Orion Star Field - SBIG STX - Full-Sized Image Uploaded

[Martin Pugh]

Thanks again everyone

Marcus - you are spot on with your diagnosis of my skies here. Clarity is non-existent and I am heavily light polluted. Processing has taken on a significant new challenge.

Teasing out the background nebulosity any further would have simply made it too noisy. I couldnt quite believe the noise there as it was, after 19 hours of data.

cheers
Martin

[danielsun]

Wow Martin , I just went for my space walk in your image and spent quite a while in there too.
That is a truly incredible image!!


Cheers Daniel.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

Mike - no RBI at all in this camera, despite deliberate attempts to produce it....Unless I am not seeing it.

cheers
Martin

This seems to be the general concesus with the 16803 chip, while theoretically it should or could suffer from RBI, in practise few actually notice it. It is probably measurable but not causing noticable issues for most as far as I can tell? Good really as flushing adds noise so I was concerned it would be a choice between a slight ghost image and increased noise ie which is worse?

Thanks for the feedback. My ProLine16803 will be here in a few days and I am getting just a bit excited ...an FSQ would be nice too

Mike

[gregbradley]

Yes the artifacts in bright edge stars in the 106N was corrected with the 106ED.

What temp did you get your STX to?

Greg.

[Martin Pugh]

Hi Greg
this beta unit has a cooling issue - so I have maintained it at -25degs and cooler power has been down to around 5-10%!!!

Mike - for some reason, the FLI 16803 cameras do suffer from RBI - which is why Crisp writes so much about it on the FLI website and his own.

I have just not been able to find any with the STX.

Cheers
Martin

[Octane (Humayun)]

Martin,

That is exquisitely wonderful.

I can't believe how smooth it all looks. Just amazing.

Thanks, mate.

H

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

Hi Greg
this beta unit has a cooling issue - so I have maintained it at -25degs and cooler power has been down to around 5-10%!!!

Mike - for some reason, the FLI 16803 cameras do suffer from RBI - which is why Crisp writes so much about it on the FLI website and his own.

I have just not been able to find any with the STX.

Cheers
Martin

That's interesting about the RBI Martin I'll have to check that out.
Not sure how it would appear in the image and haven't noticed anything but that is not much of test.

What was the ambient temperature when you got -25?

I am finding I get 51.7C delta temperature cooling power from the FLI PL but I found with other cameras I seem to get less cooling than advertised except the FLI ML8300 which will slam down -62C or more. I did one image at -45C! I wonder if cooling power is affected by relative humidity. My area is dry where I image. Would that make it more or less efficient I wonder? I assume wetter humidity would hinder cooling but perhaps its the other way around.

Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

Mike - for some reason, the FLI 16803 cameras do suffer from RBI - which is why Crisp writes so much about it on the FLI website and his own.

I have just not been able to find any with the STX.

Can't see why it would be a camera related issue? RBI is a chip specific issue.

Seems everyone who actually uses the PL16803 says it is not an issue . The ProLIne 16803 has been available now for over 3 years too, Wolfgang Promper never thought it was an issue with his PL16803 and he had one of the earlier versios too . Tom Davis and Greg Bradley don't see it in there PL16803's either. I am wondering if it is an issue that only shows up in extreme circumstances or isn't noticable to the eye in most instances but rather only with careful measurements?

Anyway, you had an FLI PL16803, did you notice any RBI with that?

Mike

[Tom Davis (Tom)]

Nice image Martin!

Tom

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Fantastic image. Ive not seen anything the like of it!

[Martin Pugh]

Thanks Tom/AG

Mike - I am sure you have done all of your research when you selected your 16803 based camera! If you have concerns regarding residual image and FLI cameras (which you do not appear to), then I would discuss with FLI/CRISP.

anyway, enough said, suffice it to say, that my experience was very bitter indeed - much like your ASA experience.

learned my lesson.
cheers
Martin

[duncan]

Hi Martin,
A truly stunning image!!!!! Don't know what else to say as it has already been said. And yeah go for APOD.!!!

Cheers,
Duncan

[TrevorW]

I must confess that is one fine image now just add too the FOV and you have your Marlin for this year ???

[Martin Pugh]

Thanks very much Trevor/Duncan

unfortunately, I am not allowed to enter David Malin awards this year (or last or next) as I am not resident in Australia (working overseas in US at the moment)

cheers
Martin

[Paul Haese]

What struck me right from opening this image is how smooth it is. As having done a 21 hours image myself I know that data can get very smooth. In your case this image is buttery (if such a word exists and if not it does now ), that being the background has no noise whatsoever and yet retains very good resolution. Some of us like to have some noise to aid sharpness but here the image does not seem to need it.

My only criticism and you already have addressed this is the core of M42. Everything else is superb.

Good luck with the APOD submission. I submitted my Thor's Helmet and did not get looked at. You have been published before and should feature on the site again.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

Thanks Tom/AG

Mike - I am sure you have done all of your research when you selected your 16803 based camera! If you have concerns regarding residual image and FLI cameras (which you do not appear to), then I would discuss with FLI/CRISP.

anyway, enough said, suffice it to say, that my experience was very bitter indeed - much like your ASA experience.

learned my lesson.
cheers
Martin

Well yes I believed I had...?

I didn't know this, so are you saying RBI was the route of your bitterness, or something else?

My ASA experience was yes, ****e, if a scope has astigmatism it has astigmatism an mine did, badly.

Mike

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Fabulous image Martin and an interesting conundrum. Your FSQ106N is showing off the fluorite elements with the rich colour. You most likely would not have gotten that richness of colour from the later FSQ106ED.

Yet the FSQ106ED has a reducer available that enables you to get a wider FOV easily (I have done the same shot) albeit at a lower resolution.

I feel the FSQ106N is the better scope overall for imaging despite the
convenience of some of the FSQ106ED's features.

But in this case it would require 2 panels ideally. You got some terrific richness of colour though that is spectacular and really makes the image.

Then again that reducer on the FSQ106Ed is a beauty. I wonder if someone could make a reducer for the 106N. For that matter I wonder if the new reducer does in fact work on the FSQ106N?

Greg.

What a load of cods wallop. Processing will lift, lower or transcribe the colour to whatever the imager requires. The same image captured with the same equipment and given to 20 people to process will result in 20 different images both in colour depth and end result.

Sorry Martin, a truely magnificent image with a huge field of view with superb detail throughout.

[gregbradley]

What you are saying is true Doug but I am looking past the processing at the performance of the scope and its coatings. Not all scopes coatings are equally effective. Ask Roland Christen from AP or Yuri from TEC. That is what I observed having used both scopes so the processing is constant from myself in each instance. The 106N gives richer colours no doubt about it. I think some FSQ owners who have used both are aware of this. But yes that is given processing as a constant and it is a huge variable but if the colour data was affected in the imaging then it is not there to assign or shift around in Photoshop as much as you think.

Greg.

[TrevorW]

There are numerous factors which will determine the colour in a final image that are not specifically tied into processing where processing is kept simple such as

1. Scope
2. Seeing
3. LP
4. SNR
5. Sensitivety of camera used

although what you say about colour being subjective is also true as per this article

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._020625-1.html

however to refer to Greg's statement as cods wallop Dougie, may be a bit harsh IMO

Keep it polite.

[gregbradley]

I might also add it is getting pretty picky to fault the FSQ106ED on its coatings. Don't get the wrong idea, it is a super scope and this is quite a minor point. I love my FSQ106ED and the reducer in particular is sensational.

Anyway back to Martins wonderful image.

Greg.