Jump to content

548140465_Animationchallenge.jpg.32379dfa6f3bf4bba537689690df680e.jpg

27 hours on M27


DaveS
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, andrew s said:

At this gain you get 5 electrons per ADU.  This level of quantisation noise may be your issue.  If your nowhere near saturation your throwing bits away. I think you would be better off taking more shorter exposures, to avoid saturation,  at say 1 electron per adu (gain 139).

Regards Andrew 

OK. It looks like I may have a clear moonless slot on Saturday, so I'll see what gain 139 looks like, but I don't have any Dark frames for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DaveS said:

OK. It looks like I may have a clear moonless slot on Saturday, so I'll see what gain 139 looks like, but I don't have any Dark frames for that.

 

Just now, x6gas said:

Well when open that file in AA5, View>Range>CCD range gives the full monty, as I'd expect.

So I don't think that this has anything to do with your capture (the individual sub and the stack itself are definitely not over saturated)... so in my view it's something to do with the CCD range that AstroArt is applying to the stack, for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The uncalibrated sub looks much better (apart from the amp glow)..   So maybe a calibration issue, also your calibrated sub has lots of zeros..  do you use a Pedastal to prevent black clipping ?

Here they are with PI screenstretch .. top one is calibrated

416907753_SingleOSubCal.thumb.jpg.0c8c28364f4ab3b6bb8d3302011f881d.jpgDumbbell-Oxygen-0018.thumb.jpg.16dab89ff77490d96a91fbdb5bff138a.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Laurin Dave said:

Dave ..  if you post the relevant dark and flat and I’ll run it through Pixinsight 

Dave

Again single dark and flat, or the stack used for calibration. Sorry for the questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here's a think I should have clocked, my lights were taken at -20c, but the dark and flats were at -25c.

I know PI would have thrown a wobbly but AA is quite happy with mismatched temps. I can take some more -20c Darks, not sure about the flats and dark flats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the 12 sub master dark

Master Dark.fit

I've just found out all my Flat frames were taken with an exposure of 0 seconds, instead of the 2 sec that I thought. The Dark Flats are at 2 sec. Argh!

Will have to do a load of Flats as well and the weather is rubbish for doing T-shirt flats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DaveS said:

OK, single Dark frame. Not worth posting a Flat is it is effectively a Bias frame. Histo shows just a few spaced out bars.

ASI1600 10M-0001Dark.fit 31.27 MB · 0 downloads

What? A flat should be far from a bias frame! It should be exposed into the region where the fixed pattern noise dominates read and shot noise. Am I missing something?

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was *supposed* to be set at 2 seconds, which I determined by trial exposures, but somewhere along the line I must have left the exposure in Maxim on zero seconds, without realising it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, steppenwolf said:

What is even more strange is that using Laurin Dave's O TIF, I am not getting this issue in Photoshop unless I am not trying hard enough?

O.png.4d94499e56e380f50cf951d79752d746.png

It was a second stretch for me when it fell into combing, Steve but...

10 hours ago, x6gas said:

Hmmm.  This is an interesting one.  I should say that I am stuck with AstroArt 5 so things may be different with more modern releases, but:

If you click on View>Range>CCD range then you get the burnt out image that Dave posted originally.  This is strange as whenever I've done this with my data it gives the complete CCD range (as you'd expect from the name of the function) but that's not the case here - you get a very different result if you select View>Range>Min->Max... so saving that gives this (which behaves OK when I stretch it in PS):

9 Hours O.tif 31.26 MB · 0 downloads

so I wonder if AstroArt is somehow misreading or misinterpreting the bit depth of the camera?

Ian

this is working for me! Nice one Ciaran!!   EDIT. Sorry, spoke too soon. This is also breaking down under a hard stretch and also produces a massively posterized DBE model, which is new to me. The Ha didn't do this. See below.

1473476448_DBEISSUE.thumb.JPG.998eb7d3492c3d284ac1fa9f17d23a8c.JPG

Olly

PS My internet has suddenly started working at supernatural speed (for rural France.) Long may it continue.

Edited by ollypenrice
Stated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

It was a second stretch for me when it fell into combing, Steve but...

this is working for me! Nice one Ciaran!!   EDIT. Sorry, spoke too soon. This is also breaking down under a hard stretch and also produces a massively posterized DBE model, which is new to me. The Ha didn't do this. See below.

...

Olly

PS My internet has suddenly started working at supernatural speed (for rural France.) Long may it continue.

OK could you indulge me here Olly...  by default I always get that posterized view of the background map (whether using ABE or DBE) but as I understand it that's just the Screen Transfer Function skimping on resources...  So could I ask: if, in PI, you go to IMAGE > Screen Transfer Function > Use 24-bit  STF LUTs (or indeed if you drop the STF into Histogram Transformation and apply the stretch for real) then do you still get the crude gradients?

I am curious whatever, because I assume that you don't usually see backgrounds looking like this... so something must be different with this file.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, x6gas said:

OK could you indulge me here Olly...  by default I always get that posterized view of the background map (whether using ABE or DBE) but as I understand it that's just the Screen Transfer Function skimping on resources...  So could I ask: if, in PI, you go to IMAGE > Screen Transfer Function > Use 24-bit  STF LUTs (or indeed if you drop the STF into Histogram Transformation and apply the stretch for real) then do you still get the crude gradients?

I am curious whatever, because I assume that you don't usually see backgrounds looking like this... so something must be different with this file.

Ian

I just used Ctrl A to get the screen stretch, Ian, and yes, when I subtracted the posterized background model I got an equivalent posterization in the image screen stretched in PI and  stretched as normal in Photoshop. This is the same workflow as I used on the Ha which worked well. Indeed it's what I always do.

For 9 hours the OIII breaks down fast under stretching. My own CCD data goes deeper in less time so I do think something is wrong with the file.

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I just used Ctrl A to get the screen stretch, Ian, and yes, when I subtracted the posterized background model I got an equivalent posterization in the image screen stretched in PI and  stretched as normal in Photoshop. This is the same workflow as I used on the Ha which worked well. Indeed it's what I always do.

For 9 hours the OIII breaks down fast under stretching. My own CCD data goes deeper in less time so I do think something is wrong with the file.

Olly

Interesting, thanks Olly.  I don't get the same thing when I do an ABE... something odd going on!  It does seem clear that the black point of the stack has been clipped somewhere along the line...

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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.