First, that's a really nice M101. Details are sharp, stars are really
round - a neat effort. The flat fielding must be good, too, because I see no
evidence of any flaws.

Ron Wodaski
author of The New CCD Astronomy
http://www.newastro.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Barrett [mailto:frankb02@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 4:08 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] First calibrated image


Here's my first attempt at a fully calibrated image with my new
light box.  In keeping with the recent theme it is, of course, of
M101 ;)
I'm just a bit concerned over the noise in this image.  I would have
thought that an hour long exposure would not have resulted in so
much noise in the faint arms.  Am I overstretching this with curves?

http://celestialwonders.com/m101b-st7.html

Thanks, Frank
http://celestialwonders.com



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Really nice details, but seems to be lacking in red. Here's a reference
image (although the core is kind of washed out; the exposures were too long
to preserve much color in the core):

http://www.newastro.com/wodaski/images/new/FCT150/M13.LRGB_cropsmall.jpg

As far as preference, I like the "image4.jpg" one with the brighter stars in
the core. If they are not differentiated by color, I find it more pleasing
to see a brighter core. You may be dealing with the same thing I was - a
core so bright that colors are washed out. Do you have light pollution?
Something has washed out the red in most of the stars and made them green.
Light pollution could account for that, or it might be a color balance
issue.

Ron Wodaski
author of The New CCD Astronomy
http://www.newastro.com


-----Original Message-----
From: AA Johnah Fish Estates [mailto:aajohnah@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:03 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] M13 color


Clear Day
I tried to re-process this image
With the Lum in the color it was to much so I took it out

Quick exposure though

Mewlon 300 FL/2700  F/9.1
SBIG8XE
Optec Color filters
Red 9 min
Green 9 min
Blue 15 min

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/galaxyquest/CCD%20Images/IMAGE4.jpg

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/galaxyquest/CCD%20Images/IMAGE4try.jpg

I would like to know what way you like better and why?
Any comments would be appreciated

Thank you




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hey, that C8 has seen some real advances in equipment. <g>

Nice detail in the image, and your luminance processing looks pretty good.
Color balance is off - too little green, too much red, and maybe a touch low
on blue. I tweaked the image in Photoshop to add green, remove red, and
boost up the blue just a bit:

http://www.newastro.com/wodaski/images/practice/M51_dave_a.jpg

The color data is noisier than the luminance data. To get equivalent noise
levels in both, you probably need 1.5 to 2x as much color data as you have.

Ron Wodaski
author of The New CCD Astronomy
http://www.newastro.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Albert [mailto:dalbert@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:34 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] 1st LRGB image: M51


I have completed processing my first LRGB image with my ST-8 and
would like to get comments on how it went and what would make it
better. The exposure was 60:10:10:30. I was hoping to get more color
data, but ran out of time before crossing the meridian. Taken with a
C8 mounted on a CI-700.
http://pweb.netcom.com/~dalbert/M51LRGB.JPG
Thanks,
Dave



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Ron,

Yes I do have light pollution here,  though not terrible
I am also using a LPS filter on this image


Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wodaski Yahoo account" <yahoo@...>
To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:45 AM
Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] M13 color


> Really nice details, but seems to be lacking in red. Here's a reference
> image (although the core is kind of washed out; the exposures were too
long
> to preserve much color in the core):
>
> http://www.newastro.com/wodaski/images/new/FCT150/M13.LRGB_cropsmall.jpg
>
> As far as preference, I like the "image4.jpg" one with the brighter stars
in
> the core. If they are not differentiated by color, I find it more pleasing
> to see a brighter core. You may be dealing with the same thing I was - a
> core so bright that colors are washed out. Do you have light pollution?
> Something has washed out the red in most of the stars and made them green.
> Light pollution could account for that, or it might be a color balance
> issue.
>
> Ron Wodaski
> author of The New CCD Astronomy
> http://www.newastro.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AA Johnah Fish Estates [mailto:aajohnah@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:03 PM
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] M13 color
>
>
> Clear Day
> I tried to re-process this image
> With the Lum in the color it was to much so I took it out
>
> Quick exposure though
>
> Mewlon 300 FL/2700  F/9.1
> SBIG8XE
> Optec Color filters
> Red 9 min
> Green 9 min
> Blue 15 min
>
> http://web.tampabay.rr.com/galaxyquest/CCD%20Images/IMAGE4.jpg
>
> http://web.tampabay.rr.com/galaxyquest/CCD%20Images/IMAGE4try.jpg
>
> I would like to know what way you like better and why?
> Any comments would be appreciated
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Randy, Paul, Don, and Ron,

