| Last Post |
Chad Grimes
|
|
9/9/2017 4:25 PM
|
|
Done! I will invest in Nebulosity then. Just to prove your point, last night I imaged with 10 minute exposures for 3 hours. I got back beautiful star fields.....again. Just out of curiosity I opened up the stacked image in PS and selected the red channel. Low and behold, the nebula was present the entire time. I used curves to bring it out a little more and vualla...i had nebula with some slight dark corridors (elephant trunk). Now I am restacking all the frames I have.
Classes would be awesome! I will stick with my dslr and change my capture software, happens to be cheaper by about 100 bucks anyways.
I do have to get a coma corrector, but not until I get the software.
|
|
|
|
abrickhouse
|
|
9/9/2017 10:52 AM
|
|
We probably can set up a series of training sessions on a Saturday Morning at Meyer after we get back from OkiTex Star Party.
Aubrey
-----Original Message-----
From: mailer@mail2.clubexpress.com [mailto:mailer@mail2.clubexpress.com] On Behalf Of Astrophotography
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2017 10:34 AM
To: abrickhouse1@att.net
Subject: re: Eagle Nebula <<$180288638721$>>
Jeff & all... Chad is not the only one going through this learning curve, I too am just getting into digital astrophotography. I am reading with great interest all of the comments and suggestions that everyone is making. I already have Nebulosity but haven’t used it yet. I would like to suggest that a “series” of classes be put together on the various steps it takes, from planning the shoot to showing the finished product. This class could be presented at our monthly membership meeting where the specifics of what it takes for each step along the way can be presented and discussed. If not at the membership meeting then maybe something a little smaller. Many years ago I did astrophotography on film, but the digital efforts are completely different and require a different mindset in preparation and execution. It’s just a suggestion, but my ageing brain cannot retain details as it one could and a more intimate “hands on approach” would be extremely helpful. - Steve
|
|
|
|
Steve Brown
|
|
9/9/2017 10:22 AM
|
Jeff & all...
Chad is not the only one going through this learning curve, I too am just
getting into digital astrophotography. I am reading with great interest
all of the comments and suggestions that everyone is making. I already
have Nebulosity but haven’t used it yet.
I would like to suggest that a “series” of classes be put together on the
various steps it takes, from planning the shoot to showing the finished
product. This class could be presented at our monthly membership meeting
where the specifics of what it takes for each step along the way can be
presented and discussed. If not at the membership meeting then maybe
something a little smaller.
Many years ago I did astrophotography on film, but the digital efforts are
completely different and require a different mindset in preparation and
execution.
It’s just a suggestion, but my ageing brain cannot retain details as it one
could and a more intimate “hands on approach” would be extremely helpful.
- Steve
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey McClure
|
|
9/9/2017 9:12 AM
|
Chad,
Please forgive me for harping on this, but I again strongly recommend you get Nebulosity BEFORE you get a new camera. No camera will be any better than the capture software you use. Binning, as an example, is a critical tool. Let Stark Labs Nebulosity take you through how to use your existing camera and equipment, and get very proficient at that one piece of software and your existing equipment.
Once you do that, you may discover that there are nuances in images that you cannot capture, such as those revealed in narrow-band imaging. That is a whole new area but will not work well for you unless you really know how to use both your capture software and the camera basics. If you jump to a more sophisticated camera and its vendor-provided software you will need to learn to use something that only works for that vendor's equipment. If you get Nebulosity, you will be able to spend your time learning to use a capture and processing software package that will work for whatever equipment you get down the road.
I write this not because it is some great theory, but because I wasted a LOT of money on cameras, scopes, and other stuff when my limitations were software based. Get good with Nebulosity and your Canon. Among other things, I would recommend you do some wide fields along the Milky Way using your kit lens that came with the camera. Shoot a series of five or ten-minute exposures and do a survey of the Milky Way. That will give you a good set of references. There are plenty of panoramic, stitch-together apps out there that will allow you to combine the images if you do a 50% overlap in the exposures. If you go for ten minutes, you should see a LOT of nebulosity popping out. Figure out what you are seeing by name and then go after the rich areas with your telescope.
