Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

Thanks Ciaran.

Actually that is a crop of the centre, binned 1x1, and not downscaled.  I did consider binning during capture or afterwards though, but wanted to try it out full size.  Guiding was sitting around 0.5"/px, using an OAG.  The full image has some nice detail in the small background galaxies.

Trying to work out the spacing - does it need some more or less spacing?

 

 

 

 

M51-Lum-Test-.jpg

Amazing how sharp that looks at full size. Given what i'm seeing, i'd say you probably don't need to bin or downscale, the resolution is unreal. It doesn't have that soft look that can come from oversampling. 

Bring on Galaxy season! 😀

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Finally managed 3 hours with the new camera, 300s x 36 with SkyWatcher 250px. Quick process in APP and PS, cropped below.  Slight spacing issues but overall very happy, as conditions weren’t the best

A small gap in the clouds last night, 30mins on M81 M82, seeing was pretty bad last night.  Quick calibration and stack in APP: Edited to add: havent sorted the spacing yet, and this is pretty mu

Hi Guys the much waited for QHY268M has arrived along with CFW3M (7x36mm) and OAGM. The camera looks great and comes with the largest set of adapters I ever received with any camera.  It felt str

Posted Images

A small gap in the clouds last night, 30mins on M81 M82, seeing was pretty bad last night.  Quick calibration and stack in APP:

Edited to add: havent sorted the spacing yet, and this is pretty much the FOV at 1200mm (slight edge crop)

M81_M82-1800s-LUM.jpg

Edited by tooth_dr
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats some detail for such a short exposure time 🙂 

I must admit when I took the dog out late last night with everything so wet I was amazed that quite a few stars were visible and was tempted to get the rig out but I thought maybe not a great idea after a bottle and half of red wine and so bed it was. 🙂 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, great detail for 30 mins of data. Sky transparency was great last night, when there were no clouds in the way.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my luck! Changed over to the Edge HD 8 for galaxy season, and the 268M gave up. Connecting fine but no image download and no cooling. QHY support suggested the cooling board needs to be replaced. Contacted Bernard at Modern Astronomy who has been incredibly helpful and is trying to push for a replacement camera instead of repair as the timeline for repair is fairly lengthy.

Back to the trusty Atik 490EX it is!

  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SyedT said:

Just my luck! Changed over to the Edge HD 8 for galaxy season, and the 268M gave up. Connecting fine but no image download and no cooling. QHY support suggested the cooling board needs to be replaced. Contacted Bernard at Modern Astronomy who has been incredibly helpful and is trying to push for a replacement camera instead of repair as the timeline for repair is fairly lengthy.

Back to the trusty Atik 490EX it is!

Thats not very good at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Thats not very good at all.

Yep. Just something to keep an eye out for. If it starts to suddenly play up it's probably not you!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SyedT said:

Just my luck! Changed over to the Edge HD 8 for galaxy season, and the 268M gave up. Connecting fine but no image download and no cooling. QHY support suggested the cooling board needs to be replaced. Contacted Bernard at Modern Astronomy who has been incredibly helpful and is trying to push for a replacement camera instead of repair as the timeline for repair is fairly lengthy.

Back to the trusty Atik 490EX it is!

If I am not mistaken, this particular copy was just a few months old?

If yes, it should be under warranty.

N.F.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, nfotis said:

If I am not mistaken, this particular copy was just a few months old?

If yes, it should be under warranty.

N.F.

 

Yeah, I only received it in February so it's well within warranty. Repair would be free of cost as it's clearly a manufacturing defect, but I'll hopefully get a replacement instead.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SyedT said:

Yeah, I only received it in February so it's well within warranty. Repair would be free of cost as it's clearly a manufacturing defect, but I'll hopefully get a replacement instead.

I'd expect a replacement for an almost new camera that clearly has a manufacturing defect.  Check out the Consumer Protection Act 2015.

If you reported the fault within 30 days of it being delivered to you then you have a right to reject it and get a full refund, although the retailer will most likely prefer to replace itif you point this out.

If you're outside the 30 day period for rejecting goods and getting an immediate refund these two points would apply and I'd still ask for a replacement or refund;

- a repair or replacement would cause you significant inconvenience
- the repair would take an unreasonably long amount of time

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/03/2021 at 11:50, tooth_dr said:

Seems to be working fine last night, apart from mist/cloud issues.  I’m only cooling to -10 deg C though.

