Hi Steve:
You're on the right track with your interpretation and it probably would be
better if people specified the particular method of combining that they use.
I'm certainly one of the sinners in that regard, although I do usually
specify the number of frames and individual exposure time for each rather
than just the total time.
I don't think anyone does individual frames longer than 30 minutes and most
use 5 to 15 minutes. The method of combination gets into theory and practice
that I'm not yet familiar with other than the obvious advantage of
eliminating cosmic hits and airplanes when anything like median or the more
complex procedures are used. I usually use sigma clip or SD mask (tools that
are new to MaxIm 4 but have been available from Ray Graylak, Russ Croman,
and others for some time). If I have only a few very thin exposures I will
sometimes sum, but that's only for exploratory stuff. If the results look
promising I'll go back and get more frames and sigma clip or SD mask.
Hope this helps....
Bert

Bert Katzung
katzung1@...
http://www.astronomy-images.com
http://www.visionlightgallery.com/katzung/

----- Original Message -----
From: <steve.holak@...>
To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 12:32 PM
Subject: [ccd-newastro] Total exposure time question: (was Re: ngc7331 7 hrs
Lum)


> I've only been CCD imaging a month, with an ST-2000XM, and I'm getting
> progressively better with tuning my system and mount (and processing), so
> I'm not too far away from mustering up my first post.  I've read Ron's
book
> and lurked here for about a year (and I've done film AP for several.)  I'm
> getting a handle on CCDSoft (don't have Maxim yet), and have good chops
> with Photoshop from film experience.
>
> I have a question though, on the meaning of the total luminescence time
> that imagers post.  I'm aware of the different methods of image
> combination, and their reasons (averaging reduces noise, median and sigma
> rejects the odd pixels, etc.), but when someone speaks, such as this
> thread, of "7 hours lum" or "180 minutes total."   If the combine method
> isn't explicitly stated, and someone posts "10  x 6 mins for 1 hour total
> lum", does that imply the images are averaged or summed?
>
> For example, I shot the supernova in NGC6946 last night at 12 X 5 min
> (until the *** moon came up), but haven't processed yet.  If I average the
> 12 frames, do I post my lum time as 60 mins, or 12 x 5 averaged?  If I
> median combine, what would be the protocol for the total exposure time I
> post?
>
> --thanks
>
>
> Steve Holak
> Senior Software Architect
>
> Brokerage Concepts IS Dept.
> 610-491-4879
>
> email:  steve.holak@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hugh,

One major advantage to having and using PS-CS is the fact that most serious
imagers use this software.  Tips on the use of the software are readily
available from the members of this and other astronomy imaging groups.  Many
plugins developed especially for astro-imaging are available for PS that are not
available for other image processing programs.  And don't forget one major
advantage, Ron's book, and the one he is currently writing, is geared to PS. 
With PS you can follow along with his published instructions.  I used Paint Shop
Pro when I started this hobby.  Many of the same tools are available in that
program as are available in PS.  It, however, is different in the ways you must
use them.  It was a great help to me to switch to PS-CS.  My learning curve got
a lot easier to climb when I started using the same software as Ron used in his
books.  I think one can live without MaxIm, but I would not want to be without
PS.  Having BOTH is, IMO, what you should shoot for.  CCDSoft and CCDOps can
substitute for MaxIm in the mean time.

Don Waid
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Hugh Nunnally
   To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 4:10 PM
   Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Maxim Dl 4.0 vs Photoshop


   Thanks Bert! Believe I will buy PhotoShop instead of Maxim although I
   must say that Maxin 4.0 is a nice product. Maxim is missing a"lasso"
   style command.

   HN

   --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Bert Katzung" <katzung1@c...>
   wrote:
   > Hi Hugh:
   > If you are into imaging, I would recommend MaxIm CCD/DL (the full
   program
   > with processing and camera control both) AND Photoshop CS. These
   are two
   > very different programs and I find that both are needed. CCDSoft
   (and not
   > Photoshop) is the same kind of animal as MaxIm and some people like
   CCDSoft.
   > I find MaxIm more powerful and intuitive.
   > By the way, "Photoshop CS" *is* Photoshop v 8. The $200 price you
   mention is
   > probably an upgrade or academic price. If you have any version of
   full
   > Photoshop back to (I think) v 5 , you can get CS at the upgrade
   price. I
   > don't think Photoshop Elements is in the same league with CS or
   even the
   > previous version of Photoshop, v7.
   > Hope this helps....
   > Bert
   >
   > Bert Katzung
   > katzung1@c...
   > http://www.astronomy-images.com
   > http://www.visionlightgallery.com/katzung/
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: "Hugh Nunnally" <hnunnally@r...>
   > To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
   > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:44 AM
   > Subject: [ccd-newastro] Maxim Dl 4.0 vs Photoshop
   >
   >
   > > Hello all,
   > >
   > > I am trying to decide on 1 software purchase for Image
   processing. I
   > > already have CCDSoft V5, CCDOpps, and PhotoShop Elements.
   > >
   > > I downloaded a trail version of Maxim 4.0. Seems to be very
   powerfull
   > > but does not apprear to have a "lasso" like Adobe has. I have not
   > > experimented with Photoshop Elements. Has anyone compared
   Elements to
   > > the other Adobe packages (CS for $200, 8.0 for $600) or compared
   > > Maxim 4.0 ($299 image processing only) to these? Should I buy
   Maxim
   > > and buy one of the Adobe packages?
   > >
   > > Thanks!
   > >
   > > Hugh
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >







         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ccd-newastro/

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

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



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

Quote from Don " Many
plugins developed especially for astro-imaging are available for PS "

Hi Don,

That is interesting. Where or how can I find them ?

regards Rainer

Hi Randy,

Thanks for the input.  I applied a planar background compensation
operator in ImagesPlus  to the green gradient in the upper right
corner.  It is not perfect yet but I think it is better now.
http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm

Color gradients are the bane of LRGB images!