Thanks, I feel very encouraged by your warm responses.
The lightbox seems to be working out quite well.  When I first got
the white acrylic sheets I thought there was no way those 4 little
LEDs could shed enough light, but it really works.  Thanks again to
Don for sharing his plans.
Polar alignment indeed was very good this night, but I have to give
some credit to the new worm of the G11 as well.  I haven't done the
math on this setup but I think it's in the neighborhood of 3-4
arcsecs per pixel.  I haven't measured PE on this mount but I'm
guessing it must be in that neighborhood, no?
Indeed the flats look good.  With the f/3.3 FR on the C8 I get a very
noticeable hot spot, which up till now I've been trying to remove
(unsuccessfully) in Photoshop.  With the flats it's completely
removed.  I love it!
Let me end with one question.  Since this is a brand new camera I
haven't had the opportunity to get it dirty <g> and I see no dust
motes or donuts on the flats.  I have some images from a couple weeks
ago taken with the exact same setup which have not been flat
fielded.  Any harm in applying these flats to those images?

Frank
http://celestialwonders.com

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski Yahoo account"
<yahoo@w...> wrote:
> First, that's a really nice M101. Details are sharp, stars are
really
> round - a neat effort. The flat fielding must be good, too, because
I see no
> evidence of any flaws.
>
> Ron Wodaski
> author of The New CCD Astronomy
> http://www.newastro.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Barrett [mailto:frankb02@b...]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 4:08 PM
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] First calibrated image
>
>
> Here's my first attempt at a fully calibrated image with my new
> light box.  In keeping with the recent theme it is, of course, of
> M101 ;)
> I'm just a bit concerned over the noise in this image.  I would have
> thought that an hour long exposure would not have resulted in so
> much noise in the faint arms.  Am I overstretching this with curves?
>
> http://celestialwonders.com/m101b-st7.html
>
> Thanks, Frank
> http://celestialwonders.com
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Mark,

For comparison, here is an image of M13 I took only a couple of
nights ago. This one was also with an LPS filter, but at a much
faster f/6.5:

http://pk.darkhorizons.org/images/flt/m13rgb.jpg

Taken with HX916 and WO FLT110 telescope. RGB exposure of 30 minutes
each.

Regards,

        -Paul


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "AA Johnah Fish Estates"
<aajohnah@t...> wrote:
> Ron,
>
> Yes I do have light pollution here,  though not terrible
> I am also using a LPS filter on this image
>
>
> Mark
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wodaski Yahoo account" <yahoo@w...>
> To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:45 AM
> Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] M13 color
>
>
> > Really nice details, but seems to be lacking in red. Here's a
reference
> > image (although the core is kind of washed out; the exposures
were too
> long
> > to preserve much color in the core):
> >
> >
http://www.newastro.com/wodaski/images/new/FCT150/M13.LRGB_cropsmall.j
pg
> >
> > As far as preference, I like the "image4.jpg" one with the
brighter stars
> in
> > the core. If they are not differentiated by color, I find it more
pleasing
> > to see a brighter core. You may be dealing with the same thing I
was - a
> > core so bright that colors are washed out. Do you have light
pollution?
> > Something has washed out the red in most of the stars and made
them green.
> > Light pollution could account for that, or it might be a color
balance
> > issue.
> >
> > Ron Wodaski
> > author of The New CCD Astronomy
> > http://www.newastro.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: AA Johnah Fish Estates [mailto:aajohnah@t...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:03 PM
> > To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [ccd-newastro] M13 color
> >
> >
> > Clear Day
> > I tried to re-process this image
> > With the Lum in the color it was to much so I took it out
> >
> > Quick exposure though
> >
> > Mewlon 300 FL/2700  F/9.1
> > SBIG8XE
> > Optec Color filters
> > Red 9 min
> > Green 9 min
> > Blue 15 min
> >
> > http://web.tampabay.rr.com/galaxyquest/CCD%20Images/IMAGE4.jpg
> >
> > http://web.tampabay.rr.com/galaxyquest/CCD%20Images/IMAGE4try.jpg
> >
> > I would like to know what way you like better and why?
> > Any comments would be appreciated
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >

