Umm… why am I getting so much signal in only 6 hours? B4.8 skies … 😅 - Forums

Topic starter

Sep 6, 2025

Hi all,

I’m honestly confused here. Everyone tells me targets like WR 134 or CTB-1 need 20–30 hours of integration to look decent. But under my Bortle 4.8 skies, I’m pulling strong signal in just 5–6 hours… and I don’t understand why.

I don’t use masks (truth is, I don’t even know how to make one 😂). My whole “workflow” is literally just stretching carefully until the image looks balanced. That’s it.

Is it possible my setup is just really dialed in, or am I missing something fundamental? I keep expecting my results to collapse into noise, but somehow the data holds.

Any ideas why this is happening? lol

📷 image.pngThis is also only 6 hours
📷 image.png

Well Written Engaging

Tobiasz

Sep 6, 2025

Read noise Astrophotography · Sep 6, 2025, 09:59 AM
and I don’t understand why.

Low read noise sensor + narrowband filters + great undersampling (1.41”/pix") does this, especially the undersampling.

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 6, 2025

Tobiasz · Sep 6, 2025, 10:11 AM
Read noise Astrophotography · Sep 6, 2025, 09:59 AM
and I don’t understand why.
Low read noise sensor + narrowband filters + great undersampling (1.41”/pix") does this, especially the undersampling.

Tell me more.. Ive just come back to astrophotography after eight years away and so much has changed. I come from early CCD background and shooting f8 RC…. I never thought I would use CMOS …. I am astounded as to how much data I can collect now. I have never used refractors until now. I have owned a few never liked them at all…. I am surprised

Mikołaj Wadowski

Sep 6, 2025

The faster focal ratio and lower-noise cameras help a lot, as well as the advancements in processing techniques.

I feel like the main difference in expectations vs effects is individual standards. Your CTB image has quite a lot of denoising artifacts (sharp edges in otherwise diffuse structures). With 6 hours of data it looks good when viewed as a whole but if you did 30 hours you could zoom in and not loose visual fidelity.

Helpful Insightful Respectful

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 6, 2025

Mikołaj Wadowski · Sep 6, 2025 at 12:41 PM
The faster focal ratio and lower-noise cameras help a lot, as well as the advancements in processing techniques.
I feel like the main difference in expectations vs effects is individual standards. Your CTB image has quite a lot of denoising artifacts (sharp edges in otherwise diffuse structures). With 6 hours of data it looks good when viewed as a whole but if you did 30 hours you could zoom in and not loose visual fidelity.

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 6, 2025

Read noise Astrophotography · Sep 6, 2025 at 03:01 PM
Mikołaj Wadowski · Sep 6, 2025 at 12:41 PM
The faster focal ratio and lower-noise cameras help a lot, as well as the advancements in processing techniques.
I feel like the main difference in expectations vs effects is individual standards. Your CTB image has quite a lot of denoising artifacts (sharp edges in otherwise diffuse structures). With 6 hours of data it looks good when viewed as a whole but if you did 30 hours you could zoom in and not loose visual fidelity.

Not sure if this is correct hopefully you get my reply?

Thank you for a very informative answer I understand the difference and will strive to do better.

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 6, 2025

I feel embarrassed now .. I guess its about growth

Brian Puhl

IOTD Staff

Sep 7, 2025

Getting signal is easy.

Getting clean signal that you can push harder requires more time. Like Mikołaj said, your CTB is what we’d call ‘crispy’ or ‘cooked’. Also, major advances in camera technology with the latest gen CMOS sensors.

Daemon de Chaeney

Sep 7, 2025

Why be embarrassed? You noticed a discrepancy between what you expected and what you got. You asked about it. People answered your question. You learned something, and in your asking, so did I.

Well Written Respectful Supportive

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 7, 2025

Daemon de Chaeney · Sep 7, 2025, 10:08 AM
Why be embarrassed? You noticed a discrepancy between what you expected and what you got. You asked about it. People answered your question. You learned something, and in your asking, so did I.

I appreciate the feed back really do because I want to get better

Is this better ? I am colour blind which has its own challenges..

📷 ImageBlend2.jpg

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 7, 2025

Maybe it needs more data ?

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 7, 2025

📷 image.png

Daemon de Chaeney

Sep 7, 2025

It looks better to me, but I’m no great judge. Let’s see what others have to say. It always needs more data, but I think that looks pretty reasonable for the integration time.

Oscar

Sep 8, 2025 · Edited: Sep 8, 2025

Read noise Astrophotography:
Daemon de Chaeney · Sep 7, 2025, 10:08 AM

Why be embarrassed? You noticed a discrepancy between what you expected and what you got. You asked about it. People answered your question. You learned something, and in your asking, so did I.

I appreciate the feed back really do because I want to get better

Is this better ? I am colour blind which has its own challenges..

📷 ImageBlend2.jpg

I think I like the paler colors better here; also just so you know, there is a blue gradient that is mostly concentrating in the bottom and left corner, and also a little bit in the far left border of the image, generally. Is this more integration than the first example? Cant tell if you maybe just changed the NXT settings (?), I definitely like this one more in terms of "feel" - it's smoother.

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 8, 2025

Oscar · Sep 8, 2025, 05:30 AM
Read noise Astrophotography:
Daemon de Chaeney · Sep 7, 2025, 10:08 AM

Why be embarrassed? You noticed a discrepancy between what you expected and what you got. You asked about it. People answered your question. You learned something, and in your asking, so did I.

I appreciate the feed back really do because I want to get better

Is this better ? I am colour blind which has its own challenges..

📷 ImageBlend2.jpg

I think I like the paler colors better here; also just so you know, there is a blue gradient that is mostly concentrating in the bottom and left corner, and also a little bit in the far left border of the image, generally. Is this more integration than the first example? Cant tell if you maybe just changed the NXT settings (?), I definitely like this one more in terms of "feel" - it's smoother.

Hi thank you for taking the time to help out.. No extra integration time when I went back to redo the picture I found this copy saved… I posted the wrong copy at the beginning of this post.. I normally make a lot of editions then decide on one and refine it.

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 8, 2025

Read noise Astrophotography · Sep 6, 2025 at 03:01 PM
Mikołaj Wadowski · Sep 6, 2025 at 12:41 PM
The faster focal ratio and lower-noise cameras help a lot, as well as the advancements in processing techniques.
I feel like the main difference in expectations vs effects is individual standards. Your CTB image has quite a lot of denoising artifacts (sharp edges in otherwise diffuse structures). With 6 hours of data it looks good when viewed as a whole but if you did 30 hours you could zoom in and not loose visual fidelity.

Read noise Astrophotography

Topic starter

Sep 8, 2025

Read noise Astrophotography · Sep 8, 2025 at 03:56 PM
Read noise Astrophotography · Sep 6, 2025 at 03:01 PM
Mikołaj Wadowski · Sep 6, 2025 at 12:41 PM
The faster focal ratio and lower-noise cameras help a lot, as well as the advancements in processing techniques.
I feel like the main difference in expectations vs effects is individual standards. Your CTB image has quite a lot of denoising artifacts (sharp edges in otherwise diffuse structures). With 6 hours of data it looks good when viewed as a whole but if you did 30 hours you could zoom in and not loose visual fidelity.
It’s turns out I posted the wrong one I didn’t realize until I went to save the new version.. You have very valid points and I agree 100%