Clear skies,

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


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Nulman" <rj.nulman@v...>
wrote:
> Nice Dennis!
>
> There are still some gradient issues in the image, and I would
> suggest using Ron's PS technique (or his software...or Maxim's
> gradient removal tool) to deal with the gradients vs. just
basically clipping the green channel...you will like the results
better.
>
> Nice to see you continuing in color...each image keeps getting
> better!
>
> Regards,
> Randy Nulman
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Persyk"
<dpersyk@a...>
> wrote:
> > DWB-111, a/k/a the Propeller Nebula, is a faint emission nebula
in  Cygnus.  I imaged an LRGB of 50 minute components comprising 5-
> > minuted unguided subframes.  Total was 200 minutes, all in one
> > night. Takahashi E160 astrograph, MX716 camera and AP1200GTO
mount.
> >
> > The DWB catalog stands for Dickel, Wendker, and Bieritz, who
have  compiled a somewhat obscure (at least for me) catalog of faint
> > emission nebulae in the Cygnus X region.
> >
> > I used a log stretch of  0.5 in ImagesPlus followed by curves to
> > tease out the nebulosity.  I had a faint green gradient which I
> > removed in curves by clicking on the green button and
selectively  dimming only the green.  I am finding that the green
component of  most DSOs is often not very important and can be
reduced in  intensity without consequence to the image.
> >
> > I'd appreciate feedback on my image.  This is only my 3rd LRGB
and  I  have lots to learn!
> >
> > Image at
> > http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm
> >
> > Thank you for visiting my site.
> >
> > Clear skies,
> >
> > Dennis Persyk
> > Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
> > Hampshire, IL

Much improved, Dennis!
The gradient issue is much better.  I took it into PS (because it
looked a little dark and "cut-off") to me.  It is a
bit "clipped"...if you can re-process this so that the nebula is
not "abruptly" cut-off from the clipping, you will be
happier...guess it's just a matter of how much of the remaining
gradients will show...goal is a smooth and gradual transition from
the faint areas of the nebula into the background.

Randy Nulman


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Persyk" <dpersyk@a...>
wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> Thanks for the input.  I applied a planar background compensation
> operator in ImagesPlus  to the green gradient in the upper right
> corner.  It is not perfect yet but I think it is better now.
> http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm
>
> Color gradients are the bane of LRGB images!
>
> Clear skies,
>
> Dennis
> Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
> Hampshire, IL
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Nulman"
<rj.nulman@v...>
> wrote:
> > Nice Dennis!
> >
> > There are still some gradient issues in the image, and I would
> > suggest using Ron's PS technique (or his software...or Maxim's
> > gradient removal tool) to deal with the gradients vs. just
> basically clipping the green channel...you will like the results
> better.
> >
> > Nice to see you continuing in color...each image keeps getting
> > better!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Randy Nulman
> >
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Persyk"
> <dpersyk@a...>
> > wrote:
> > > DWB-111, a/k/a the Propeller Nebula, is a faint emission
nebula
> in  Cygnus.  I imaged an LRGB of 50 minute components comprising 5-
> > > minuted unguided subframes.  Total was 200 minutes, all in one
> > > night. Takahashi E160 astrograph, MX716 camera and AP1200GTO
> mount.
> > >
> > > The DWB catalog stands for Dickel, Wendker, and Bieritz, who
> have  compiled a somewhat obscure (at least for me) catalog of
faint
> > > emission nebulae in the Cygnus X region.
> > >
> > > I used a log stretch of  0.5 in ImagesPlus followed by curves
to
> > > tease out the nebulosity.  I had a faint green gradient which
I
> > > removed in curves by clicking on the green button and
> selectively  dimming only the green.  I am finding that the green
> component of  most DSOs is often not very important and can be
> reduced in  intensity without consequence to the image.
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate feedback on my image.  This is only my 3rd LRGB
> and  I  have lots to learn!
> > >
> > > Image at
> > > http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm
> > >
> > > Thank you for visiting my site.
> > >
> > > Clear skies,
> > >
> > > Dennis Persyk
> > > Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
> > > Hampshire, IL

Rainer,

Here are a few.  Some are free and some are not.
--------------------

Free plugins for Photoshop of interest to astro-photographers.

http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/ARCHIVES/JAN04/msg00185.html

----------------------

Eddie Trimarchi's Fits Plugin

http://astroshed.com/fitsplug/fitsplug.htm

----------------------

ESA/ESO/NASA Photoshop FITS Liberator v1.01

http://www.spacetelescope.org/projects/fits_liberator/download.html

----------------------

Neat Image (Noise Reduction Program - Stand alone and PS / PSP Plugin

http://www.neatimage.com/index.html

----------------------

Grain Surgery for Photoshop. (Pricey - Neat Image is a less expensive
alturnative.)

http://www.visinf.com/downloads/

----------------------

Lens Flare Brush - Used for putting diffraction spikes on stars

http://www.artyears.com/downloads/Flarebrushes.html

Don Waid



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Rainer
   To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 7:37 PM
   Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Maxim Dl 4.0 vs Photoshop


   Quote from Don " Many
   plugins developed especially for astro-imaging are available for PS "

   Hi Don,

   That is interesting. Where or how can I find them ?

   regards Rainer








         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ccd-newastro/

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

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



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

Work Flow:



20 10min frames 10nm Ha Filter Celestron C8 F7.6 (.98 arc/sec/pixel)
ST2000XM(2000chip) selfguided @ 5sec intervals

CCDSoftV5 Reduced & Aligned

SigmaBata11 StdMean Combine

PhotoShop Levels & Curves

CCDSoftV5 LR sharpening Hot Cold pixel repair

PhotoShop Levels & Curves



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ccd-newastro/files/NGC6888.1X1.-15.600s.jpg



Comments & suggestions for improvement please.



