vanwonky
24-02-2012, 04:33 PM
My second attempt at imaging here after much wrestling with polar alignment and guiding. This is shot at 300s @ 800iso. I did take some 120s,60s and 10sec exposures as well but I am just getting my head around Nebulosity for stacking etc so I haven't used them yet.
I am OK with the result for what it is. I would like to see a bit more blue in some of the nebulosity but can't pull it out if it is there at all. I did grab the core from a 10sec exposure to mask the blown out core but I think it looks dodgy. The stars seem to be getting some oval in them but would like opinions please. I did (again) run out of time to get more (many more) exposures which of course would have helped the final image. I guess my camera has it's limitations (well depth?) with longer exposures as well. No flats or bias yet as I am just building my light box.
Questions:
1) At 300s the core is totally blown out as you can see in the original unprocessed image. Should I be taking shorter exposures (many more!) instead. If so will that still show up the fainter details if stacked or can that only be achieved with the longer exposures and then masking with the shorter ones.
2) Still need to read up on it but will stacking (which ever program you use) stack exposures of different lengths to any benefit?
Lights: 3 x 300s @ 800iso
Darks: 3 x 300s @ 800iso
Sharpstar 106mm
Canon 350D Modded
Cheers
Dave
I am OK with the result for what it is. I would like to see a bit more blue in some of the nebulosity but can't pull it out if it is there at all. I did grab the core from a 10sec exposure to mask the blown out core but I think it looks dodgy. The stars seem to be getting some oval in them but would like opinions please. I did (again) run out of time to get more (many more) exposures which of course would have helped the final image. I guess my camera has it's limitations (well depth?) with longer exposures as well. No flats or bias yet as I am just building my light box.
Questions:
1) At 300s the core is totally blown out as you can see in the original unprocessed image. Should I be taking shorter exposures (many more!) instead. If so will that still show up the fainter details if stacked or can that only be achieved with the longer exposures and then masking with the shorter ones.
2) Still need to read up on it but will stacking (which ever program you use) stack exposures of different lengths to any benefit?
Lights: 3 x 300s @ 800iso
Darks: 3 x 300s @ 800iso
Sharpstar 106mm
Canon 350D Modded
Cheers
Dave