Paul,

Thank you,  then my quick image at a slower scope than yours too.  Looks
like more time and this image will be nice

Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul K" <pkane2001@...>
To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 10:09 AM
Subject: [ccd-newastro] M13 color


> Mark,
>
> For comparison, here is an image of M13 I took only a couple of
> nights ago. This one was also with an LPS filter, but at a much
> faster f/6.5:
>
> http://pk.darkhorizons.org/images/flt/m13rgb.jpg
>
> Taken with HX916 and WO FLT110 telescope. RGB exposure of 30 minutes
> each.
>
> Regards,
>
>        -Paul
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "AA Johnah Fish Estates"
> <aajohnah@t...> wrote:
> > Ron,
> >
> > Yes I do have light pollution here,  though not terrible
> > I am also using a LPS filter on this image
> >
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wodaski Yahoo account" <yahoo@w...>
> > To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 4:45 AM
> > Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] M13 color
> >
> >
> > > Really nice details, but seems to be lacking in red. Here's a
> reference
> > > image (although the core is kind of washed out; the exposures
> were too
> > long
> > > to preserve much color in the core):
> > >
> > >
> http://www.newastro.com/wodaski/images/new/FCT150/M13.LRGB_cropsmall.j
> pg
> > >
> > > As far as preference, I like the "image4.jpg" one with the
> brighter stars
> > in
> > > the core. If they are not differentiated by color, I find it more
> pleasing
> > > to see a brighter core. You may be dealing with the same thing I
> was - a
> > > core so bright that colors are washed out. Do you have light
> pollution?
> > > Something has washed out the red in most of the stars and made
> them green.
> > > Light pollution could account for that, or it might be a color
> balance
> > > issue.
> > >
> > > Ron Wodaski
> > > author of The New CCD Astronomy
> > > http://www.newastro.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: AA Johnah Fish Estates [mailto:aajohnah@t...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 5:03 PM
> > > To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [ccd-newastro] M13 color
> > >
> > >
> > > Clear Day
> > > I tried to re-process this image
> > > With the Lum in the color it was to much so I took it out
> > >
> > > Quick exposure though
> > >
> > > Mewlon 300 FL/2700  F/9.1
> > > SBIG8XE
> > > Optec Color filters
> > > Red 9 min
> > > Green 9 min
> > > Blue 15 min
> > >
> > > http://web.tampabay.rr.com/galaxyquest/CCD%20Images/IMAGE4.jpg
> > >
> > > http://web.tampabay.rr.com/galaxyquest/CCD%20Images/IMAGE4try.jpg
> > >
> > > I would like to know what way you like better and why?
> > > Any comments would be appreciated
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

No longer for sale !!


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Chris Everaert
   To: AstroArt@yahoogroups.com ; ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com ;
sct-user@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 8:40 AM
   Subject: [ccd-newastro] For sale Starlight Xpress HX916 Megapixel


   Hello All,

   I am going to upgrade my Starlight Xpress HX916 Megapixel USB CCD camera.
   Price 2500 Euro + shipment

   More info can be found on my site http://everaert.darkhorizons.org or
http://www.starlight-xpress.co.uk/hx916.htm

   If you are interested please mail me chris.everaert@...

   Chris, Belgium, Europe


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not longer for sale
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Chris Everaert
   To: AstroArt@yahoogroups.com ; ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com ;
sct-user@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 8:40 AM
   Subject: [ccd-newastro] For sale Starlight Xpress HX916 Megapixel


   Hello All,

   I am going to upgrade my Starlight Xpress HX916 Megapixel USB CCD camera.
   Price 2500 Euro + shipment

   More info can be found on my site http://everaert.darkhorizons.org or
http://www.starlight-xpress.co.uk/hx916.htm

   If you are interested please mail me chris.everaert@...

   Chris, Belgium, Europe


   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Let  me know the conditions @ chris.everaert@...