Roy Cummings



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

-----Original Message-----
From: TR Cummings [mailto:tr_cummings@...]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 9:43 PM
To: Ccd-Newastro@Yahoogroups. Com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] NGC6888(Crescent) Ha ST2K


Work Flow:



20 10min frames 10nm Ha Filter Celestron C8 F7.6 (.98 arc/sec/pixel)
ST2000XM(2000chip) selfguided @ 5sec intervals

CCDSoftV5 Reduced & Aligned

SigmaBata11 StdMean Combine

PhotoShop Levels & Curves

CCDSoftV5 LR sharpening Hot Cold pixel repair

PhotoShop Levels & Curves



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ccd-newastro/files/NGC6888.1X1.-15.20x600s.jpg



Comments & suggestions for improvement please.



Roy Cummings



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






Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks Eric and Ron,

I have uploaded the raw files to my website.  Yes, the ring definately
was expanding.  I did not let it go far enough to clear all the way out.

The camera is about three years old and I have been using it quite
frequently lately.  I can say that I shutdown the computer before
turning off the cooling a couple times by accident.  I know that it can
increase the chance of thermal shock but I don't know if that would all
of a sudden cause this type of behavior.  Basically, one night it looks
as good as this:

http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/m29.FIT

To these:

http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sn2004et.00000000.FIT
http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sn2004et.00000002.FIT
http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sw_cyg.FIT
http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/test.FIT

Here is a flatfield:

http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/testflat.FIT

I thought that the first image with the weird patterns was because I had
my secondary adjusted too tight.  The more I think about the problem,
the more I think it could be frosting and not collimation.

Thanks for the insight guys!!

Jason


eja24601 wrote:

>Jason,
>
>The pictures do indeed look too small for me to judge as well, but
>as far as the "ring" (especially with the 2nd picture), did it
>expand and eventually disappear? If so, that's frost forming on your
>chip. Which is fine; you just need to bake the camera's dessicant.
>The rest of the artifacts look like stuff that could either be taken
>out with a flat or gradient removal. Of course, I am basing all this
>on first impressions with small pictures, so YMMV.
>
>HTH,
>Eric
>
>
>

Hi Jason,
I don't see any collimation issues...just what strongly looks like a
frost issue.  Probably, if you raised your ccd temp a bit, it would
have gone away...but time to bake the dessicant.

Remove the dessicant plug and replace with the "dummy"...include the
o-ring.  Then, without the o-ring on the actual dessicant plug (it
will not like the heat <g>), bake the dessicant plug at 350 degrees
F for 4 hours.  As soon as it is cool enough to handle by hand (just
a minute or two after removing from the oven), replace it back into
the camera.  Wait at least 6 hours to be safe and all should be well.

Randy Nulman
http://www.nulman.darkhorizons.org


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Jason Hissong <jhisson1@c...>
wrote:
> Thanks Eric and Ron,
>
> I have uploaded the raw files to my website.  Yes, the ring
definately
> was expanding.  I did not let it go far enough to clear all the
way out.
>
> The camera is about three years old and I have been using it quite
> frequently lately.  I can say that I shutdown the computer before
> turning off the cooling a couple times by accident.  I know that
it can
> increase the chance of thermal shock but I don't know if that
would all
> of a sudden cause this type of behavior.  Basically, one night it
looks
> as good as this:
>
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/m29.FIT
>
> To these:
>
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sn2004et.00000000.FIT
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sn2004et.00000002.FIT
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sw_cyg.FIT
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/test.FIT
>
> Here is a flatfield:
>
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/testflat.FIT
>
> I thought that the first image with the weird patterns was because
I had
> my secondary adjusted too tight.  The more I think about the
problem,
> the more I think it could be frosting and not collimation.
>
> Thanks for the insight guys!!
>
> Jason
>
>
> eja24601 wrote:
>
> >Jason,
> >
> >The pictures do indeed look too small for me to judge as well,
but
> >as far as the "ring" (especially with the 2nd picture), did it
> >expand and eventually disappear? If so, that's frost forming on
your
> >chip. Which is fine; you just need to bake the camera's
dessicant.
> >The rest of the artifacts look like stuff that could either be
taken
> >out with a flat or gradient removal. Of course, I am basing all
this
> >on first impressions with small pictures, so YMMV.
> >
> >HTH,
> >Eric
> >
> >
> >

These packages do different things. MaxIm DL has a wide assortment of image
processing tools, many of which are tailored to astronomical imaging. Some
of them are useful for scientific purposes, and some are useful for "pretty
picture" image processing. Photoshop elements lacks some key tools, so a
full version of Photoshop would be the most desirable. Photoshop is great
for hands-on image processing - nothing else equals it, although less
expensive packages like Paint Shop Pro have many useful and powerful tools.

Photoshop is my personal choice, but using Photoshop requires a lot of skill
building. Photoshop gives you very fine control over the appearance of the
image, but of course you have to master its many tools in order to do that
well. (That's the idea behind the new book.) MaxIm DL includes many
functions that you can use to get very good results by setting parameters.
It doesn't have the wide-ranging manual capabilities of Photoshop, so you
have to choose which path makes more sense for you personally.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Nunnally [mailto:hnunnally@...]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 11:45 AM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] Maxim Dl 4.0 vs Photoshop

Hello all,

I am trying to decide on 1 software purchase for Image processing. I
already have CCDSoft V5, CCDOpps, and PhotoShop Elements.

