IC434...my 1st attempt

wasyoungonce (Brendan) · #1 22-12-2009, 12:55 PM

Hi folks my 1st attempt at IC434 (HH) nebula with un-modded 450D, ED80, G11 mount guided with WO ZS70ED & QHY5.

Qty 10 frames of ISO 800, 5 mins jpg exposures 5 darks added, no flats....why jpgs...some idiot left the file format in jpg mode! Doh!

Anyway it's over processed to bring out the hydrogen...I wanted more subs but because I spent so much time doing a drift align..and moving the scope twice...I lost time to do exposures up to meridian.

Is there anyway I can do a meridian flip & re-algn exposures in DSS? Will DSS do this?

I really need more subs.

If you want to know why I took so long in drift alignment...The area I use is a pool deck with lots of magnetic influences..so much so my compass is around 10 degrees out. I finally marked the tripod legs positions...with pencil...my wife will kill me if I damage/mark the new paver's!.

multiweb (Marc) · #2 22-12-2009, 01:03 PM

You're well on your way. It's a faint one. More data will allow you to stretch harder without worrying about the noise. Focus is spot on and so is guding.

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #3 22-12-2009, 01:40 PM

Well done for your first one!!
I'd be starting afresh, reframe the image, and shoot in .raw.
LOL my last one of this region was shot in jpeg too by mistake.

AlexN · #4 22-12-2009, 01:42 PM

Nice work for your first horse!

DSS will handle the subs after a meridian flip, Provided your target is centered in both the East and western shot images, DSS will handle the fact that the western subs are 180 degrees rotated...

wasyoungonce (Brendan) · #5 22-12-2009, 01:56 PM

Ah... thanks Ladies 'n Gents.

Its a very rough and ready astro-photo..after waiting for ages for clear skies & getting used to a new mount and getting just about everything wrong (Murphy would be proud).. It's a starter pic for better guiding. Hopefully I'll actually learn something & get better.

Looks as If I need better framing to stack after meridian flip. I'll try that.

As for the new paver's...she's not happy with the marks on them but it's better than my previous location marks! Last time I put down tape and the sticky stuff wouldn't come off the sandstone....boy was I in the dog house!

telecasterguru (Frank) · #6 22-12-2009, 03:05 PM

WYO,

Not bad for a first hh attempt.

PS. Don't get too close to the pool with the new mount.

Frank

wasyoungonce (Brendan) · #7 22-12-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by telecasterguru

Frank

Don't worry about the mount....worry about me...I've already fallen in once!

And yes...I know making this public knowledge will make me the laughing target of all..

But I'm a big boy now so ...bring it on..I'll have youse all...!

Bassnut (Fred) · #8 22-12-2009, 07:38 PM

Nice 1st try. The levels were a bit off (well, thats a personal thing), and you might like to post a smaller size pic in the future with the same file size for better quality and easier to view as an attachment

.

wasyoungonce (Brendan) · #9 22-12-2009, 08:25 PM

Thanks Fred just a question on pic sizes..what do most people post as an image size (not regarding bytes) ...aka length & width?

I noticed I'm trying to get my pics to less than 200Kb and not really looking at the image scale..which is usually too much?

AlexN · #10 22-12-2009, 08:39 PM

I generally post between 800x530 and 1000x650 px depending on the compression ratio required... Shots of targets smack bang within an intense star field like the tarantula or M8/M20 require more compression, so I post them at lower resolution, targets like NGC 253 or the Helix are in relatively sparse areas of the sky, and hence generally require less compression, hence, higher resolution...

I will usually scale the image size to keep the image quality up above 65~70%

Bassnut (Fred) · #11 22-12-2009, 08:40 PM

I just type 1024 as the image width in PS (regardless of the original size) and the height is automatically reduced to scale. This seems to be a handy size for most end viewer LCDs. Then saving the JPEG to a bit less than 200k will give reasonable quality too (over a very large size image).

wasyoungonce (Brendan) · #12 22-12-2009, 09:20 PM

Thanks for the tips gents...I'll be posting images of around those sizes in future...in lieu of my "mega pics".

Is this a little better...just a re-process & test up load for image size

edit ..still a little big

Uploaded another smaller pic, 1000px wide..lets see here.

Ahhh that's better...so 1000px wide is it then! Many thanks to all for helping and for those who put up with my ...amateurish ways.