Quote:
Originally Posted by peter_4059
Steve - thanks for the comparison image. It's amazing what you can get out of entry level equipment from a light polluted location and a near full moon! I've been discussing your approach (lots of short subs)with Troy and Allan - I think the DSI really benefits from a lot of subs and may revert to more shorter subs myself - especially if I can't isolate the source of flexure.
Peter
|
Sure Peter,
The only benefit I get is the stars are sharper and I sort of beat the seeing.
However, in this case, my image is certainly a bad
example of the method. Your subs are 2 mins, mine 5 secs. Look
at your stars. They are awesome.
On exceptional seeing nights, my method really works well but the
down side is I have to go longer to get extended source faint stuff.
There is no point me ignoring that.
It's hardly my method btw, it's just a carry over of the ten odd years
where I squeezed every last ounce out of 8 bit webcam images by
hundreds of subs and extreme processing.
As you say, it works extremely well for the DSI II.
I will never part with this camera, I am looking forward to winter with
it's many more good nights.
I love the image scale of these also with fast newts. Without even
reading your imaging details I knew the result was from your DSI II
and 10"
ps: If you're interested, I can pm you the processing routine(s) I use
for good seeing nights/ average seeing nights for DSI Mono work.
Steve