I downloaded a trail version of Maxim 4.0. Seems to be very powerfull
but does not apprear to have a "lasso" like Adobe has. I have not
experimented with Photoshop Elements. Has anyone compared Elements to
the other Adobe packages (CS for $200, 8.0 for $600) or compared
Maxim 4.0 ($299 image processing only) to these? Should I buy Maxim
and buy one of the Adobe packages?

Thanks!

Hugh








Yahoo! Groups Links







__________ NOD32 1.881 (20040930) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.nod32.com

Hi Don,

Thank you very much.

Rainer

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Don Waid" <don@a...> wrote:
> Rainer,
>
> Here are a few.  Some are free and some are not.
> --------------------
>
> Free plugins for Photoshop of interest to astro-photographers.
>
> http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/ARCHIVES/JAN04/msg00185.html
>
> ----------------------
>
> Eddie Trimarchi's Fits Plugin
>
> http://astroshed.com/fitsplug/fitsplug.htm
>
> ----------------------
>
> ESA/ESO/NASA Photoshop FITS Liberator v1.01
>
> http://www.spacetelescope.org/projects/fits_liberator/download.html
>
> ----------------------
>
> Neat Image (Noise Reduction Program - Stand alone and PS / PSP
Plugin
>
> http://www.neatimage.com/index.html
>
> ----------------------
>
> Grain Surgery for Photoshop. (Pricey - Neat Image is a less
expensive alturnative.)
>
> http://www.visinf.com/downloads/
>
> ----------------------
>
> Lens Flare Brush - Used for putting diffraction spikes on stars
>
> http://www.artyears.com/downloads/Flarebrushes.html
>
> Don Waid
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Rainer
>   To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 7:37 PM
>   Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Maxim Dl 4.0 vs Photoshop
>
>
>   Quote from Don " Many
>   plugins developed especially for astro-imaging are available for
PS "
>
>   Hi Don,
>
>   That is interesting. Where or how can I find them ?
>
>   regards Rainer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>   Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ccd-newastro/
>
>     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     ccd-newastro-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I tried a couple of long exposure HA images before the moon came up tonight
with the STL-11000/FSQ/AP-900
3 - 30 min images of the Pelican Nebula
http://www.astroden.com/st11k/fsq/Pelican_Nebula_sm.jpg

Not sure if the processing looks ok as I am using the home PC with a new
flat panel

Comments welcome
Michael Downing
www.astroden.com <http://www.astroden.com/>




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

Jason,

If the pictures are presented in the order that you took them, with
the ring expanding with each succeeding picture, that would indeed
tell me that it's "just" frost. This happened to me once, and since I
suspected it as such (I was using a refractor, so it definitely was
not a collimation issue), I just watched, initially with concern,
then later on with amusement, as the ring expanded and then
dissipated. Your pictures of the ring look a lot like mine from that
evening.

Try baking the dessicant (SBIG recommends doing that at least once a
year - mine has passed that mark) and see how it goes. That is, of
course, assuming there is something else going on.

HTH,
Eric

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Jason Hissong <jhisson1@c...>
wrote:
> Thanks Eric and Ron,
>
> I have uploaded the raw files to my website.  Yes, the ring
definately
> was expanding.  I did not let it go far enough to clear all the way
out.
>
> The camera is about three years old and I have been using it quite
> frequently lately.  I can say that I shutdown the computer before
> turning off the cooling a couple times by accident.  I know that it
can
> increase the chance of thermal shock but I don't know if that would
all
> of a sudden cause this type of behavior.  Basically, one night it
looks
> as good as this:
>
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/m29.FIT
>
> To these:
>
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sn2004et.00000000.FIT
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sn2004et.00000002.FIT
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sw_cyg.FIT
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/test.FIT
>
> Here is a flatfield:
>
> http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/testflat.FIT
>
> I thought that the first image with the weird patterns was because
I had
> my secondary adjusted too tight.  The more I think about the
problem,
> the more I think it could be frosting and not collimation.
>
> Thanks for the insight guys!!
>
> Jason
>

I am posting my a image of M31 taken 9/10/04 at Anza, CA.  Taken with
my Tak FSQ196 and SBIG STL11000.  LRGB = 60/30/20/30 and processed
using the LLRGB technique.

http://www.laastro.com/M31_spec.html

Thanks for looking!

Bill Patterson
www.laastro.com

Bill,
That's a real beauty!!  Your midsize image displays nicely, and the
larger version is showing some nice core detail.  In all versions,
the image just looks great..color, processing, everything.

Congrats,
Randy Nulman


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, bill@l... wrote:
> I am posting my a image of M31 taken 9/10/04 at Anza, CA.  Taken
with
> my Tak FSQ196 and SBIG STL11000.  LRGB = 60/30/20/30 and processed
> using the LLRGB technique.
>
> http://www.laastro.com/M31_spec.html
>
> Thanks for looking!
>
> Bill Patterson
> www.laastro.com

In nearly all cases, the exposure time stated is the total exposure time.
The combine method will affect the S/N of the final image. A mean will have
the lowest noise, and best S/N, but may leave cosmic ray and other artifacts
(e.g., satellite tracks). Sigma reject, min/max clip, and other more
sophisticated algorithms remove outliers and then average (typically).

So it is total exposure time that is commonly reports, and this has some
usefulness and of course it's inexact without information about the combine
method. But it's still a useful number in and of itself.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: steve.holak@... [mailto:steve.holak@...]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:33 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] Total exposure time question: (was Re: ngc7331 7 hrs
Lum)

I've only been CCD imaging a month, with an ST-2000XM, and I'm getting
progressively better with tuning my system and mount (and processing), so
I'm not too far away from mustering up my first post.  I've read Ron's book
and lurked here for about a year (and I've done film AP for several.)  I'm
getting a handle on CCDSoft (don't have Maxim yet), and have good chops
with Photoshop from film experience.

