IC 443

[Rodd]

This is merely an experiment to see if a respectable image can be rendered with very little data in two channels.  The Ha channel  (green) has sufficient data--114 300 sec subs--almost 10 hours.  However, the OIII has only 3 hours and SII only 45 minutes.  It was very challenging to render this without copious chromatic noise.   Looking forward to getting more OIII and SII.  The second channel is a bicolor (HOO).  I am bored, I guess

 

 

[alan potts]

My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it?

Alan

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, alan potts said:

My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it?

Alan

That is an odd effect, certainly. The nearest I've seen to this in my own imaging came from a QSI camera whose data, when stretched hard, showed a kind of grid pattern of banding, the bands maybe 20 pixels wide and aligned with the frame. It created a square look from the glow around bright stars, not unlike this. I don't know what caused it but I seem to think it was discussed in QSI circles and was fixed by a firmware update. Perhaps something to do with how the chip was read.

Otherwise, I like the images. My rendition also created that colour of OIII glow round the outside of the Jellyfish.

Olly

 

[tooth_dr]

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it?

Alan

You mean the big star with the square diffraction pattern?  That’s caused by a microlensing effect inherent to the 1600MM.  If its something else then I don’t see it, the stars look round to me on the phone here 🤷‍♂️ 

[Rodd]

8 hours ago, alan potts said:

My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it?

Alan

Yes-get a new camera.  The 1600 sensor has microlensing artifacts around square stars. It sucks. The 2600 and 6200 do not suffer so

Edited November 28, 2022 by Rodd
wrong camera

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

That is an odd effect, certainly. The nearest I've seen to this in my own imaging came from a QSI camera whose data, when stretched hard, showed a kind of grid pattern of banding, the bands maybe 20 pixels wide and aligned with the frame. It created a square look from the glow around bright stars, not unlike this. I don't know what caused it but I seem to think it was discussed in QSI circles and was fixed by a firmware update. Perhaps something to do with how the chip was read.

Otherwise, I like the images. My rendition also created that colour of OIII glow round the outside of the Jellyfish.

Olly

 

It’s a microlensing artifact caused by the  1600 sensor. The stt 8300 was a much better camera after all. But it had something wrong with it. I have had very bad luck with cameras 

[Rodd]

6 hours ago, alan potts said:

My first thought on these and other captures I think you posted last week are stunning shots ruined by square stars, I really could not put up with that from my work which is very second rate compared to yours. Can amything be done to stop it?

Alan

Unless you refer to something other than the big squares around the 2 bright stars?  My fsq had been fixed, but it still is not right. Small stars show astigmatism. I am told it’s due to the small modern pixels.  Sounds like bunk to me for a scope advertised as redesigned for digital imaging.  I am in the process of negotiating a buy back. 

[Rallemikken]

49 minutes ago, Rodd said:

The 2600 sensor has microlensing artifacts around square stars.

I didn't belive square stars  existed, but obviously they do!

[simmo39]

Think the answer to that is yes! both nice renditions to my eyes.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Rallemikken said:

I didn't belive square stars  existed, but obviously they do!

I meant 1600 sensor--unfortunately they do!

[alan potts]

17 hours ago, Rodd said:

Yes-get a new camera.  The 1600 sensor has microlensing artifacts around square stars. It sucks. The 2600 and 6200 do not suffer so

It really does detract from your fine work which is as good as anyone's on the site in my eye's. The 2600 appears to be a lovely camera, I would like one but they don't seem to be a free gift in Cornflakes as yet.

Alan

[alan potts]

21 hours ago, tooth_dr said:

You mean the big star with the square diffraction pattern?  That’s caused by a microlensing effect inherent to the 1600MM.  If its something else then I don’t see it, the stars look round to me on the phone here 🤷‍♂️ 

No it was just the two bright stars, , I struggle to see how they can market a camera that does that, not dirt cheap either, ruins quality work.

Alan

[Rodd]

7 hours ago, alan potts said:

t really does detract from your fine work which is as good as anyone's on the site in my eye's. The 2600 appears to be a lovely camera, I would like one but they don't seem to be a free gift in Cornflakes as yet.

Thanks Alan, I am humbled.  And yes, the expense is what has been preventing me from upgrading to the 2600.  I would really like the 6200, but I would have to purchase 50 mm filters, and a set of good 50 mm unmounted filters cost more than the 6200 camera!  The 2600 is more within reach as I would not need new filters.  Maybe Santa will live up to his reputation this year!!

[alan potts]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Alan, I am humbled.  And yes, the expense is what has been preventing me from upgrading to the 2600.  I would really like the 6200, but I would have to purchase 50 mm filters, and a set of good 50 mm unmounted filters cost more than the 6200 camera!  The 2600 is more within reach as I would not need new filters.  Maybe Santa will live up to his reputation this year!!

The trouble is with you, you have some of the very best gear money can buy and that deserve to have the very best cameras, tell the lady indoors Alan says it alright. I would love one of the FSQ's that you use so well but they are close to 7 grand now and that before you look at any reducer options. I imagine without checking the 6200 is the full frame version. I guess if you stretch that far there isn't many more things you can buy, but then they will bring something out, they always do. I'm considering a 2600 myself.

Alan

[MarsG76]

On 28/11/2022 at 14:30, Rodd said:

This is merely an experiment to see if a respectable image can be rendered with very little data in two channels.  The Ha channel  (green) has sufficient data--114 300 sec subs--almost 10 hours.  However, the OIII has only 3 hours and SII only 45 minutes.  It was very challenging to render this without copious chromatic noise.   Looking forward to getting more OIII and SII.  The second channel is a bicolor (HOO).  I am bored, I guess

 

 

I'd say that this experiment is a success...

[Rodd]

26 minutes ago, alan potts said:

The trouble is with you, you have some of the very best gear money can buy and that deserve to have the very best cameras, tell the lady indoors Alan says it alright. I would love one of the FSQ's that you use so well but they are close to 7 grand now and that before you look at any reducer options. I imagine without checking the 6200 is the full frame version. I guess if you stretch that far there isn't many more things you can buy, but then they will bring something out, they always do. I'm considering a 2600 myself.

Alan

Yes.  The 6200 is full frame. The 2600 sensor and the 6200 are the same. One is just bigger. The expense of a full frame with filter wheel and filters is as much as the fsq 😦

[Rodd]

20 minutes ago, MarsG76 said:

I'd say that this experiment is a success...

 Thanks.  I was surprised