My latest images using the data from Roboscopes

Excellent choice of subject for that pier Simon and nice to see what can be achieved using a relatively short amount of integration time as well. Personally still experimenting with exposures on a variety of objects. 
It was a shame that we were all held up with the unusually bad weather experienced at the outset. My choice of user name and that abysmal weather was just a coincidence. 

When I can make more sense of pixinsight then hopefully I'll have an image I'd be not ashamed to share. 

Ray 

Really nicely done Simon...I love your M101

[size=150]Thanks so much Ray for your kind support. It is a massive area, this whole processing business and I know I am nowhere near what the people at the top of the field do. I do hope you manage to find your way more and more, and quite honestly maybe you should just post some stuff anyway, because we are all in this together. Take care now.[/size]
[size=150]

Simon

[/size]

[font=Times New Roman][size=150]Thanks so much Peter for your kind words; it means so much to me because I try so hard. Out of the three images I have posted so far, I get the sense that M106 was the preferred image for most, but personally I like M101 the best too. Having found you now on Astrobin, I am now following you, which is great, as you have such good images on there. Well done... I have found a few issues with the pier 5 subs, so is it ok to send you an image of what I have found at some point. I feel bothered that I am always spotting issues, but what I have found are quite significant, and all I am really trying to do is help Roboscopes eliminate anything that might be there, to help out. Of course, it could all be me... which has happened many times before - as we know! Have a good night...[/size][/font]

Yes please Simon send me any issues you have found I will take a look at them.
We are constantly refining all the piers systems with the aim to to make sure we get the best data sets possible. This can take time and quite often some issues don't show themselves immediately.
I have already resolved an unreliable focusing issue on P5 so the next batch will be more consistent.
Unfortunately fast optics are very susceptible to temperature changes and as we make the transition from spring to summer it can be quite a challenge for some systems. 

[font=Arial][size=100]Morning Peter.


I have a busy week ahead, so forgive me for sending these to you so soon. I thought I would get it done quickly, which may in turn help Roboscopes anyway. I truly admire all of you with this venture... I have my basic set up here, but if you stuck me in Spain and said 'set up  x, y and z' etc, I would not have a clue. It is brilliant really. 


I have checked the Pier 2 data as per the other post, and I cannot find that any has been sent to us, and it is not in the Megapack either. Sorry. Thanks also for liking my last two images, much appreciated. I know I had come uncertainty about defect maps, and cosmetic correction before, but I think I have sorted those, but they are necessary for a number of piers, including pier 8.


With regard to Pier 8 everything is running at binning 3. I find the processing for these images far morning difficult, with everything looking far less sharp - especially on my fairly large monitor - is that just how things are with binning 3 please? Also, there are no 10 minute long darks on that pier, which makes NGC 3718 more tricky to process.


Pier 5 is the one with the issues it seems, although I am know I am probably wrong and it will be something I am not doing right. So sorry if I am presuming upon anything. Genuinely I am just trying to help... 

(a) There seems to be a mottled effect on the bottom centre of a number of images which only can be seen when stacked.

(b) There appears to be a diagonal shape/line going across a number of images which is naturally worsened by the stacking. It almost looks like the roof of a house, IC 1396 images R001-R016 are good examples. I actually did not bother process NGC 1333 at all, which came through the other week, because this effect was too difficult to process out. Abell R0002 through to R015 would be another example. There are also odd shades of colour growing across some images and whilst I have managed to process them out, I am not sure they should be there. M104 would be an example, and these various issues do not just appear in the Megapack, but also outside of that too.

(c) In the Megapack, M81's files cannot be opened it seems, and the files have odd names, e.g. $TGTNAME-S$SETNUM-R$RPTNUM-C$CNTNUM-060S-$FILTER_dupe-3


I know this seems like a lot of things, but I have attached examples or you. Other than that, I am overjoyed with the data and I cannot wait to see how things unfold.


I hope all this helps, I really do.


Have great day.
Simon








[/size][/font]

Hello Simon, 
Yes this sort of feedback really helps....some of them we are aware of and are sorting out but I will try and expain some of the issues you are having.

I will get the Pier 2 data set organised and posted up. However there isnt a great deal of it.

