View Single Post
  #50  
Old 23-10-2018, 11:51 PM
RyanJones
Registered User

RyanJones is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Melbourne,Australia
Posts: 1,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimitar View Post
Thanks mate
I'd imagine your f/5 scope will throw up some different challenges than what you've been used to. The sky glow will certainly become an issue more quickly.


Can a single 16sec exposure show much detail in a nebula? If you use that approach will you need to take hundreds of images and stack?

Have you considered guiding your f/10 scope? If your mount allows it, you could get longer exposures by guiding.
Hi Evan,

No doubt the sky glow is an issue but it always has been. You're correct that the refractor makes a monster of it quite quickly. The 16 seconds was purely part testing sequence. With the moon almost full, it's about as bad as it gets. I ran 350 subs on Helix at ISO 800 for 16 sec and I was surprised I could make it out at all. The main reason I choose Helix was the stars around it are very faint and the moon was only about 10degrees away. As I said, the absolute worst case scenario. Regarding the stacking, I'm pretty used to stacking upwards of 600 subs to only get 3 odd hours of intergation. Yes it is time consuming but it's the only way I could manage it with my mount which takes me to your last comment. Yes, I believe tracking on the mount is possible but there's very like information available. I guess it's because most people don't do what I am trying to with such a basic setup. The actual mount gets jitters as it moves around. It's driven by a plastic spur gearbox so it is never going to be smooth although I do have some modifications in mind. Time will tell if I actually do it. Regardless though, we come full circle and get back to sky glow. On the f/10 at ISO 3200, a 22sec sub ( being all the mount could reliably do cleanly ) was underexposed but I made it work so an extent. Often I would take longer shots to frame the object but anything above 40 seconds had too much sky glow anyway. With the f/5, that's theoretically only 10sec. Now iso3200 is noisey so maybe 20 sec at 1600 might work. I just have to find a new sweet spot. I'll get there, it all a part of the challenge. I must say that I'm enjoying the data collection and analysis and understanding why things work the way they do.
Reply With Quote