Thanks,

chris http://everaert.darkhorizons.org






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi:

This is (I think) a pretty elementary question, so I hope that I can
get some input. I haven't tried this yet in the field. I hope to
work it all out in my backyard to minimize frustations :-).  But I do
find it confusing.

I'm using a Tak FSQ106/Temma/EM10 with a DF-2 focuser. I want to
control the scope using TheSky and running CCDSoft and/or Maxim.

My Dell Inspiron 4100 laptop has one USB port and one parallel port.
The DF-2 needs to use the USB. So how do I get TheSky/CCDSoft and/or
Maxim to share/swap use of the other port(s) in order to use the GOTO
and autofocus functionality?

Any thoughts?

Best Regards,

Frank

How about a PCMCIA cardbus controller.  Lots of manufacturers.  Here's one -
http://www.synchrotech.com/products/cardbus-usb2_01.html
Usual caveats, no personal relationship, etc.  Haven't used. Or do a Google
search for 'USB cardbus'. LOL
--Chip
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: f_varisco
   To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:43 AM
   Subject: [ccd-newastro] Port Setup Confusion/Clarification


   Hi:

   This is (I think) a pretty elementary question, so I hope that I can
   get some input. I haven't tried this yet in the field. I hope to
   work it all out in my backyard to minimize frustations :-).  But I do
   find it confusing.

   I'm using a Tak FSQ106/Temma/EM10 with a DF-2 focuser. I want to
   control the scope using TheSky and running CCDSoft and/or Maxim.

   My Dell Inspiron 4100 laptop has one USB port and one parallel port.
   The DF-2 needs to use the USB. So how do I get TheSky/CCDSoft and/or
   Maxim to share/swap use of the other port(s) in order to use the GOTO
   and autofocus functionality?

   Any thoughts?

   Best Regards,

   Frank



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor





   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sunday I moved my imaging setup into my nearly completed observatory to
get a feel of working inside a dome.  I feel reluctant to share this image
now, after all of the other excellent M101 images in the last couple of
days, especially yours Rob.

Sunday was a couple of firsts, first in the dome, first with the refractor
mounted on top of the SCT.  The image can be seen by going to my site and
clicking on the thumbnail at the bottom right of the page:

http://members.rogers.com/gardner.w/

The exposure detail is listed there on the page.  I used CCDSoftv5 for
image capture and calibration.  I used PhotoShop for processing purposes.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Bill Gardner



http://members.rogers.com/gardner.w/

Looks like a great start to me. Do you have light pollution at your
location? I ask because there is an overall green cast to the image. Light
pollution is often dominant in the green, and if so it requires some special
handling. Beyond the techniques discussed in the book, you might look at the
black point for all three color channels using Photoshop's Levels dialog.
Try tweaking the black points of each color to see if that helps. CCDSoft
does not do any kind of white point balancing for color, so you may need to
play with that in Photoshop, too, to get color balance. You can adjust white
points in Level for each color (living dangerously, but very powerful) or
you can use the Color Balance dialog for a much easier and friendly
interface for color balancing.

Do the black point adjustments first, then the white points or color
balancing.

Ron Wodaski
author of The New CCD Astronomy
http://www.newastro.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Gardner [mailto:gardner.w@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:53 AM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com; SBIG@yahoogroups.com;
ap-gto@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] First light (of sorts) - M101



On Sunday I moved my imaging setup into my nearly completed observatory to
get a feel of working inside a dome.  I feel reluctant to share this image
now, after all of the other excellent M101 images in the last couple of
days, especially yours Rob.

Sunday was a couple of firsts, first in the dome, first with the refractor
mounted on top of the SCT.  The image can be seen by going to my site and
clicking on the thumbnail at the bottom right of the page:

http://members.rogers.com/gardner.w/

The exposure detail is listed there on the page.  I used CCDSoftv5 for
image capture and calibration.  I used PhotoShop for processing purposes.

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

Bill Gardner



http://members.rogers.com/gardner.w/



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

M81 was imaged with a friend's 3.5 inch refractor (Takahashi Sky 90)
on my Astro Physics AP1200QMD mount.  The final image comprises 23 x
2 minute unguided images, average combined in ImagesPlus.

