Ok folks, here it is, quite a lot of work to star align, linear fit (to try to match the backgrounds), blink, crop and then resave the pics to a manageable level (all originally derived from FITS files).
After seeing my own 13hr Running Chicken image and being frustrated from a lack of O3 detail/white wispy bits in the chicken's rear compared to
Andy's 30hr image, I decided to ask my friend Uri for a single Ha sub that he had recently taken of the IC2944 region, using his QSI683 camera. Then he gave me his other 2 filter images, and so this project has gained legs!
So Andy has provided me with a set of all his 3 subs (30 mins), Uri has his 15 min subs and another astro friend Nick gave me an 8 minute Ha sub from Heathcote using his FLI ML16200 camera.
Please follow
this link to view the comparison video and then download the aligned images for your own analysis. Very interested in your opinions!
After doing the analysis, I believe the following:
1.My friend Uri is achieving outstanding results with his QSI and Stellarvue 130 setup!
2. In fact his expertise with PA seems to assist him to match or exceed the FLI camera results.
3. Takahashi refractor quality is most definitely matched by Stellarvue.
4. My own ASI camera punches surprisingly above its price bracket. About $2k versus $4.7k for the QSI and double that again (or more) for the FLI. I expected to see much less wispy details in Ha than in Andy's sub, but most of the signal is there.
5. However at these 'long' exposures for my cam (15 mins), the noise is becoming nasty, and I also notice the dynamic range is worse.
6. Various other issues can substantially affect image quality other than basic camera quality. In my case, focusing and possibly a dirty mirror is contributing to my gigantic star shapes. I am now researching an electronic focuser for my Tak reflector. Now that I can collimate the tak, a good clean will be in store.
7. As a result, I'm certainly keeping my camera, at least until I find that the improved focusing doesn't help. It's a great stepping stone.
8. Extra to this test, I have received a stacked image of 15 subs from Uri, I see some slight improvements but still no magical wispy signal that explains my missing data in the chicken's guts.
One friend has already suggested that the stretching of the images in this test is not equal. I can't see how I can do that without changing the brightness of the individual pics. I did do a Linear Fit in PI before doing an auto stretch. Would be interested in any suggestions as to make this comparison even more objective.
It is very easy to become anal about this. Eg. nick's pic is taken in dark sky territory, maybe Uri's pic lucked out re. seeing, different scopes used, different mounts used, etc. etc.
Let the debate begin, and tearing to shreds of my terrible comparison!?