A spider in the air

h0ughy (David) · #1 27-02-2011, 08:12 PM

all i will say is that this was done with the best intentions. with the atmosphere looking as though you were looking at it through wobbly jelly. Guiding was very hard - which i think also ruined the image. I can guarantee that it was in focus, it doesn't look like it.

here are two images ,one made from a all in throw in the pot (and it shows) and the other made up of 20 x 5 seconds, 20 x 20sec, 20 by 30 sec , 10 x 60 sec, 10x300 sec and 8 x 605 sec. stacked in DSS individually then combined in Pixinsight. The best i can do with crud data. you can see the mount was chasing the seeing - even after i changed it to 3 x binning to remove the noise and 3 sec capture and it was still jiggling. very very soft seeing.......

and i had a small victory - at least the dome tracked

Dennis · #2 27-02-2011, 08:19 PM

The 2nd one does look a little soft due to the poor seeing, but it also show the potential to be a cracking shot when the conditions improve.

Cheers

Dennis

ballaratdragons (Ken) · #3 27-02-2011, 08:29 PM

Thanks David,

it's good to see some 'not so good' images posted among the good ones.
Shows what can go wrong

h0ughy (David) · #4 27-02-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis

The 2nd one does look a little soft due to the poor seeing, but it also show the potential to be a cracking shot when the conditions improve.

Cheers

Dennis

Thanks Dennis for the support

LOL the first image was me just being stupid, the second was my trying to make a purse out of a sows ear......

I will be trying this again from the burbs as the shorter shots do help in the detail of the bright bits.

o how i wished it was winter......

h0ughy (David) · #5 27-02-2011, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballaratdragons

Thanks David,

it's good to see some 'not so good' images posted among the good ones.
Shows what can go wrong

thats why i posted it Ken - to highlight the bad....

most of my stuff

strongmanmike (Michael) · #6 27-02-2011, 11:10 PM

The first one is excellent Dave a unique prespective on an old favourite - looks like those plastic screens from the 70's with fish and starfish etc embeded in them that people put in bathrooms etc (we had one separating the toilet from the basin area in the bathroom circa 1971

)

The second one looks ok really and at least some success from the night for you. The seeing out at Kurri was shocking to start with too but after midnight it settled down a bit.

Good one re the dome rotation...you will become the lazy imager in no time

Mike

h0ughy (David) · #7 27-02-2011, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

The first one is excellent Dave a unique prespective on an old favourite - looks like those plastic screens from the 70's with fish and starfish etc embeded in them that people put in bathrooms etc (we had one separating the toilet from the basin area in the bathroom circa 1971

)

The second one looks ok really and at least some success from the night for you. The seeing out at Kurri was shocking to start with too but after midnight it settled down a bit.

Good one re the dome rotation...you will become the lazy imager in no time

Mike

LOL Mike i fully agree - like a magnifying sheet

just trying to show how easy it is to stuff things up

how long did you wait for that cloud to move?

only a 1/3 the way there with the dome - i need to get everything talking and working together

strongmanmike (Michael) · #8 27-02-2011, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0ughy

how long did you wait for that cloud to move?

100% clear from just on dark to dawn!

h0ughy (David) · #9 27-02-2011, 11:35 PM

we had a mass of cloud move over from 9.30 to about 10.30

strongmanmike (Michael) · #10 28-02-2011, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0ughy

we had a mass of cloud move over from 9.30 to about 10.30

Yeh I could see it in the east...,and acctually thought of you..?..naked in the observatory, eating strawber...ahh? are we alone?

gregbradley · #11 28-02-2011, 05:40 PM

Hey its not too bad a shot. I am interested in the 2nd one. I took a shot of the Tarantula a few weeks ago with the CDK17 and my colouration looks the same as yours. I thought perhaps I'd made a mistake in processing as the colours don't look so reddy/brown in a lot of shots posted.

One tip. If the seeing is poorer you can adjust the min/max move so the guider does not act if a too large an error is reported that was due to a blip in the seeing.

So only let it make a correction if the error is more in the usual band and not if it is outside that band. Apart from that seeing is seeing and not a lot can be done about it beyond AO optics.

Greg.

h0ughy (David) · #12 28-02-2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Hey its not too bad a shot. I am interested in the 2nd one. I took a shot of the Tarantula a few weeks ago with the CDK17 and my colouration looks the same as yours. I thought perhaps I'd made a mistake in processing as the colours don't look so reddy/brown in a lot of shots posted.

One tip. If the seeing is poorer you can adjust the min/max move so the guider does not act if a too large an error is reported that was due to a blip in the seeing.

So only let it make a correction if the error is more in the usual band and not if it is outside that band. Apart from that seeing is seeing and not a lot can be done about it beyond AO optics.

Greg.

the first shot is an example of not what to do LOL. the second one is the first reprocessed wee bit better (individually stacking the same exposures rather than all in together

) is stuffed by the seeing, i use phd which normally does pretty good as i haven't mucked about with the settings like i did that night - it was that bad that if i wasn't testing the dome tracking i would have packed it in for the night, normally i get pinpoint stars. i was watching stars disappear in the guide scope on screen live.

As for the colours in my shot - with the CLS filter there is a massive colour shift. this makes the image vastly different than if it were with without it. when i redo this image from scratch i will probabaly get about 5-7hours worth to make it worthwhile

h0ughy (David) · #13 03-03-2011, 12:51 AM

i did a reprocess so that i could tinker wit hthe star colours with a new process in pixinsight - its still a sows ear but do the str colours look better ?

its very hard to balance the sky background and the star colours all in the one go

Octane (Humayun) · #14 03-03-2011, 12:54 AM

Hrm, you've now got a magenta cast over the image, manifesting itself as red in the midtones and magenta in the shadows.

To the Colour Balance tool in Photoshop!

H