Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
These are some images that I took the following evening. This evening was my rest to see whether exposure times several times longer would yield better results. Much easier to process and didn't require too much pushing.
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=139394
Here is another few of M42, the first of which I ran into similar issues as I am having with now, ie. having to push the saturation pretty hard. The colour calibration also didn't go well at first as it noted by the golden parts of the nebula. My second attempt with longer exposures (200 vs 60) yielded much better results... Even if the diagonal introduces some artefacts as Lewis pointed out.
I have attempted NGC 104 & NGC 2070 on two occasions so far. Firstly with subs of 60s unguided and secondly as 200s. Until now I have just assumed that it was my inept process ice ability doing it, now I am thinking that I may have to tweak the camera settings.
Using a QHY9 with the gain set to 126 and offset at 102. The "correct" value for this camera should be a gain of 121 but it was suggested to add ~5% to remove some of the non linear portion of the camera as it approaches saturation, was a suggestion in a manual for calibrating a QHY. |
You can't get a gain of 126 with the QHY9m camera.
The highest gain is 68 ( I think )
I've been running mine at a gain of 5 which is not allowing me to reach the full 65536 16 bit well depth.
I should be running around 10 to 12 to achieve that.
I use an offset of 101 but 112 would be better.
Use
Ezycap when you use a QHY9 & look at the subframes as they download.
You'll see that RGB frames will all look different.
You'll also get a message on the screen as the wheel changes & a LED will light up on the top of the filter wheel.
cheers
Allan