I, and the rest of us, have been down many a blind alley. Getting equipment before software is one of the most frequently made mistakes.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Willie
|
|
9/8/2017 12:33 PM
|
And you can download it for free to try it out. I believe the only restriction is that saved files are watermarked. Willie > On Sep 8, 2017, at 09:26, Astrophotography <astrophotography@centexastronomy.org> wrote: > > Nebulosity … costs $95 if you are not upgrading from a previous version.
|
|
|
|
Dave
|
|
9/8/2017 9:27 AM
|
Chad : I totally agree with Jeff on Nebulosity. I used Backyard EOS. It is a good program; however, Nebulosity gives you the same basic features as EOS with more control plus processing for a lot of different cameras. You can bin, live view, ISO, exposure times > 30 sec, capture raw or color, and much more. It costs $95 if you are not upgrading from a previous version. Dave ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Astrophotography" <astrophotography@centexastronomy.org> To: "jde209@netzero.net" <jde209@netzero.net> Subject: re: Eagle Nebula <<$180210621812$>> Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:44:41 -0500 Chad, I really do strongly recommend you get Nebulosity as your capture software. It will allow you to take full control of your camera and easily do things like binning. Better, if you get the PDF guide from Stark Lans and follow it exactly you will learn a heck of a lot and avoid a LOT of wasted time. Jeff On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:36 PM Astrophotography <astrophotography@centexastronomy.org> wrote: Jeff, Thanks brother for taking the time to work through my possible issues. I believe I will stick with the Eagle tonight for fear of wasting more hours. I can't find where the camera will go into binning. I use Backyard EOS and PHD2. I will increase my exposure times with the new knowledge (thanks to you) that my unmodded camera will require more time to gather light. My reflector is an f5 in terms of speed. hopefully thats nt a problem. Im saving up for a ZWO ASI224MC. will be easier hen.
|
|
|
|
Chad Grimes
|
|
9/8/2017 7:20 AM
|
|
Jeff,
I'm gonna look for the Stark Labs pdf right now.
|
|
|
|
Chad Grimes
|
|
9/8/2017 7:19 AM
|
|
Gentlemen,
I increased the exposure to 10 minutes on the eagle and the results were fantastic! I had been using 3 minutes and getting light fuzz in the nebula. The 10 minute exposure brought it out bright as can be. So, I thought surely that length of exposure will do the same for IC1396.....*frowny face* not so. Same star fields no hint of nebula at all. My focus is getting my ZWO first, then I'll look at getting other software.
Cool thing is realistically, I'm pretty early into amateur astrophotography, and I believe this is going to be life long, so I have time to get everything I need.
Thank you fellas so much for lending me your ear and for your advice. It has always been taken.
I dont think I will be able to make tonights star party, mama wants to go on a date.
|
|
|
|
Willie
|
|
9/8/2017 12:06 AM
|
I highly recommend Nebulosity as well, only 1 piece of astronomy software that I use more, Astroplanner. Willie > On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:44 PM, Astrophotography <astrophotography@centexastronomy.org> wrote: > > > > > Chad, > I really do strongly recommend you get Nebulosity as your capture software. It will allow you to take full control of your camera and easily do things like binning. Better, if you get the PDF guide from Stark Lans and follow it exactly you will learn a heck of a lot and avoid a LOT of wasted time. > Jeff > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:36 PM Astrophotography <astrophotography@centexastronomy.org> wrote: > Jeff, > Thanks brother for taking the time to work through my possible issues. I believe I will stick with the Eagle tonight for fear of wasting more hours. I can't find where the camera will go into binning. I use Backyard EOS and PHD2. I will increase my exposure times with the new knowledge (thanks to you) that my unmodded camera will require more time to gather light. My reflector is an f5 in terms of speed. hopefully thats nt a problem. Im saving up for a ZWO ASI224MC. will be easier hen. > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<< > You have received this message as a member of: Central Texas Astronomical Society > Change preferences (including opt-out): https://CTAS.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=13&club_id=901132 > >
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey McClure
|
|
9/7/2017 8:35 PM
|
Chad,
I really do strongly recommend you get Nebulosity as your capture software. It will allow you to take full control of your camera and easily do things like binning. Better, if you get the PDF guide from Stark Lans and follow it exactly you will learn a heck of a lot and avoid a LOT of wasted time.