I just wanted to add an update on attaching the camera to an Atik EFW3. Currently the only way was to use the M48 adapter, which added 5mm. This meant the total back spacing of the camera is 19.5mm

The Atik EFW3 is designed to mount directly to an Atik 16200 camera. Both seem to have a similar spacing of bolts.

Indeed it’s very close and in fact I only had to widen the holes by 0.15mm using 3.5mm drill bit) to let me screw the EFW3 plate directly onto the QHY268.

5mm doesn’t seem like much, but it means I can use my ZWO OAG (16.5mm) and Atik EFW3 (22mm) with my Baader MPCC mk1, and still maintain the correct back spacing (56mm).

Plus it is a secure flat fit 👍🏻

 

 

29E37A87-FCA0-4BF4-954D-BE6378B52803.jpeg

0FC36E75-7E82-4C33-9771-ECA5A420D7E4.jpeg

FF5A3709-0216-4899-942B-DF2796D830D5.jpeg

06F4EAC2-4D9F-4951-9E95-33DEAC19C3FF.jpeg

Hi.

 

I am in a similar situation and want to keep using my zwo ewf, which means I will be increasing the sensor to efw distance to 17.5mm.

 

I was wondering if you saw any problems with your 19.5mm spacing? I guess I should prepare myself to drill some wholes as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rsarwar said:

Hi.

 

I am in a similar situation and want to keep using my zwo ewf, which means I will be increasing the sensor to efw distance to 17.5mm.

 

I was wondering if you saw any problems with your 19.5mm spacing? I guess I should prepare myself to drill some wholes as well.

I never tried it at 19.5mm, just assumed at 5mm over the correct spacing there wouldn’t be any point. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Hi guys

Any suggestions for gain/mode/exposure time for H-alpha imaging. 
 

I grabbed a handful of H-alpha subs last night 300s/gain 56/photographic mode and thought they looked a bit noisy.  Are these the right settings for narrowband?  I’ve attached an uncalibrated stack of 11x300s

 

Thank you!

Adam

 

D9E196E6-3283-4774-B2C7-01E96FA763C8.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been testing as well. using Astronomik 12 nm Ha filters. 

both of these are 1 hour integrations. 50% moon. Thinking of trying gain 80 and see how well it goes. but yes a bit noisy.

RM=1, Gain=56, Offset=25, subs=600

integration_600.thumb.png.6695b782e883c9ba826340f9c8daf508.png

RM=1, Gain=56, Offset=25, subs=300

integration_300s.thumb.png.e24dc735abb031d127723abb06b65de2.png

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rsarwar said:

I have been testing as well. using Astronomik 12 nm Ha filters. 

both of these are 1 hour integrations. 50% moon. Thinking of trying gain 80 and see how well it goes. but yes a bit noisy.

RM=1, Gain=56, Offset=25, subs=600

integration_600.thumb.png.6695b782e883c9ba826340f9c8daf508.png

RM=1, Gain=56, Offset=25, subs=300

integration_300s.thumb.png.e24dc735abb031d127723abb06b65de2.png

Those both look better, smoother than mine - are those calibrated integrations or just raw stacks?  I was using a 7nm filter, and it last night so a slightly bigger moon.  Maybe 600s subs are the way to go?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Those both look better, smoother than mine - are those calibrated integrations or just raw stacks?  I was using a 7nm filter, and it last night so a slightly bigger moon.  Maybe 600s subs are the way to go?

Yes, 600 sec is probably worth the try with gain 56.  

 

also you are in "photographic mode " which is mode 0? I think you should probably try mode 1/high gain. lower read noise and far better DR. 

 

I am having a horrible time getting anything on OIII/SII though with these settings- first time trying narrowband and i am not sure what to make of it. that is why i am thinking of trying out 80 gain. DId you try them? i am using 130pds

Edited by rsarwar
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rsarwar said:

Yes, 600 sec is probably worth the try with gain 56.  

 

also you are in "photographic mode " which is mode 0? I think you should probably try mode 1/high gain. lower read noise and far better DR. 