I have a question though, on the meaning of the total luminescence time
that imagers post.  I'm aware of the different methods of image
combination, and their reasons (averaging reduces noise, median and sigma
rejects the odd pixels, etc.), but when someone speaks, such as this
thread, of "7 hours lum" or "180 minutes total."   If the combine method
isn't explicitly stated, and someone posts "10  x 6 mins for 1 hour total
lum", does that imply the images are averaged or summed?

For example, I shot the supernova in NGC6946 last night at 12 X 5 min
(until the *** moon came up), but haven't processed yet.  If I average the
12 frames, do I post my lum time as 60 mins, or 12 x 5 averaged?  If I
median combine, what would be the protocol for the total exposure time I
post?

--thanks


Steve Holak
Senior Software Architect

Brokerage Concepts IS Dept.
610-491-4879

email:  steve.holak@...






Yahoo! Groups Links







__________ NOD32 1.881 (20040930) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.nod32.com

Guys,

I appreciate the info.  I was freaking out when it was only something to
be expected, sheesh!  This is why we have groups like this to help us
newbies out.

I just borrowed a manual filter wheel to try my hand at RGB imaging.
Going to Ron's great book to read up on it.

Thanks guys!!

Jason Hissong

BTW.. here are some examples of some of the stuff I have been doing.  I
am still starting out.  I think they are too over processed, but I am
getting better.

http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/st7_astrophotography.htm

eja24601 wrote:

>Jason,
>
>If the pictures are presented in the order that you took them, with
>the ring expanding with each succeeding picture, that would indeed
>tell me that it's "just" frost. This happened to me once, and since I
>suspected it as such (I was using a refractor, so it definitely was
>not a collimation issue), I just watched, initially with concern,
>then later on with amusement, as the ring expanded and then
>dissipated. Your pictures of the ring look a lot like mine from that
>evening.
>
>Try baking the dessicant (SBIG recommends doing that at least once a
>year - mine has passed that mark) and see how it goes. That is, of
>course, assuming there is something else going on.
>
>HTH,
>Eric
>
>

--

"A long journey starts with the first step and an understanding spouse."
http://www.n8xe.com
http://www.jasonhissong.com

That went a long way toward improving the image. If you'd like to dig a
little deeper, I think the gradient is still forcing an unnaturally high
black point in the color channels; I think you might be able to improve this
even more.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Persyk [mailto:dpersyk@...]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 6:02 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: DWB-111 The Propeller Nebula


Hi Randy,

Thanks for the input.  I applied a planar background compensation
operator in ImagesPlus  to the green gradient in the upper right
corner.  It is not perfect yet but I think it is better now.
http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm

Color gradients are the bane of LRGB images!

Clear skies,

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


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Nulman" <rj.nulman@v...>
wrote:
> Nice Dennis!
>
> There are still some gradient issues in the image, and I would
> suggest using Ron's PS technique (or his software...or Maxim's
> gradient removal tool) to deal with the gradients vs. just
basically clipping the green channel...you will like the results
better.
>
> Nice to see you continuing in color...each image keeps getting
> better!
>
> Regards,
> Randy Nulman
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Persyk"
<dpersyk@a...>
> wrote:
> > DWB-111, a/k/a the Propeller Nebula, is a faint emission nebula
in  Cygnus.  I imaged an LRGB of 50 minute components comprising 5-
> > minuted unguided subframes.  Total was 200 minutes, all in one
> > night. Takahashi E160 astrograph, MX716 camera and AP1200GTO
mount.
> >
> > The DWB catalog stands for Dickel, Wendker, and Bieritz, who
have  compiled a somewhat obscure (at least for me) catalog of faint
> > emission nebulae in the Cygnus X region.
> >
> > I used a log stretch of  0.5 in ImagesPlus followed by curves to
> > tease out the nebulosity.  I had a faint green gradient which I
> > removed in curves by clicking on the green button and
selectively  dimming only the green.  I am finding that the green
component of  most DSOs is often not very important and can be
reduced in  intensity without consequence to the image.
> >
> > I'd appreciate feedback on my image.  This is only my 3rd LRGB
and  I  have lots to learn!
> >
> > Image at
> > http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm
> >
> > Thank you for visiting my site.
> >
> > Clear skies,
> >
> > Dennis Persyk
> > Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
> > Hampshire, IL






Yahoo! Groups Links









__________ NOD32 1.881 (20040930) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.nod32.com

Thanks for checking out the image, Ron.  I can see that the
background is too black and the histogram is severely clipped but I
don't know how to fix it. I started working with the image after the
LRGB combine in Maxim and perhaps I need to work on the individual
LRGB channels first before combining?