The image is at
http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm

I am beginning to appreciate why some imagers choose a "little"
(compared to reflector aperture size) scope – the image acquisition
and processing is much easier with the 504 mm f/5.6 Tak than my 2700
mm f/10 C-11.

I invite criticisms of the image – please take a look and comment.


Dennis Persyk
Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
Hampshire, IL

Cheers Bob!

Paul

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Holzer" <holzer@a...>
wrote:
> Looks great Paul!!
>
>

> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~uzdl0265/index.htm
>

I'm currently engaged in some simple imaging using a 10 inch SCT and an ST237-A
at F3.75 Bin 2x2. In general taking 5 or so 2 minute images then reducing /
aligning / combining using CCDSoft. I then do some simple levels / curves
tweaking in Photoshop. The process is very efficient, but I'm often less
impressed with the result. Sometimes I actually find it difficult to tell the
difference between a set of stacked images, and a single image. I realise that
only 5 images may not be enough to sufficiently break through the noise barrier,
but I'm also starting to question some of my image processing steps. At the
moment I'm whizzing through the above steps (reduction / aligning / combining).
I'm using fresh darks and flats (usually at least 16 of each) and CCDSoft's bulk
image reduction, aligning and combining features.

1. Should I be spending time tweaking the levels of the individual images before
combining them ?
2. Is there anything else I could be doing during this process to arrive at a
more sound combined image - before tweaking in photoshop ?
3. Any comments on a preferred histogram 'shape' for individual images which are
destined to be combined which would improve the signal to noise ratio (I'm
thinking of the options available in CCDSoft here, and primarily galaxies).
4. Should I take the process to Photoshop sooner ? (E.g. combining) ?

Any comments gratefully received.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As per my previous post - here's an example. The image of M83 is a combination
of 5 x 120 second exposures under moderate to high light polluted skies using a
10 inch SCT, ST237-A at F3.75 Bin 2x2 (2.98 arc seconds / pixel). The individual
images were reduced using reduction groups in CCDSoft (multiple median combined
fresh darks and flats). Minor tweaking of histograms followed by a median
combine of all 5 aligned images. The result was tweaked in photoshop (levels and
curves).

Is it simply a matter of not enough signal and too much noise ?  Seems to me
that a single 120 second exposure is almost as good.

Thanks.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/luckas/astrophotography/ccd_images/Galaxies/M83Test.\
jpg

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul Luckas asked:

> I'm currently engaged in some simple imaging using a 10 inch SCT
> and an ST237-A at F3.75 Bin 2x2. In general taking 5 or so 2
> minute images then reducing / aligning / combining using CCDSoft.
> I then do some simple levels / curves tweaking in Photoshop. The
> process is very efficient, but I'm often less impressed with the
> result. Sometimes I actually find it difficult to tell the
> difference between a set of stacked images, and a single image. I
> realise that only 5 images may not be enough to sufficiently
> break through the noise barrier, but I'm also starting to
> question some of my image processing steps. At the moment I'm
> whizzing through the above steps (reduction / aligning /
> combining). I'm using fresh darks and flats (usually at least 16
> of each) and CCDSoft's bulk image reduction, aligning and
> combining features.
>
> 1. Should I be spending time tweaking the levels of the
> individual images before combining them ?

You should only go into Photoshop after you have done all combining and
deconvolution.  If you use DDP, you also should do that before going into
PS.

> 2. Is there anything else I could be doing during this process to
> arrive at a more sound combined image - before tweaking in photoshop ?

How are you combining--if you are using median combine, with only five
images, you are losing a lot of data.  You should take more images, and use
something like Ray Gralak's sigma combine
http://www.gralak.com/Sigma/index.html which does an average combine
(practically identical to an add combine, but a little better) after tossing
out outlying data.

> 3. Any comments on a preferred histogram 'shape' for individual
> images which are destined to be combined which would improve the
> signal to noise ratio (I'm thinking of the options available in
> CCDSoft here, and primarily galaxies).

The histogram shape will vary significantly depending on the composition of
a frame.  My M33 individual frames had a much different histogram from my
NGC7662, because the galaxy takes up the entire frame, while the planetary
nebula takes up only a tiny portion of it.

