

HH2020-mosaic-test.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

quick two panel mosaic of the Soul Nebula

Wow

10 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

four panel mosaic of the HH

and wow!

The Soul nebula looks amazing.  So much detail for the integration - did it look as good full size, it seems like it might have!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, geeklee said:

Wow

and wow!

The Soul nebula looks amazing.  So much detail for the integration - did it look as good full size, it seems like it might have!

Thanks Lee, yes it looked not bad, could do with more data.  I have Oiii and some RGB for stars as well, so plan to do a full image process when I get a chance.  But APP is struggling with the 6 panel Spaghetti Nebula.  The HH is only the bottom two panels.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm only on my phone, but these look great Adam, especially the Soul. So much signal! 

You say APP is struggling with your 6 panel mosaic of the Spaghetti Nebula. What % of overlap were you using in SGP? I can't recall what the default is, 15% or 20%, but I usually just stick with it. For small mosaics like 2 panels, you can drop it a bit, but for larger ones you can run into problems if there aren't enough overlapping stars for the registration to work.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had another thought. You most likely captured your 6 panels over multiple nights. What are your plate solving settings in SGP for degrees of rotation? I only rotate manually myself, but I still like to aim low on rotation, usually something like 0.7 degrees, because over multiple panels the +/- error can really begin to build up.

Oh, one other thing, when you come to build the mosaic, make sure you are selecting the most central panel as the reference frame. APP doesn't guess this very well, so you usually have to tell it which one to use.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Xiga said:

I'm only on my phone, but these look great Adam, especially the Soul. So much signal! 

You say APP is struggling with your 6 panel mosaic of the Spaghetti Nebula. What % of overlap were you using in SGP? I can't recall what the default is, 15% or 20%, but I usually just stick with it. For small mosaics like 2 panels, you can drop it a bit, but for larger ones you can run into problems if there aren't enough overlapping stars for the registration to work.

 

11 hours ago, Xiga said:

Just had another thought. You most likely captured your 6 panels over multiple nights. What are your plate solving settings in SGP for degrees of rotation? I only rotate manually myself, but I still like to aim low on rotation, usually something like 0.7 degrees, because over multiple panels the +/- error can really begin to build up.

Oh, one other thing, when you come to build the mosaic, make sure you are selecting the most central panel as the reference frame. APP doesn't guess this very well, so you usually have to tell it which one to use.

 

Thanks for the replies Ciaran.  I did a bit of a step back and discovered two problems.  The first was the working directory.  I've sorted that and the Ha stacked 100% in a reasonable period of time.  I had it at 14% overlap.

I then had issues with my Oiii stacking.  It kept failing to integrate - guess what - stupidly I captured the 2nd and 3rd night at 1x1 instead of 2x2 binning, so I have about 9+ hours of data binned wrongly.  I took some more 1x1 calibration data last night so will try again.  Pretty disappointed with myself for this error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Mosaic of HH - Ha only, total of 18 hours and 20 minutes in split over four panels.  Just threw it together to see if it worked ok - reduced in size to 40%. I need to go at it with other filters now to get colour, but it's so low, I only get a 2-3 hours either side of the meridian to image this one.

 

 

 

HH2020-Hydrogen-alpha-SS94_TAK-66000s-test.jpg

Edited by tooth_dr
Four panels not three - typo !!
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AKB said:

Has the epsilon experience been long enough, now, to ask if you’d go for a fast Newt again?

Full disclosure: I’m awfully temped by the SharpStar 2032PNT (F3.2).

I have thought about buying a second refractor and just running two of these, BUT, I was looking at data from last night at F2.8 and F4.4, and the 4.4 looks noisy for the same integration time.  So to answer the Q, yes I would buy again, but probably a new 160ED.  Sharpstar reflectors have produced some really decent images, but Davey-T's experience would put me off.

Edited by tooth_dr
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

but Davey-T's experience would put me off.

And I still haven't got a usable image out of it, beginning to regret not buying an Epsilon before the B****t  fiasco.

Dave

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davey-T said:

And I still haven't got a usable image out of it, beginning to regret not buying an Epsilon before the B****t  fiasco.

Dave

I can really feel your frustrations Dave.  It’s not like it was cheap, you paid a good wedge for this.  🙁😕

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AKB said:

Has the epsilon experience been long enough, now, to ask if you’d go for a fast Newt again?

Full disclosure: I’m awfully temped by the SharpStar 2032PNT (F3.2).

I have to say that if you are into fast Newtoneans (and not RASA like me) the Epsilons appear to produce much better stars than Sharpstar. The stars I have seen from Sharpstar images look big and squarish and quite odd (something to do with the central obstruction). You find some examples on Astrobin.

Edited by gorann
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One hour on the Seagull IC2177 when IC434 disappeared from view, 3 x 1200s subs, Tak and QHY9.   A lovely target, will look forward to more Ha and some Oiii too.

 

Thanks

Adam.

 

 

 

IC2177.jpg

Edited by tooth_dr
Link to comment
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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.