 

I am having a horrible time getting anything on OIII/SII though with these settings- first time trying narrowband and i am not sure what to make of it. that is why i am thinking of trying out 80 gain. DId you try them? i am using 130pds

Thanks for the reply.  I was shooting in photographic mode (I think yes that is mode 0).  I am not used to the modes.  Previously I used a CCD, and the only thing you could change was time :D   I'm using a 250px, which is a 10" reflector with a focal length of 1200mm at F4.7.  Tonight is looking clear too.  I will try mode 1.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it has been very clear last week or so in oxfordshire too. i think it is clear tonight and tomorrow as well.

with mode 1, your gain will reduce by a factor of 1.5. but you should see less noise. and your DR range will increase 20% and your full well by 300%. you would definately need that for 600 sec shots. 

May i suggest you try both 300 and 600 sec and share the comparision. Honestly I did not expect much difference when i took the pictures i took, so would be nice to have them confirmed by you :)

Edited by rsarwar
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rsarwar said:

yes, it has been very clear last week or so in oxfordshire too. i think it is clear tonight and tomorrow as well.

with mode 1, your gain will reduce by a factor of 1.1. but you should see less noise. and your DR range will increase 20% and your full well by 300%. you would definately need that for 600 sec shots. 

May i suggest you try both 300 and 600 sec and share the comparision. Honestly I did not expect much difference when i took the pictures i took, so would be nice to have them confirmed by you :)

I'll set up a sequence of 300+600s subs, and run a dither every other sub.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mode 1, Gain 56, Offset 10, 300s subs is what I use for narrowband, and it's been giving me pretty good results. 600s subs would probably be better but I'd rather take the small hit to noise and have more subs for pixel rejection to play with. I'm using 3nm filters for reference.

I'm not super experienced when it comes to NB imaging (this is my first mono camera), but an integration of a few hours has been enough for me to work with.

As I'm currently scope-less (although hopefully not for too much longer!), I've been using my Samyang 135mm at f/2.8 for imaging, but I did try the same settings at f/5.5 on my Esprit 100 before it was returned to good effect. I'm working on a widefield narrowband cygnus mosaic at the moment and I'm very happy with the results so far.

Cheers 

Edited by Spongey
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Spongey said:

Mode 1, Gain 56, Offset 10, 300s subs is what I use for narrowband, and it's been giving me pretty good results. 600s subs would probably be better but I'd rather take the small hit to noise and have more subs for pixel rejection to play with. I'm using 3nm filters for reference.

I'm not super experienced when it comes to NB imaging (this is my first mono camera), but an integration of a few hours has been enough for me to work with.

As I'm currently scope-less (although hopefully not for too much longer!), I've been using my Samyang 135mm at f/2.8 for imaging, but I did try the same settings at f/5.5 on my Esprit 100 before it was returned to good effect. I'm working on a widefield narrowband cygnus mosaic at the moment and I'm very happy with the results so far.

Cheers 

Cheers.  I'll try the mode 1 tonight, and will go with 600s.  In the past I've been using 1200s subs along with calibration data, and this removed the bad pixels etc and dithering cleaned up what even was left.  Maybe you arent taking many frames in the mosaic?  You need at least 16 for the sigma clipping to work isnt that right?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Cheers.  I'll try the mode 1 tonight, and will go with 600s.  In the past I've been using 1200s subs along with calibration data, and this removed the bad pixels etc and dithering cleaned up what even was left.  Maybe you arent taking many frames in the mosaic?  You need at least 16 for the sigma clipping to work isnt that right?

I have been taking approximately 4 hours per panel in each channel so far, so just under 50 subs/panel/channel. I dither after every frame, calibrate with darks and bias subtracted flats, and this works excellently. As for the exact number for sigma clipping to work I don't think there is a threshold as such, but more is always better.

My master frames are very clean, I'd happily send one across to you for inspection if you'd like?

Cheers

Edited by Spongey
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spongey said:

I have been taking approximately 4 hours per panel in each channel so far, so just under 50 subs/panel/channel. I dither after every frame, calibrate with darks and bias subtracted flats, and this works excellently. 

My master frames are very clean, I'd happily send one across to you for inspection if you'd like?

Cheers

No I was just wondering about you saying about the need for pixel rejection.  I thought maybe you had a very small number of frames to work with.  But even at 600s, you would still have 25 subs, I would have assumed that was plenty for the rejection algorithm to work effectively.

  • Like 1
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.

×
×
  • 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.