> 4. Should I take the process to Photoshop sooner ? (E.g. combining) ?

See the first answer.

> Any comments gratefully received.

Paul--

I have found that the single most important thing I can do to get a better
final image is to have _lot_ of total exposure time, and to try to make each
individual image as long as possible (up to ten minutes or so, depending on
focal ratio and blooming stars).  If I were imaging with an ST-237, binnning
2x2, I would still try to get 30 minutes or so of total exposure.  If you
were to combine 15 two-minute images (or longer images if you can guide) in
Sigma, you would see, I think, dramatic improvement.

Mark de Regt
Redmond, Washington, USA

47.696270 N.
122.004715 W.
Astro Images:  http://home.earthlink.net/~akilla/MAD

When you change the histogram in CCDSoft, you're not actually changing
the image data. All you actually change is a couple of values in the
FITS header. Therefore, whatever you do to the histogram, it will have
no effect whatsoever on the resultant combined image. The same is NOT
true using the Photoshop levels/curves tool - this does modify the
actual data. Therefore, the only processing you should do on the
individual images is to reduce them (dark/bias/flat). You can adjust the
histogram in CCDSoft if you need to see what they look like, because
this essentially has no effect on the image data. Only after combining
the images should you start tweaking in Photoshop (as you have been
doing, according to your description).

If stacking is not improving your images, then I would think there are
two possibilities: either your signal to noise ratio is poor in the
individual images, or you are adding noise somehow (perhaps in your
reduction frames?).

Without seeing the images, its hard to say, but I would guess poor
signal to noise ratio in the individual images. What are your sky
conditions like? Much light pollution? I suffer a lot from light
pollution and I find that a light pollution filter is mandatory.

--Tim




-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Luckas [mailto:luckas@...]
Sent: Friday 02 May 2003 01:43
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] Image taking / processing questions ...


I'm currently engaged in some simple imaging using a 10 inch SCT and an
ST237-A at F3.75 Bin 2x2. In general taking 5 or so 2 minute images then
reducing / aligning / combining using CCDSoft. I then do some simple
levels / curves tweaking in Photoshop. The process is very efficient,
but I'm often less impressed with the result. Sometimes I actually find
it difficult to tell the difference between a set of stacked images, and
a single image. I realise that only 5 images may not be enough to
sufficiently break through the noise barrier, but I'm also starting to
question some of my image processing steps. At the moment I'm whizzing
through the above steps (reduction / aligning / combining). I'm using
fresh darks and flats (usually at least 16 of each) and CCDSoft's bulk
image reduction, aligning and combining features.

1. Should I be spending time tweaking the levels of the individual
images before combining them ?
2. Is there anything else I could be doing during this process to arrive
at a more sound combined image - before tweaking in photoshop ?
3. Any comments on a preferred histogram 'shape' for individual images
which are destined to be combined which would improve the signal to
noise ratio (I'm thinking of the options available in CCDSoft here, and
primarily galaxies). 4. Should I take the process to Photoshop sooner ?
(E.g. combining) ?

Any comments gratefully received.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Dark Library Manager for CCD Astro-imaging:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DarkManager

Sounds like you need 1-2 more COM ports.  I would get a 4 port USB
hub and a couple of USB to serial adapters. Plug the hub's input
connector to the PC's USB port and the focuser to one of the 4 USB
ports on the hub (if it is truly a USB device).  The USB to serial
adpaters plug into the hub as well and the other end are now COM
ports.  You will have to load a driver for the USB to serial adapters
and they will likely install as COM 5 and COM 6. The hub just plugs
in and works  and depending on the connections to it will need a
small power supply that comes with it.  You may not need the pwoer
supply.

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "f_varisco" <f_varisco@a...>
wrote:
> Hi:
>
> This is (I think) a pretty elementary question, so I hope that I
can
> get some input. I haven't tried this yet in the field. I hope to
> work it all out in my backyard to minimize frustations :-).  But I
do
> find it confusing.
>
> I'm using a Tak FSQ106/Temma/EM10 with a DF-2 focuser. I want to
> control the scope using TheSky and running CCDSoft and/or Maxim.
>
> My Dell Inspiron 4100 laptop has one USB port and one parallel
port.
> The DF-2 needs to use the USB. So how do I get TheSky/CCDSoft
and/or
> Maxim to share/swap use of the other port(s) in order to use the
GOTO
> and autofocus functionality?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Frank

Hi Paul,

Don't take 5 images take 100.  When I was doing short exposures I
reguarly took close to that amount.

