|
Hehehe thanks all.
Not to worry re faint planetaries, Ive used Star Atlas pro to generate some charts for some more faint obscure ones around the Canis major/Puppis region, trouble is, starting at 2 or 3 am in summer means that only after a few hours this big darn light source called the Sun washes out the sky, even with daylight savings, the summer nights, though comfy to observe under, are just too short. Ive not seen NGC 2440 before, was glad I was able to image it. Star Atlas Pro shows that not far away there are 2 planetaries I can get into the one image.
I set up the scope the night before, then cover it with a wheelie bin liner to keep any dew off, then go to bed, its in the back yard, and the next door neighbour has a dog that will bark loudly at the sign of any disturbance, and the scope is right near my bedroom window, so I get up, take off the cover and Im in business. Tried that today, but it was cloudy at 3 am, so got up, put the scope back in the garage, covered the mount then went back to bed.
[IMG]http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7063&st c=1
Heres a re processed version of the same NGC 253 shot, done with IRIS. IRIS is definately much better with the dark subtraction, and actually seems to do better with darks that are longer than the actual light images, I can even use darks taken several nights before, however IRIS is not always consistant, for example the NCG 2440 shots were full of hot pixels and residual amp glow, yet the longer NGC253 shots werent,? go figure.
Im tempted on a hot night to try a full 1/2 hour shot at ISO 1600 on something, do the dark, then see how IRIS handles that. I think the secret is that IRIS does the dark subtraction BRFORE the Bayer conversion, IE with full raw monochrome files. Why its not always consistant, who knows. Its also better it seems for me to save the resulting processed images as .BMP but stretch the levels first rather than TIFFS as iRIS seems to have trouble saving files to TIFF without yet more hot pixels
|