SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

OK, so I set a few things differently for me, like auto range, and Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM). Like bwa suggested.
Waited for my object to clear the Southern Meridian, then somemore... , until I moved to a different target and back to get the mount orientated to the post meridian position.
Finally, I was able to decide on 30 seconds as my exposure, because 20 appeared more noisy, and I'd shot at 25s before.

I love this camera! It allows me to do a live centering of the object (with crosshairs), and mouse wheel zooming. But it records (saves) in one size, not the zoomed size. It's OK, crop later.
The result seemed good enough to eat, so I let her run.
I took a peek in a few times, but wanted to let the camera and computers run the show without me fiddling. Finally I noticed PHD2 was blinking red, so it had lost it guide star. No wonder, it was way low and had been for a while, aimed in my neighbors tree. Sigh, city living...
Surprise, surprise! Nice images anyway. The guiding loss shows in the downloads.
But aiming South really seems to work well for my location. Anyway, playing every chance I get. (Which is almost every night.)
I'll put my finished up, and the untouched tiff for anyone who would enjoy some massive files. (time wise) As is typical for me, post processing is minimal.
Sonny, trying to image 24/7...

300-30 second-(9000 seconds) PP jpg

(Download)

392-30s-(11760 seconds) PP jpg Cropped for detail.

(Download)

tiff file. Total exposed time is 150 minutes. 9000 seconds.

(Download)

tiff file. Total exposed time is 192 minutes. 11760 seconds.

(Download)

CathyAnn Loc: Apache Junction, AZ

Oh, Sonny! The cropped image just blew my sox off... and I didn't have any on!!! Gorgeous! I love looking at such shots for their sheer beauty!

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Thank You CathyAnn!

I think I need to do a rerun to get around the controversial little noise marks.
I can't say what they look like to me... but I can say they resemble Jelly Fish.
That's what happens when guiding of the telescope goes hay-wire.
There's another target out there I wanted to image, but it was in the trees from my spot.
Called the Prawn Nebula. I'm not sure which way it is going (rising or setting) yet. But it looked like an interesting object.

CathyAnn Loc: Apache Junction, AZ

I didn't notice any noise, but then I'm looking at the nebula. That Prawn Nebula does look very interesting.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

I was just running Stellarium back and forth. Seems it is lowering, so not much chance for me for this year, if ever. It appears to be one of the lower flying objects.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Outstanding!!! You're firing on all cylinders now.

Quite a transformation from stacking with time to actually stacking images.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Thank You Jim!

Yes, quite a difference! These are amazing cameras! Amazing fine detail!
And I especially find the ability to fine tune the aim to a single star at the center of the cross-hairs, restart PHD2, and image until the horizon shuts me down.

Last night/this morning I imaged the Trifid. On the long run I can see the little 'jellyfish' formations, like in the Lagoon.
I think they might be field rotation, because they look exactly the same as in the Lagoon long run stack.
So I'm working on a way around. I think I may have found a hazard in too many subs.
They don't seem to be there in a less subs (20-30 second subs), shown as #1 below.
And are there in a multi-hundred stack (505-30 second subs), shown as #2 below.

(Not to mention, I think the detail is better on the 20 subs Vs: 505 subs. Which seems apparent in the original tiff's below.)

Anyway, kind of a splitting hairs sort of question/observation I'm pondering. Any thoughts?

Sonny, always running around the outside of the box...

PS: I did check the 'Store Original' box in the cropped versions, but for some reason, they will not store.

20-30 second subs. Cropped to 278%


Post Meridian. 505-30 second subs. Cropped to 278%, rotated 180 degrees to compare to Pre version.


Original 20-30 second subs tiff file.

(Download)

Original 505-30 second subs tiff file.

(Download)

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Love that 2nd picture! So good I couldn't hope to do any better playing with the download.

bwa

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Thank You Brian!

I took your advice to heart, did Auto and FWHM, then let'her run.

I'm pondering what I think is a numerical degrading of too many subs, described above.
I'd love to have your input as well.

Maybe just pushing the envelope to far?

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I don't remember ever shooting more than about 75 subs on a target so can't really address the issue of "too many subs". Theoretically, there shouldn't be an issue with too many subs; practically though??

However, if one considers the calculation of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) being based on the Sq.Rt. of the number of subs, going from 81 subs to 100 subs only gains you about 10% in SNR (9x->10x) and pushing it to 225 subs gives a 15x gain in SNR. You get the greatest gain in SNR (6x-7x) in that 36-49 sub range.

Personally, I favor (slightly) longer subs which have a far greater potential to improve image quality. I put together a graph showing this (see below). Each of the points shown on the graph has the same SNR...

bwa

(Download)

stepping beyond Loc: usa eastcoast

That's some really nice data you've got there Sonny and the cropped is " Stunning", at least someone is getting some image time this darn weather is killing my chances at anything. C'mon Fall temps!

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

That makes sense, because in my observations, there has been marginal gain and increased smear with compounding images.
Or in plainer Engrish, less was more...
But rather than math, I set it up then take a nap. Then see what I got. Real scientific R-eye.
I'm leaning towards the 30 second subs at the moment, and lesser numbers of them. Less time seems to degrade the image, or it just doesn't seem to get enough light to build the details, like a longer sub does.

In Fact, I'm in error. The 505 subs are actually 15 second subs. I just misnamed them as 30's at 02:00 Hrs. Mr. Sleepy head here. (505 X 15 = 7575)
As they use to say in the early days of computers, Garbage in = Garbage out.
And that would certainly explain the tiff file appearance differences as posted.

Sonny the Math Wizz no more.
I think I need a hat box. No corners to go around...

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

My location was a factor for me when deciding to enter this madness of deep sky macro.
Trying the nuances of this camera.

And please, feel free to download and play with the images, if you'd like.
Beats cussing at the clouds I'd think.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

8-14-17 A return imaging for shorter exposures.
These surprised me. 84 images VS: 210 images.

I think I actually prefer the shorter run (Image 1) for better clarity. But the longer (Image 2) seems to have more depth.
But #2 has a haze over it. And I think the center is blown out.
Warrants more experimenting.

82 images-30s-Noise reduced only. (to clear up any warm pixels)

(Download)

210 images-30s-PP-saved as a web jpg.

(Download)

CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.

Beautiful work Sonny especially the Cropped Image great detail.
You have finally found your nitch.
Craig