Cheers
Paul McGale

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Luckas" <luckas@b...>
wrote:
> I'm currently engaged in some simple imaging using a 10 inch SCT
and an ST237-A at F3.75 Bin 2x2. In general taking 5 or so 2 minute
images then reducing / aligning / combining using CCDSoft. I then do
some simple levels / curves tweaking in Photoshop. The process is
very efficient, but I'm often less impressed with the result.
Sometimes I actually find it difficult to tell the difference
between a set of stacked images, and a single image. I realise that
only 5 images may not be enough to sufficiently break through the
noise barrier, but I'm also starting to question some of my image
processing steps. At the moment I'm whizzing through the above steps
(reduction / aligning / combining). I'm using fresh darks and flats
(usually at least 16 of each) and CCDSoft's bulk image reduction,
aligning and combining features.
>
> 1. Should I be spending time tweaking the levels of the individual
images before combining them ?
> 2. Is there anything else I could be doing during this process to
arrive at a more sound combined image - before tweaking in
photoshop ?
> 3. Any comments on a preferred histogram 'shape' for individual
images which are destined to be combined which would improve the
signal to noise ratio (I'm thinking of the options available in
CCDSoft here, and primarily galaxies).
> 4. Should I take the process to Photoshop sooner ? (E.g.
combining) ?
>
> Any comments gratefully received.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Try combining the aligned images before you tweak the histograms, you
should see an improvement. With only 5 images you would probably find
that you get a marked improvement by averaging or summing (almost the
same thing) rather than median combining, however do not tweak the
histogram prior to whichever method you choose.

Derrick

Paul Luckas <luckas@...> wrote:
>As per my previous post - here's an example. The image of M83 is a
>combination of 5 x 120 second exposures under moderate to high light
>polluted skies using a 10 inch SCT, ST237-A at F3.75 Bin 2x2 (2.98 arc
>seconds / pixel). The individual images were reduced using reduction
>groups in CCDSoft (multiple median combined fresh darks and flats).
>Minor tweaking of histograms followed by a median combine of all 5
>aligned images. The result was tweaked in photoshop (levels and curves).
>
>Is it simply a matter of not enough signal and too much noise ?  Seems
>to me that a single 120 second exposure is almost as good.
>
>Thanks.
>
>http://users.bigpond.net.au/luckas/astrophotography/ccd_images/Galaxies/
>M83Test.jpg
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--
Derrick Farley
http://www.lh-dome.demon.co.uk/

Paul,
just to clarify, if al you mean by "tweaking the histogram" is changing
the screen stretch rather than stretching the data, you can ignore my
advice about not tweaking prior to combining. Altering the screen
stretch only changes the way the data is displayed rather than changing
the data itself.
D
  Derrick Farley <derrick@...> wrote:
>Try combining the aligned images before you tweak the histograms, you
>should see an improvement. With only 5 images you would probably find
>that you get a marked improvement by averaging or summing (almost the
>same thing) rather than median combining, however do not tweak the
>histogram prior to whichever method you choose.
>
>Derrick
>
>Paul Luckas <luckas@...> wrote:
>>As per my previous post - here's an example. The image of M83 is a
>>combination of 5 x 120 second exposures under moderate to high light
>>polluted skies using a 10 inch SCT, ST237-A at F3.75 Bin 2x2 (2.98 arc
>>seconds / pixel). The individual images were reduced using reduction
>>groups in CCDSoft (multiple median combined fresh darks and flats).
>>Minor tweaking of histograms followed by a median combine of all 5
>>aligned images. The result was tweaked in photoshop (levels and curves).
>>
>>Is it simply a matter of not enough signal and too much noise ?  Seems
>>to me that a single 120 second exposure is almost as good.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>http://users.bigpond.net.au/luckas/astrophotography/ccd_images/Galaxies/
>>M83Test.jpg
>>
>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>

