View Single Post
  #22  
Old 24-04-2015, 08:36 PM
rat156's Avatar
rat156
Registered User

rat156 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,694
Hi All,

Very interesting discussion. Some parts of Ray's hypothesis I would tend to agree with, some parts not.

I don't reject a sub unless it has an obvious fault, i.e. visibly poor star shapes. In most cases I get to use all my subs, (ROR jobs, PMX, off-axis guiding etc) even small defects are rejected by the data processing. So, depending on the brightness of the object I vary the exposure time. For NB imaging, 10 -15 minute subs bring out the detail in the DSO, shorter subs generally don't allow the signal to be collected in the dimmer regions of extended objects.

For LRGB, 5 minute subs are all I can do, LP from Melbourne kills the subs after that.

I'm also a fan of collecting lots of subs, but not so you can reject them based on a FWHM measurement, but so the data rejection algorithms are more accurate. So I tend to let the software decide which parts of the sub to retain and which parts to discard. After this a combined image can be sharpened heavily without showing artefacts, which in essence is removing the blur induced by seeing.

Cheers
Stuart
Reply With Quote