Clear skies,

Dennis

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski Yahoo" <yahoo@n...>
wrote:
> That went a long way toward improving the image. If you'd like to
dig a little deeper, I think the gradient is still forcing an
unnaturally high black point in the color channels; I think you
might be able to improve this even more.
>
>
> Ron Wodaski
> The New CCD Astronomy
> http://www.newastro.com/ipb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Persyk [mailto:dpersyk@a...]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 6:02 PM
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: DWB-111 The Propeller Nebula
>
>
> Hi Randy,
>
> Thanks for the input.  I applied a planar background compensation
> operator in ImagesPlus  to the green gradient in the upper right
> corner.  It is not perfect yet but I think it is better now.
> http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm
>
> Color gradients are the bane of LRGB images!
>
> Clear skies,
>
> Dennis
> Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
> Hampshire, IL
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Nulman"
<rj.nulman@v...>
> wrote:
> > Nice Dennis!
> >
> > There are still some gradient issues in the image, and I would
> > suggest using Ron's PS technique (or his software...or Maxim's
> > gradient removal tool) to deal with the gradients vs. just
> basically clipping the green channel...you will like the results
> better.
> >
> > Nice to see you continuing in color...each image keeps getting
> > better!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Randy Nulman
> >
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Persyk"
> <dpersyk@a...>
> > wrote:
> > > DWB-111, a/k/a the Propeller Nebula, is a faint emission
nebula  in  Cygnus.  I imaged an LRGB of 50 minute components
comprising 5- minuted unguided subframes.  Total was 200 minutes,
all in one  night. Takahashi E160 astrograph, MX716 camera and
AP1200GTO
> mount.
> > >
> > > The DWB catalog stands for Dickel, Wendker, and Bieritz, who
> have  compiled a somewhat obscure (at least for me) catalog of
faint  emission nebulae in the Cygnus X region.
> > >
> > > I used a log stretch of  0.5 in ImagesPlus followed by curves
to  tease out the nebulosity.  I had a faint green gradient which I
> > > removed in curves by clicking on the green button and
> selectively  dimming only the green.  I am finding that the green
> component of  most DSOs is often not very important and can be
> reduced in  intensity without consequence to the image.
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate feedback on my image.  This is only my 3rd LRGB
> and  I  have lots to learn!
> > >
> > > Image at
> > > http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm
> > >
> > > Thank you for visiting my site.
> > >
> > > Clear skies,
> > >
> > > Dennis Persyk
> > > Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
> > > Hampshire, IL
>

I don't generally work on the individual images, but there are some limited
times when it makes sense to do so. I generally do this in Photoshop _after_
combining color; Photoshop lets me work on one channel at a time if I wish
to.

I have a routine that I use which involves some steps that are not commonly
talked about, but they become important when you are working with gradients.

Here's the high-level breakdown. I first presented this at the Astroimage
conference in Southern California in August. A few days before I gave the
presentation, I came up with a new way to look at color balancing, involving
four steps instead of one.

Step one: remove color bias. This is the step where one deals with gradients
and brighter backgrounds in one color than another. I referred to this as a
normalization step earlier, but I think that "color bias" is a more accurate
term for referring to what's going on. If one color has a brighter
background than the others, you can use black points _on the individual
channels_ to match the background levels. This will neutralize the
background, removing any color bias.

What this won't do is correct a gradient. But a gradient does create a form
of color bias, as you can see in your image with the green channel. In the
case of a gradient, only a _portion_ of the image has a color bias. By using
selections (or other tools) to remove the gradient, you correct the color
bias from the gradient.

The important key is to realize that removing the bias due to gradient and
the actual color bias (where the entire channel has a brighter background)
are two different steps. I would recommend removing gradients before
attempting to correct color bias.

Once the background is neutral, then you can deal with the other steps:

* Color balancing (I use what I call the pseudo white point, the place in
the histogram where the curve drops nearly to zero), plus knowledge of the
color and structure of the object in the image.
* Color Saturation adjustments
* Color Noise considerations (do any of the colors have too much noise to be
properly represented in the image? If yes, you have to drop back the color
saturation. Color Noise represents the limit to what you can achieve with
the color data.)

That's just an outline, but there's a lot of information behind all of this,
which is covered in detail in the new book. It's partly a new way of
thinking about color overall, and partly just a breakdown into more logical
(and better-named) pieces.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Persyk [mailto:dpersyk@...]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:33 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: DWB-111 The Propeller Nebula


Thanks for checking out the image, Ron.  I can see that the
background is too black and the histogram is severely clipped but I
don't know how to fix it. I started working with the image after the
LRGB combine in Maxim and perhaps I need to work on the individual
LRGB channels first before combining?

Clear skies,

Dennis

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Wodaski Yahoo" <yahoo@n...>
wrote:
> That went a long way toward improving the image. If you'd like to
dig a little deeper, I think the gradient is still forcing an
unnaturally high black point in the color channels; I think you
might be able to improve this even more.
>
>
> Ron Wodaski
> The New CCD Astronomy
> http://www.newastro.com/ipb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Persyk [mailto:dpersyk@a...]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 6:02 PM
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: DWB-111 The Propeller Nebula
>
>
> Hi Randy,
>
> Thanks for the input.  I applied a planar background compensation
> operator in ImagesPlus  to the green gradient in the upper right
> corner.  It is not perfect yet but I think it is better now.
> http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm
>
> Color gradients are the bane of LRGB images!
>
> Clear skies,
>
> Dennis
> Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
> Hampshire, IL
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Nulman"
<rj.nulman@v...>
> wrote:
> > Nice Dennis!
> >
> > There are still some gradient issues in the image, and I would
> > suggest using Ron's PS technique (or his software...or Maxim's
> > gradient removal tool) to deal with the gradients vs. just
> basically clipping the green channel...you will like the results
> better.
> >
> > Nice to see you continuing in color...each image keeps getting
> > better!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Randy Nulman
> >
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Persyk"
> <dpersyk@a...>
> > wrote:
> > > DWB-111, a/k/a the Propeller Nebula, is a faint emission
nebula  in  Cygnus.  I imaged an LRGB of 50 minute components
comprising 5- minuted unguided subframes.  Total was 200 minutes,
all in one  night. Takahashi E160 astrograph, MX716 camera and
AP1200GTO
> mount.
> > >
> > > The DWB catalog stands for Dickel, Wendker, and Bieritz, who
> have  compiled a somewhat obscure (at least for me) catalog of
faint  emission nebulae in the Cygnus X region.
> > >
> > > I used a log stretch of  0.5 in ImagesPlus followed by curves
to  tease out the nebulosity.  I had a faint green gradient which I
> > > removed in curves by clicking on the green button and
> selectively  dimming only the green.  I am finding that the green
> component of  most DSOs is often not very important and can be
> reduced in  intensity without consequence to the image.
> > >
> > > I'd appreciate feedback on my image.  This is only my 3rd LRGB
> and  I  have lots to learn!
> > >
> > > Image at
> > > http://home.att.net/~dpersyk/new.htm
> > >
> > > Thank you for visiting my site.
> > >
> > > Clear skies,
> > >
> > > Dennis Persyk
> > > Igloo Observatory Home Page http://dpersyk.home.att.net
> > > Hampshire, IL
>







