Very nice! Regards Mark

thanks, i feel the image is a little soft, and the stars a little bloated. Good be due to bad seeing. Just to irritate Steve, i think it cud be due to 2x2 binning ....wud love to see some jobs in 1x1...

Hi Vikas,  You've done a great job with that. I struggled with the stars which in mine look pretty awful in comparison to the ones in your image. Probably as a result of my trying to tame them as many are very bright, and have overdone the star reduction.  Like you I would like the opportunity to go 1x1 on specific and ideally mutually agreed targets (galaxies). I'd prefer to rule out any narrowband due to the increased integration times required, and also by limiting the maximum exposure time to maybe 180 seconds. Not strictly speaking using 'lucky imaging', but would help with guiding.  All just a dream though without a nod from Mr Roboscopes himself.   Looking forward to seeing more from you soon.  Cheers,  Ray 

+1

Hi all  my own version of coocon nebula  i think also that bin should be better on this cam , more pixel is better in my point of view , even if detail are reduce by seeing,  i try rescale the image with drizzle but it softer too much On cmos camera , bin is made by firmware not hardware , so you can acheive the same thing in pixinsight with the integeresample process. 

some " other" remote observatories offer the user to select the bin mode when setting up their sequence...

Hi,  I'm aware of why this is not available at roboscopes from a reply to a similar request well over a year ago that I made. Firstly it's to avoid having to have multiple, more likely double, sets of calibration data. The major and understandable reason is the much higher probability of users receiving less than satisfactory data back. Obviously no commercial operator can afford to attract any  bad publicity resulting from that. Unfortunately the skies at the site whilst maybe being above the average compared to that of subscribers, the on-average seeing conditions there need to be taken into consideration. Another reason is that everyone would need to have the processing skills to work with lesser quality data right from day one.  Crikey, I do go on don't I!  If Mr A is agreeable and everyone in this syndicate is, bearing in mind the potential drawbacks, then we might discuss a way forward.  Cheers,  Ray  I 

Quoting LEGNOLPI again - On cmos camera , bin is made by firmware not hardware , so you can acheive the same thing in pixinsight with the integeresample process.  this shud be the driving factor behind the change to 1x1 bin. I feel the 4x times resolution gain will far outweigh the cons of being oversampled...and its not going to be oversampled by a huge margin in any case.... seeing here is about 2"/px and i like to be 1/3 of seeing at about 0.66"/px and if binned 1x1 in this system it will be at 0.45"/px. YMMV vikas

my ears are burning again ?? What is it with you lot and 1x1 binning lol ? .40”/px image scale ??? the choice as they say is yours even if I feel your  “trying to plait fog”  however I am not infallible so I may also be incorrect  We cannot do darks yet as the camera does not have a shutter so treat it as a test steve

Once you have all discussed if you want to put a test job in at 1x1 please let me know Putting image quality to one side, the only other issue I see is the logistical side of things and potential for input errors with swapping binning from 2x2 to 1x1 then 2x2 on a different job. For us this presents a potential large error curve with the confusion. So my suggestion after the test shot is thus. we either shoot at 1x1 or 2x2 and don't start swapping and changing between 1x1 and 2x2 depending upon what filters are used Your thoughts on this please? Steve

Steve,  Thank you for explaining exactly what the options are. It's now up to us to decide but I'll leave myself out of this right now as I simply don't have the level of understanding of some of the others on cmos binning.  I'd certainly be agreeable to permanent 1x1 binning if it will have no effect on narrowband integration times. So can anyone confirm that.  Cheers,  Ray 

Hi, i vote for a swtich to 1x1 secure in the knowledge i can always resample if required. However, as part of the group i also have no issues in complying with the wishes of the other members of the syndicate shud they want to remain at 2x2. vikas

I don't pretend to understand the technica behind this, but all I know is that I used to shoot all my images 1x1 on my 10" Altair Astro and was eventually persuaded to try 2x2.  Since then I wished I had always binned 2x2 due to the improved detail I saw on my QSI 683 wsg-8.  With my ZWO ASI6200MC Pro, I similarly get great results bin 2x2, so my vote would be to stay at 2x2....  but happy to go with the majority view.... Regards MArk

Steve,  Thank you for explaining exactly what the options are. It's now up to us to decide but I'll leave myself out of this right now as I simply don't have the level of understanding of some of the others on cmos binning.  I'd certainly be agreeable to permanent 1x1 binning if it will have no effect on narrowband integration times. So can anyone confirm that.  Cheers,  Ray 

Ray raises a good point, so I would suggest 3 types of images Broadband galaxy broadband nebula with a starfield narrowband HOS image This way I think you will be able to make an informed decision based on different types of data and signal strengths Steve

may be we can rsubmit the coocon nebula with exactly the same parameter with bin 1 and see the différence .  the prob are the dark and flat , i dont know if we can upscale the bin calib file and have good results i think it worth the try.  now we have really good calibration file and a nicely colimmated scope for bin2, may be it deserve to stay like that until the next trip.  i will try to show how to use the integersample to reduce a dataset from bin1 to bin2 , it is very simple except one thing (WCS coordinate which raise a windows in pixinsight !!)

To be fair the cocoon is prone to big bloaty main stars as they are so bright, I would also try some shorter exposure 2x2 as part of your testing as it could also be that your exposures may have been a little longer than they needed to be on that particular object You have options at least to get the best out of the pier, it could be 2x2 or 1x1 or even 1x1/2x2 with short exposures and more of a lucky imaging approach Honestly we will do whatever it is to get the best for you So get some testing in Steve

I think both steve and Legnolpi ( is that your name ) raise good points. Since effort has been made to set Pier1 right lets image as is  for a while in 2x2 bin on different targets and then review after say 10 targets are done ...vikas