John Tucker avatar

As noted elsewhere, I’m in the early stages of trying to make the transition from what has mostly been “electronically assisted astronomy” to producing some nice images. So I present last night’s effort here for input, with particular regard to acquisition technique.

  • Shot from by backyard, Bortle 7 or 8.

  • Roughly 14 hours total acquisition time over two nights. I threw out the first and last 1.5 hour from each night because of high background illumination close to the horizon

  • Individual exposures were 40 or 60 seconds, which kept the histogram peak distribution curve well separated from baseline but less than ÂĽ from the far left of the histogram. The little bump at 64,000 for saturated stars was minimal

  • Carbon fiber C8 with the Starizona 0.63c reducer/coma corrector - I am usually resistant to removing the reducer because of coma and because it is a big hassle to find focus again when the reducer has been removed/reinstalled

  • ASI1600 camera binned 2Ă—2. Per the usual online tools this gives me 1.22 arcsec per pixel

  • I set the gain up pretty high (249 out of a possible 300) to suppress the dynamic range, which I figured I’d just end up doing during processing anyway due to the bright galactic core issue

  • Guiding was fine. I use a Celestron OAG modified to accept an ASI432 guide camera. The guide camera was not binned due to its large pixels. As seeing was quite good guiding averaged 0.4 arcsec

  • Minimal processing in Astro Pixel Processor.

My take:

  • Signal to noise is not great given the amount of acquisition time

  • Stars are a little ragged, probably due in part to my use of the Celestron dew heater ring which heats the objective directly. But its really hard to control dew in Florida using a heated dew shield only, so maybe I am stuck with this

  • There was aslo a small amount of dew on the objective for part of one night and I’m not sure I’ve eliminated all those subs

  • In spite of the calculated 1.22 arcsec pixel scale, the FITS (not shown) looks a little pixelated

  • Had a pretty tough time working out the background gradients while processing, in spite of having used a full set of calibration frames

Raw stacked image and lightly processed version below.

đź“· image.pngimage.pngđź“· M_63-session_1_session_2-crop-lpc-cbg-csc-vc-St.jpgM_63-session_1_session_2-crop-lpc-cbg-csc-vc-St.jpg

Helpful
Tony Gondola avatar

I wouldn’t jack the gain up the way you did. Doing so doesn’t “suppress” dynamic range, it kills it. This might be carry over in your thinking in EEA. Unless you’re doing extreme lucky imaging, you want to shoot at the lowest gain that minimizes read noise to acceptable levels.

Especially at 30-40 sec sub. exposure length you can ignore the live histogram. Again, this might be a carryover for EEA. I never look at it during capture.

This is a very detailed Galaxy. I think you would have benefited by shooting not shooting binned or by taking the time to remove the reducer. You’d get more detail and better stars.

Helpful Concise
Scott Badger avatar

Hi John, fwiw I think the galaxy looks nice, stars could use some more color, and maybe a bit more de-noising to the background.

Cheers,

Scott

Well Written Respectful Concise Supportive
Craig Towell avatar

Nice work with good details, I think colour needs to be revisited, did you colour calibrate? That bright star right of frame should be orange/red as it is an M5 as below:

đź“· IMG_1706.jpegIMG_1706.jpeg

Helpful Supportive