Yahoo! Groups Links









__________ NOD32 1.881 (20040930) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.nod32.com

Hi Bill:

Really nice! I think this is one of your best images. I guess that
confirms the new camera is worth the money <g>.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: bill@... [mailto:bill@...]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 11:49 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] M31 - this year's effort


I am posting my a image of M31 taken 9/10/04 at Anza, CA.  Taken with
my Tak FSQ196 and SBIG STL11000.  LRGB = 60/30/20/30 and processed
using the LLRGB technique.

http://www.laastro.com/M31_spec.html

Thanks for looking!

Bill Patterson
www.laastro.com







Yahoo! Groups Links

See very first fotos taken with Eduard von Bergen's Canon 10D,
attached to my 15"Obsession sitting on a Tom O. EQ platform.
Guiding was done manually with a 80/480mm refractor,
plus 5x Barlow and 12mm cross-hair EP.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/images.html
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/schmid.bergen.htm

Pierre Schmid

> Roger Hamlett wrote:
>
> > Whoa....
> > The suggestion to sample at half the 'seeing', is a common _and wrong_
> > application of Nyquists theorem...
> > Nyquist, shows that for sinusoidal waveforms, the _minimum_ sampling
> > 'interval', is half the wavelength, to reproduce a particular
frequency.
> > When sampling with a camera, the pixel size is the sampling interval,
and
> > the seeing, may (possibly), be taken to represent the 'wavelength', so
> > people then go on to say that you have to use 1/2 the seeing as the
maximum
> > sample size to not lose significant resolution.
> > The first (biggest) problem, is that the image is a 2D structure, not a
one
> > dimensional structure, and the worst sampling, is diagonally across the
> > pixel, not the width of the pixel. Hence ignoring anything else, the
> > Nyquist criteria, actually requires you to sample (assuming square
pixels),
> > at 1/2.8th the seeing, if detail is not to be lost.
> > There is though also a second problem. The light curve produced by a
star,
> > is not a nice sinusoid. The image of a star, will be close to the shape
of
> > the Airy disk, then 'spread' by a Gaussian noise function. If you do
this,
> > and then look at the measures of 'seeing', you will see that the edges
on
> > the star, have much sharper rise/falls than a sinusoid, and to
reproduce
> > these properly, requires a slightly higher sample rate. If you sit
down,
> > and calculate the effects, you find that you have to sample at just
over
> > 1/3rd the 'seeing', to get all the available detail without
oversampling.
>
> Actually, to properly represent that shape without significant aliasing
> would require much higher sampling than that.  Non-sinusoidal shapes are
> represented by harmonics that are 2x, 3x, 4x... the fundamental
> frequency of the sinusoid.
Agreed. Good old Fourier analysis...
I 'simplified', and shortened what could become rather a long comment, to
give the general 1/3rd seeing 'rule'. It works better than might be
thought, because the fundamental, is not actually at the frequency
represented by the 'seeing', and with the normal 'seeing' measures, it
results in the inclusion of the next harmonic for the image date, giving
quite a close overall approximation.

> In the real world, compromises have to be made in terms of image/signal
> fidelity and noise.  When the sampling is sufficient that the "noise"
> due to aliasing is smaller than the noise from other sources (photon
> shot noise, read noise, etc.) then you might consider it to be "ideally
> sampled".
>
> But of course bright stars have a different SNR than faint ones, so
> there probably isn't an "ideal sampling rate" for the whole image.
> Instead you have to compromise based upon what you are trying to
> achieve.  If you are doing profile fitting photometry, you'll want very
> high sampling.  If you're doing supernova hunting, you might make a
> different choice.
>
> In reality, the "1/3 the seeing" guideline is a simply pragmatic choice
> of sampling for "pretty picture" imaging.  It isn't necessarily the
> optimum in any theoretical perspective.
>
> And I'll also point out that the Nyquist Sampling Criterion has more to
> it than just the minimum sampling rate.  The criterion requires that, in
> order to reproduce the original signal/image, that you:
>
> 1.  Filter out any components that are above 1/2 the sampling rate (this
> is impractical in optical systems; however, the Gaussian shape is fairly
> close to sinusoidal so the residual error is not huge.  It does suggest
> however, that if you're undersampling you might want to defocus the
> telescope a bit).
Yes.

> 2.  Apply a "reconstruction filter" when you output the signal/image.
> The reconstruction filter provides the necessary interpolation between
> the individual samples, to reconstruct the original image.
>
> This last step seems to be completely ignored by astroimagers.  Partly
> this is due to technological limitations (see below), but I think it's
> also due to ignorance of how Nyquist Sampling Criterion actually works.
>
> In the digital domain, the only practical way to perform a resampling
> filter is to upsample the data, then low-pass filter it to 1/2 the
> original sampling rate.  That's what the Double Size function in MaxIm
> DL does.  (Of course a better reconstruction filter can be had using
> even higher sampling and appropriate sin(x)/x correction, like CD
> players do, but that isn't practical for imaging.)
>
> The technological limitation I mentioned comes from the fact that you
> might not have enough pixels on your computer screen to display the
> resampled image.  However, it is a useful exercise if you are planning
> on printing on a high resolution media, or if your images are smaller
> than your screen size.
>
> Doug
Reconstruction, is quite commonly being done on binned images (most people
do upsample on these), but as you say, is commonly being ignored.

