New and improved M42

[Daniel]

Thanks  I cheated a little with the processing, I processed 2 images, one under exposed, one, over exposed and then, you guessed it cut out the middle of the under exposed one and stuck it over the main image. Im using a Canon 40D though I've only found out recently that ISO 3200 is actually a levels cheat applied by the camera itself, so i've stopped using it now.

I used a technique from Jerry Lodigruss's website (i have the CD on order) for pasting the images over one another, the website has a load of snippets from the CD rom http://www.astropix.com/GADC/INTRO.HTM

This image was made up of about 40 images at ISO 1600 20s and stacked in deep sky stacker

by the way, does anyone used deep sky stacker live? it's really quite good!

[Fay]

Yes a couple of us use DSS. I have the Jerry Lodrigiuz disc & I will follow his procedure as well. It seems to work well.

I have just been messing about with connections etc regarding the EOS. One minute it all  works the next it doesn't, which is a bummer after putting all that equipment up!
I will set up tonight with the intention of doing M42 wih the EOS, thanks Daniel

[Daniel]

Have you tried the Live version of DSS where you just set up an incming directory and images are aligned and stacked as they come in?

That Jerry Lodigruss CD seems really good, very easy to follow examples, can't wait for it to be delivered!

I have a lot of problems getting my EOS to work with any other capture software besides live view that came with it, which is a shame because I really wanted to try out one of the focusing programs like hocus focus, by the way, are standard webcams any good as guidescope camera's?

[Fay]

I use a modified webcam. I don't think an unmodified one is ok, as it won't pick up the stars for guiding. Someone, like Chris S or Mike, will probably answer that for you.

I have not heard of the live version, I just use the normal one.

[Rocket Pooch]

Hi,

You can use an un-modded one but only on bright starts, if you try Guidemaster it stacks on the fly and fools the software into thinking its a long exposure camera.  Or you could always mod one, quite easy, but you will need tiny fingers.

Chris

[Mike]

.....if you try Guidemaster it stacks on the fly and fools the software into thinking its a long exposure camera.....

AstroArt does the same.

[Daniel]

Awesome, that will probably be the way to go then, Im using a Celestron Neximage right now, but it's incredibly noisy, I've ordered an spc900 (after seeing Marks moon image posted recently) so hopefully it'll be a little better, especially at low shutter speeds!

[Mac]

did you shoot the picture in raw mode on your canon.

If so all the image is saved straight off of the ccd and is not processed down to a jpg.

the raw file size is 12bit, whilst the jpg will be 8bit, so there is potentially a little more information there.

If so you can cheat and use photoshop or canons own software, to readjust the image.

If you open the photo as shot, the center will be burnt out as you said, but you can then open the photo again and use photoshop to underexpose the same raw image.

That way you can get more detail out of the burnt out region.

Thats the beauty of using raw as opposed to .jpg

[Daniel]

Hi Mac, yes, I've been shooting in raw mode and stacking in Deep Sky Stacker, the original image was very underexposed, mainly because I chose to expose each image for only 20s because of the mist we've been getting lately, I brought out as much nebulosity as i could within photoshop with levels and curves, not worrying about the center burning out, then re-pasted another version of the center over the old.

Im seriously thinking about trying a HDR version of the same thing so that i have complete control over the exposure within the file, has anyone tried that yet?

[Fay]

This is what I want to do next, Daniel. I will use the mask method. I have had a little go before but had masks & layers all over the place & got a bit confused, did not know what I was pasting where!!!
Now I have become a little more familiar with processing, not good, but a bit better. I think I will understand it better.