Jeff Jeff,
Thanks brother for taking the time to work through my possible issues. I believe I will stick with the Eagle tonight for fear of wasting more hours. I can't find where the camera will go into binning. I use Backyard EOS and PHD2. I will increase my exposure times with the new knowledge (thanks to you) that my unmodded camera will require more time to gather light. My reflector is an f5 in terms of speed. hopefully thats nt a problem. Im saving up for a ZWO ASI224MC. will be easier hen.
|
|
|
|
Chad Grimes
|
|
9/7/2017 6:31 PM
|
|
Jeff,
Thanks brother for taking the time to work through my possible issues. I believe I will stick with the Eagle tonight for fear of wasting more hours. I can't find where the camera will go into binning. I use Backyard EOS and PHD2. I will increase my exposure times with the new knowledge (thanks to you) that my unmodded camera will require more time to gather light. My reflector is an f5 in terms of speed. hopefully thats nt a problem. Im saving up for a ZWO ASI224MC. will be easier hen.
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey McClure
|
|
9/5/2017 11:49 AM
|
Chad, I know I am spamming here, but my fingers are working faster than my brain. When you image, for your test shots, first bin your camera up as high as it will go, then shoot about a minute test exposure, then take that image and stretch the heck out of it. If you are not familiar with that term, it means cranking up the light and bringing in some dark to create an extremely high contrast image of a narrow band of the gray-scale.
If you are not familiar with binning, it means telling the camera via software to combine the signal received by either a 2x2, 4x4, or 6x6 set of pixels into a single pixel to multiply the signal from pixels. Binning 2x2 roughly doubles the signal, etc.
I recommend never committing to a series of shots until you get a binned and stretched image that shows what you are trying to capture. HIgh binning gives low detail, but it does let you know you are centered where you want to be.
I didn't see what software you are using either. Others may disagree but I strongly recommend Stark Labs' Nebulosity as a starting point. Dr. Stark supplies a PDF from the site where you download that will take you through Astro-imaging from zero, assuming you know nothing. The only assumption is that you have a telescope attached to the business end of a camera and the initial assumption is that you are using a Canon DSLR. He provides a free trial period and the purchase price is quite reasonable. While you are there, download the PHD (Push Here Dummy) guiding application. Seven years into this madness I am still in love with the Nebulosity/PHD setup.
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey McClure
|
|
9/5/2017 11:34 AM
|
Whoops, just re-read your post. In my humble opinion, you are not going to get anything other than stars with a 3-minute exposure using an unmodded camera when shooting the Elephant's Trunk. If any of the other stuff is there, it just won't work at all.
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey McClure
|
|
9/5/2017 11:34 AM
|
Chad, you say you are using a 5" reflector, but not what type of reflector. If you are using a high f telescope, e.g. f7 or above, then you are going to get relatively little light through the scope. It will give you a lot of telescopic power, but the more X's in power a scope has, the lower the amount of light that passes through the scope.
My first setup was an Orion Apex 127mm (5") Maksutove-Cassegrain ("Mak") telescope using a Canon t500 unmodded camera. That is an f12 scope and needs a LOT of light to work effectively. I could image the Orion Nebula but that was about it. Even the advertisements state it is primarily a terrestrial spotting scope that can be used to view the moon, planets and brighter stars.
My frustration with attempting to image just about any other nebula was what caused me to go for a lower f refractor and to purchase a Canon 60Da. Even the 60Da, which is a 60 with a deep-red pass filter rather than the deep-red blocking filter in an unmodded camera, does not have the sensitivity to Hydrogen Alpha that is normal in a larger pixel CCD monochrome.
Another point. Was the moon out when you were shooting? Attempting to get the Elephant Trunk using regular visual light with a deep red blocking filter on a 5" Mak would be a challenge for the best of us. Throw in the moon and it becomes an impossibility.
