[PRejto (Peter)]

More info gathered last night. Possibly something is emerging here, but not sure. I received some feedback from another MX user in the USA that advised me to not shoot such short exposures. In fact he said that such short exposures may introduce some issues of latency in evaluating just when the picture was taken vs the actual worm position. I know this goes against some advice and actual result also presented in this thread, but I though there would be no harm lost in trying out more delay between exposures.

Last night I collected data with .5 sec exposures and a 2 second delay. The curves are compared in the attached photo. Whilst there are certainly similarities between the two curves, there are also obvious differences. The differences that concern me are the differences in the start and end points of the "cycle." Is this significant? A cycle is a cycle but not if it is misidentifying the position of the worm vs corrections. To me that might explain why the error corrections are not working. Also, comparing the actual PEC curves from the 2 nights is really odd. The camera orientation was unchanged between the two nights and in both cases the west option was not selected. It's really clear the the start point of a "cycle" has shifted dramatically.

What do you think? I've posted the same query at SB but no reply yet.

Peter