Best Wishes

Hi Michael,

To me, the image looks a bit on the noisy side and slightly blurry.  The
noise surprises me given the long exposure times.  What combine method did
you use?

Regards,

Chris

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Michael Downing [mailto:michael@...]
--> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:32 PM
--> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
--> Subject: [ccd-newastro] Pelican_Nebula
-->
-->
-->
--> I tried a couple of long exposure HA images before the moon
--> came up tonight
--> with the STL-11000/FSQ/AP-900
--> 3 - 30 min images of the Pelican Nebula
--> http://www.astroden.com/st11k/fsq/Pelican_Nebula_sm.jpg
-->
--> Not sure if the processing looks ok as I am using the home PC with a new
--> flat panel
-->
--> Comments welcome
--> Michael Downing
--> www.astroden.com <http://www.astroden.com/>
-->
-->
-->
-->
--> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-->
-->
-->
-->
-->
-->
--> Yahoo! Groups Links
-->
-->
-->
-->
-->
-->
-->
-->

hi

those are some of the best photos i've seen with the canon. you
acquired some faint detail difficult to achieve. overall an excellent
job with a manually guided system.

jamie


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Pierre E. Schmid"
<p.e.schmid@i...> wrote:
> See very first fotos taken with Eduard von Bergen's Canon 10D,
> attached to my 15"Obsession sitting on a Tom O. EQ platform.
> Guiding was done manually with a 80/480mm refractor,
> plus 5x Barlow and 12mm cross-hair EP.
> http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/images.html
> http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/schmid.bergen.htm
>
> Pierre Schmid

That's classic frost. How humid is your air? In addition to getting frost
inside the camera and needing to recharge the desiccant, you can also get
front on the outside of the chip chamber or on the camera's window. A quick
look with a flashlight might help you determine exactly where the frost is.

A cold, damp night can cause frosting _outside_ the chip chamber.
Frequently, this is because there has been so much condensation that it has
dripped inside the camera (on cameras that have open outer cases). This
moisture then increases the humidity inside the camera, and allows frost on
the outside of the chip chamber.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Hissong [mailto:jhisson1@...]
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 8:28 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] Re: Weird collimation problem


Thanks Eric and Ron,

I have uploaded the raw files to my website.  Yes, the ring definately
was expanding.  I did not let it go far enough to clear all the way out.

The camera is about three years old and I have been using it quite
frequently lately.  I can say that I shutdown the computer before
turning off the cooling a couple times by accident.  I know that it can
increase the chance of thermal shock but I don't know if that would all
of a sudden cause this type of behavior.  Basically, one night it looks
as good as this:

http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/m29.FIT

To these:

http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sn2004et.00000000.FIT
http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sn2004et.00000002.FIT
http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/sw_cyg.FIT
http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/test.FIT

Here is a flatfield:

http://www.n8xe.com/astronomy/images/issues/testflat.FIT

I thought that the first image with the weird patterns was because I had
my secondary adjusted too tight.  The more I think about the problem,
the more I think it could be frosting and not collimation.

Thanks for the insight guys!!

Jason


eja24601 wrote:

>Jason,
>
>The pictures do indeed look too small for me to judge as well, but
>as far as the "ring" (especially with the 2nd picture), did it
>expand and eventually disappear? If so, that's frost forming on your
>chip. Which is fine; you just need to bake the camera's dessicant.
>The rest of the artifacts look like stuff that could either be taken
>out with a flat or gradient removal. Of course, I am basing all this
>on first impressions with small pictures, so YMMV.
>
>HTH,
>Eric
>
>
>






Yahoo! Groups Links









__________ NOD32 1.881 (20040930) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.nod32.com

Hi All,
I have just finished the refurbish on my observatory that included a new
software suite (maximDL 4 and The Sky6)before I used CCDSoft version 5 with
TheSky to control the scope and camera. The problem I'm having is figuring out
how to establish a link with the scope from these software packages through
ASCOM. Is there anyone out there that has any ideas on this. I admit I'm a
newbie to all of this and could really use the help.

thanks in advance,
Bob


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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

Hi,

I am upgrading to a MI-250 and have purchased a, new to me, C-14 for
use on it.  This OTA has the Fastar assembly included.  I do not
intend to use it as my primary imaging setup but would like to know
if it is usable with the ST-7 to 10 series of SBIG cameras.  Would
their size present too much of an obstruction and what about all the
cable connections?

Thanks,

Don Waid

If you don't get the information you need here, try posting the question on
the MaxIm DL Yahoo group, or just search the archives of that group. There
is some setup involved.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Birket [mailto:btbirket@...]
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 9:45 AM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] MaximDL4 + TheSky 6+ ASCOM+ Celestron GPS11= no link


Hi All,
I have just finished the refurbish on my observatory that included a new
software suite (maximDL 4 and The Sky6)before I used CCDSoft version 5 with
TheSky to control the scope and camera. The problem I'm having is figuring
out how to establish a link with the scope from these software packages
through ASCOM. Is there anyone out there that has any ideas on this. I admit
I'm a newbie to all of this and could really use the help.

thanks in advance,
Bob


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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






Yahoo! Groups Links









__________ NOD32 1.882 (20041002) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.nod32.com