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey McClure
|
|
9/5/2017 11:09 AM
|
Chad,
Are you using any filters? If so, then you are not going to get much with an unmodded camera. I think the primary problem may simply be that you are trying to shoot a faint emission nebula with an unmodded Canon. The Canon has an internal filter that blocks most of Hydrogen Alpha if not all, and that is what the Elephant Trunk nebula emits.
|
|
|
|
abrickhouse
|
|
9/4/2017 9:02 PM
|
|
OK, the star field of the IC 1396 is quite large and the telescope and camera pretty much are looking at the center. It is mostly Ha and since your camera is not modified it does a poor job of picking that up. Also the Elephant trunk is on the side of the cloud and so you have to use a 10 minute
exposure or a 2x2 binned 5 minute image and determine which way to move get the Trunk in you FOV. On a Canon that is not modified it takes long exposures to bring out the nebulosity. Orion is not that hard because it is very bright.
That should work ok.
Aubrey Brickhouse
-----Original Message-----
From: mailer@mail2.clubexpress.com [mailto:mailer@mail2.clubexpress.com] On Behalf Of Astrophotography
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 7:03 PM
To: abrickhouse1@att.net
Subject: re: Eagle Nebula <<$179969339965$>>
Well,the part I left out after rereading my post was that I was on IC1396 trying to get the Elephants Trunk. I have the star field beautifully but nothing more. I'm gonna try the Eagle to see if I'm having something wrong happening. I 2 star aligned, 4 star calibration, and polar aligned 3 times to make sure I kept as many of my frames as possible. I just dont get it. I figure after the Eagle attempt if I still cant get nebulosity, their must be something wrong with the camera.
|
|
|
|
abrickhouse
|
|
9/4/2017 9:02 PM
|
|
OK, the star field of the IC 1396 is quite large and the telescope and camera pretty much are looking at the center. It is mostly Ha and since your camera is not modified it does a poor job of picking that up. Also the Elephant trunk is on the side of the cloud and so you have to use a 10 minute
exposure or a 2x2 binned 5 minute image and determine which way to move get the Trunk in you FOV. On a Canon that is not modified it takes long exposures to bring out the nebulosity. Orion is not that hard because it is very bright.
That should work ok.
Aubrey Brickhouse
-----Original Message-----
From: mailer@mail2.clubexpress.com [mailto:mailer@mail2.clubexpress.com] On Behalf Of Astrophotography
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 7:03 PM
To: abrickhouse1@att.net
Subject: re: Eagle Nebula <<$179969339965$>>
Well,the part I left out after rereading my post was that I was on IC1396 trying to get the Elephants Trunk. I have the star field beautifully but nothing more. I'm gonna try the Eagle to see if I'm having something wrong happening. I 2 star aligned, 4 star calibration, and polar aligned 3 times to make sure I kept as many of my frames as possible. I just dont get it. I figure after the Eagle attempt if I still cant get nebulosity, their must be something wrong with the camera.
|
|
|
|
Dave
|
|
9/4/2017 8:52 PM
|
The Elephants Trunk is dim so you may need longer exposures. When I have problems like your having I will bin the images 2x2 to get increased sensitivity just to see where I am at with the exposure. Dave ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Astrophotography" <astrophotography@centexastronomy.org> To: "jde209@netzero.net" <jde209@netzero.net> Subject: re: Eagle Nebula <<$17996945602$>> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 19:02:40 -0500 All I was seeing was star field. Stars were perfectly round and no gas clouds. This was also on IC1396, not the eagle.
|
|
|
|
Chad Grimes
|
|
9/4/2017 6:59 PM
|
|
All I was seeing was star field. Stars were perfectly round and no gas clouds. This was also on IC1396, not the eagle.
|
|
|
|
Chad Grimes
|
|
9/4/2017 6:58 PM
|
|
Well,the part I left out after rereading my post was that I was on IC1396 trying to get the Elephants Trunk. I have the star field beautifully but nothing more. I'm gonna try the Eagle to see if I'm having something wrong happening. I 2 star aligned, 4 star calibration, and polar aligned 3 times to make sure I kept as many of my frames as possible. I just dont get it. I figure after the Eagle attempt if I still cant get nebulosity, their must be something wrong with the camera.
|
|
|
|