M57 Ring nebula

[CedricTheBrave]

3hrs of data with my VX14 and Risingam IMX571

stacked in DSS and processed in Affinity Photo2 which is very complicated for my small brainspace

 

[CedricTheBrave]

I have tried to get rid of the blue pixels is that noise or camera sensor or something else?

[Vroobel]

Lovely picture and composition. 🤩

Clone stamp should help with the unwanted pixels. 

 

Edited July 30 by Vroobel

[Stuart1971]

6 minutes ago, CedricTheBrave said:

I have tried to get rid of the blue pixels is that noise or camera sensor or something else?

Excellent image 👏🏻

The blue pixels you refer to are hot and or cold pixels, they usually show up as red, green or blue pixels, and are usually removed by using a good set of temp and exposure matched darks to calibrate your light images…

[CedricTheBrave]

15 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Excellent image 👏🏻

The blue pixels you refer to are hot and or cold pixels, they usually show up as red, green or blue pixels, and are usually removed by using a good set of temp and exposure matched darks to calibrate your light images…

Hmm bit weird as my darks only showed a couple and now there are lots!

May try a restack 

Quite like the small spiral next to the nebula

[Stuart1971]

21 minutes ago, CedricTheBrave said:

Hmm bit weird as my darks only showed a couple and now there are lots!

May try a restack 

Quite like the small spiral next to the nebula

Did your darks match perfectly in temp and exposure time..? And did you use at least 40 ?

[Roy Foreman]

Excellent shot of M57. I think I can just make out a hint of the outer halo surrounding the nebula.

Those coloured pixels you mention may be hot pixels or a stacking artifact. DSS can be really bad at this, but Afinity is much better.

[CedricTheBrave]

5 hours ago, Roy Foreman said:

Excellent shot of M57. I think I can just make out a hint of the outer halo surrounding the nebula.

Those coloured pixels you mention may be hot pixels or a stacking artifact. DSS can be really bad at this, but Afinity is much better.

interesting i will give affinity a go cheers

[CedricTheBrave]

5 hours ago, Stuart1971 said:

Did your darks match perfectly in temp and exposure time..? And did you use at least 40 ?

good point, no i used the flats wizard in NINA and they were shorter

[CedricTheBrave]

5 hours ago, Roy Foreman said:

Excellent shot of M57. I think I can just make out a hint of the outer halo surrounding the nebula.

Those coloured pixels you mention may be hot pixels or a stacking artifact. DSS can be really bad at this, but Afinity is much better.

i tried bring out more of the halo but it blew out the centre of the ring really bad

[Roy Foreman]

38 minutes ago, CedricTheBrave said:

i tried bring out more of the halo but it blew out the centre of the ring really bad

Yep, been there done that. Something to try is two sets of processing, one for the ring and one for the halo, then merge together. Never tried it on this target as my data has never been good enough.

[CedricTheBrave]

one for a cloudy night!

22 minutes ago, Roy Foreman said:

Yep, been there done that. Something to try is two sets of processing, one for the ring and one for the halo, then merge together. Never tried it on this target as my data has never been good enough.

 

[Stuart1971]

1 hour ago, CedricTheBrave said:

good point, no i used the flats wizard in NINA and they were shorter

Darks not flats….

you need exposure length and temp matched darks for your lights and also temp matched and exposure length matched darks for your flats….

Edited July 30 by Stuart1971

[CedricTheBrave]

It does the darks and flats in flats wizard. 

I will redo the same length cheers

[Stuart1971]

10 hours ago, CedricTheBrave said:

It does the darks and flats in flats wizard. 

I will redo the same length cheers

Yes, but those are the flats and dark flats to calibrate them, you need separate darks at the same temp and exposure length as the lights, so you have to use 2 separate lots of darks..👍🏻
The NINA devs have confused things by changing the name in the flats wizard, from Dark Flats to just darks, because they are essentially just darks at a shorter exposure the same as the flats to calibrate them, but they are not the darks you need to calibrate your light frames..

Edited July 31 by Stuart1971

[Pompey Monkey]

1 hour ago, Stuart1971 said:

Yes, but those are the flats and dark flats to calibrate them, you need separate darks at the same temp and exposure length as the lights, so you have to use 2 separate lots of darks..👍🏻
The NINA devs have confused things by changing the name in the flats wizard, from Dark Flats to just darks, because they are essentially just darks at a shorter exposure the same as the flats to calibrate them, but they are not the darks you need to calibrate your light frames..

Personally, I find the term "dark flats" confusing. Darks are all darks, just matched to temperature and exposure of the lights.

[daz]

19 hours ago, CedricTheBrave said:

interesting i will give affinity a go cheers

Dave Eagle has produced an excellent guide on using Affinity - amongst other things!

https://www.star-gazing.co.uk/WebPage/shop/

 

[CedricTheBrave]

1 hour ago, Stuart1971 said:

Yes, but those are the flats and dark flats to calibrate them, you need separate darks at the same temp and exposure length as the lights, so you have to use 2 separate lots of darks..👍🏻
The NINA devs have confused things by changing the name in the flats wizard, from Dark Flats to just darks, because they are essentially just darks at a shorter exposure the same as the flats to calibrate them, but they are not the darks you need to calibrate your light frames..

Ok makes sense 

 

[Elp]

33 minutes ago, Pompey Monkey said:

Personally, I find the term "dark flats" confusing. Darks are all darks, just matched to temperature and exposure of the lights.

The name is apt, darks (for your) flats, no more confusion.

[Pompey Monkey]

25 minutes ago, Elp said:

The name is apt, darks (for your) flats, no more confusion.

In that case, they should be called "flat darks" not "dark flats", Shirley?

On the same point why not "dark lights", too? lol

Trust me, this is minor, In my work (electromagnetic engineering) people regularly use the phrase "reduction in gain loss". Now that's one to make anyone want to bash their head against a wall! 

[Stuart1971]

1 hour ago, Pompey Monkey said:

Personally, I find the term "dark flats" confusing. Darks are all darks, just matched to temperature and exposure of the lights.

I agree, but it is easier for beginners to understand when the term darks and dark flats are used as they can separate them….

[Elp]

1 hour ago, Pompey Monkey said:

should be called

A lot of US people call them flat darks. I think, not sure, but I believe early on it was always lights, darks and bias so they were clearly defined and dark flats replaced bias but by then the original naming convention was already established, this is my theory. But usually, tech/science/officials people aren't the best at naming things that people can relate to, Mcboaty would tend to agree.

Edited July 31 by Elp

[Stuart1971]

I agree they are just darks at a duration of your flats, but all the same they are just darks, but for beginners not to get really confused I still think the term Flat darks or dark flats (whichever you agree is the right term), is useful for them to be able to distinguish the two types, but that’s just me, I am experienced and there all just darks to me….😂

[Stuart1971]

3 hours ago, Pompey Monkey said:

Personally, I find the term "dark flats" confusing. Darks are all darks, just matched to temperature and exposure of the lights.

This makes it more confusing, as you are grouping the flats into the lights category now….😂😂

Which essentially they are, but again for beginners..🤯🤯

[Elp]

If only we didn't need to think about calibration and it could all be done automatically...