--
Derrick Farley
http://www.lh-dome.demon.co.uk/

Hi,

I am on the verge of purchasing a Takahashi CN-212 OTA for use as my
primary imaging scope (which will be placed atop a Paramount ME), and
I have been experimenting with Ron's CCD-Calculator program looking
for a camera well suited to this scope.   Since the CN-212 is a 2-in-
1 scope (f/3.9 Newt and f/12 Cassegrain), I've been comparing fields
of view etc. per SBIG camera, to both the scope's possible
configurations.  As far as budget goes, The SBIG ST-8XE, ST-9XE, and
at the most, possibly the ST-10XME, with a class 2 chip, could
probably be afforded.

Any thoughts on which of these SBIG cameras may represent the best
compromise for use in both of the CN-212's possible configurations
will be hugely appreciated!

Thanks In Advance,

Tom

P.S.  So far, I've only been looking at SBIG cameras, Could another
company offer a camera that in some way might be a better fit to the
CN-212, than the SBIG's?  Re-thanks <g>

Hi all,

I was able to get some new images this week.  I'm still working on
tracking, I would like to get round stars with my 880mm fl Mak Newt
unguided and I'm experimenting with Pec to see if I can do it with my
mount, an MI-250.  The images are on my New Images page at:

http://www.rwstanley.com/new_images.htm

Comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Regards,
Ron Stanley

The best match is probably the ST-10. Why? It has better characteristics
when binned than the ST-8, for whatever reason. You get crisper images
binned with the ST-10 than any of the other cameras I've used.

The ST-9 is inexpensive, but will not be very useful at f/3.3. The ST-10, on
the other hand, will do excellent work at f/3.3, and can also do excellent
work binned at f/12. I use an ST-10XME on a C14 (4025mm focal length, binned
2x2) with excellent results. Here's an M104 taken with that setup:

http://www.newastro.com/remote/images/m104_LRGBxme.jpg

Your results on the CN212 will depend on your actual focal length and local
seeing conditions. The ST-10 is wonderful at shorter focal lengths, of
course.

Ron Wodaski
author of The New CCD Astronomy
http://www.newastro.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas J. Stanley [mailto:thostan2001@...]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 9:53 AM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] CCD Camera Choice for Tak CN-212


Hi,

I am on the verge of purchasing a Takahashi CN-212 OTA for use as my
primary imaging scope (which will be placed atop a Paramount ME), and
I have been experimenting with Ron's CCD-Calculator program looking
for a camera well suited to this scope.   Since the CN-212 is a 2-in-
1 scope (f/3.9 Newt and f/12 Cassegrain), I've been comparing fields
of view etc. per SBIG camera, to both the scope's possible
configurations.  As far as budget goes, The SBIG ST-8XE, ST-9XE, and
at the most, possibly the ST-10XME, with a class 2 chip, could
probably be afforded.

Any thoughts on which of these SBIG cameras may represent the best
compromise for use in both of the CN-212's possible configurations
will be hugely appreciated!

Thanks In Advance,

Tom

P.S.  So far, I've only been looking at SBIG cameras, Could another
company offer a camera that in some way might be a better fit to the
CN-212, than the SBIG's?  Re-thanks <g>



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Here is an image taken this morning.

The scope was a Tak RC 300 mated with an Anti-blooming ST8XE.

Exposures were 4 x 300 secs for each filter of an RGB @ bin 1x

This was performed at a remote operation.  Autofocusing was done with
the change of each filter via FocusMax.



http://www.arnierosner.com/ccd/AREO/M5TRC.htm



Comments and opinions are invited.



Arnie
949-283-2801 Cell

http://www.arnierosner.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've reprocessed my M51 luminance shot from last month using a more
recently acquired flat frame.  With the hot spot gone I was able to
tease more faint stuff out of this one.

http://celestialwonders.com/m51-st7.html

Comments welcome.

Frank
http://celestialwonders.com

Hi Ron,

On page 328 in your book you talk about combining binned RGB. Could
you explain a little more on how to make the size of the stars
smaller in the low res color channel's? I am not really sure about
the Lab process.

I have been combining RGB in CCDSoft and using the Luminance layer
process in Photoshop. I want the stars to look smaller.

Thanks,

Ken