Pier 8 has a temporary camera on it while the 11002 camera is away being serviced. I am glad to say it will be reinstalled on our next visit to Spain (hopefully in a couple of weeks, this would have already been done but with the current travelling restrictions it has been impossible ).
All of the Piers have their cameras matched with the OTA's. Its not as simple as just putting any camera on a scope and running at full resolution. You get no benefit and actually get less out of the data when imaging beyond the resolution of the sky.  So the temporary camera is binned at 3x3 because the pixel size does not match the focal length.
That said, you can get away with imaging slightly over sampled as post processing using deconvolution can recover some of the resolution, plus on those few nights a year when the seeing is stable you will see the benefit. Too far and the resolution is unrecoverable and binned at 1x1 over 3x3 you get  less sensitivity, so it makes no sense to do that.

P5, If you can you post images of  the effects you are getting as there could be a few things that could be causing this. I will go over them and see if we can get to the bottom of the issues and help you out.

You will have a few files that have strange names this was caused while we were managing the filing system. It should be simple to resolve by renaming the files making sure you have put .fit file extension on it...they should then open.

hope this explains a little

Regards

Peter

Sorry Simon Iv'e just noticed you have already posted some example images.....

The  effects you are seeing  are mostly caused by frosting on the camera....With all the wet weather we have had over the last months the humility has been very high and it seems the descant has become saturated and need s cooking out. Unfortunately this will have to be done on our next visit. 

There were a lot of flat frames done with pier 5 and as they were all sky flats some of them might be effected by changing sky conditions, ie light gradients and high cloud. Effects like these can show more on wider fields and fast optics. We are planning to install flat panels on the next visit so the flats will be more consistent.

Regards
Peter

Thank you Peter for your detailed explanation and it all makes perfect sense to me; really good. Hopefully in the coming days you will be able to get everything sorted and that'll be great for Roboscopes and the rest of us.

Take care.
Simon

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the encouragement and especially for all the effort you're putting in right now to identify anomalies. You certainly have been busy. Have been looking at the images you've generously made available to us all.

Some coincidences by the way. I too have got some subs from Pier5 of The Lagoon nebula which like yours also includes most of The Trifid. I think I need either more or longer subs. I used 60 seconds but even when stacked do not get much nebulosity around the surrounding stars. It could be I lost most of it when (over)processing. The nebula itself is rather washed out in comparison to other images I've viewed. Did you take longer subs? I don't know if you browsed the Flats from that pier, I did not use them. There is what appears to be a part of a semi-circular obstruction at the bottom of each one. This seems to move down each frame and so gets smaller on each successive flat, that movement is odd. There are also what appear to be light and dark clouds and possibly the odd star or two which changes with each image. As Peter pointed out these are sky flats which explains most of those issues. We'll need to wait for replacements, but I don't think they'll make much improvement to my image anyway.

I opted for Pier 1 to capture ngc3178, but Steve advised me that this pier needs attention, so I won't get anything this month. Would have been interesting to compare the light frames from those you took on pier 8. On my next-to-do list is ngc7822 of which you've already processed and posted a couple of great images. As a result I might now choose that next. You have cleared up something for me. I've seen this described as Cederblad 214, ngc 7822 and also sh2-171, so I wasn't sure what to choose. Thanks to you I now know ngc7822 will get me the right target. I think I can capture most of it using pier 3 as a first attempt.

Apologies for going on for so long and thanks for all your hard work. Like you I think this set up is  great. An opportunity to use a great variety of scopes in dark skies. 

Would it be odd to say clear skies....since we're all imaging from the same location?  Anyway best regards, Ray

Ray,

Many thanks for your kind supportive words and I am glad I managed to clear up a few things for you, without me even meaning to! I am only using the data that Roboscopes send me, so the Lagoon nebula is at 60s per sub, as you say, and it may be that some additional imaging time is needed for that, although I have not posted that image yet, so I am not sure what you have seen of my image of that - or am I forgetting what I am doing? That is perfectly possible! Anyway, take care and indeed clear skies sounds ok to me! All the best. Simon

Simon, 

Thanks for the info. The image is an attachment in post #222. If that was a single image then I'm impressed. Better than my Stacked one!
Cheers,  keep safe,  socially distance, wash your hands and clear skies. 
Ray

Ray, I see what you mean. That image was a stack of the data for M8 and it was not processed at all, but there just to show Peter the problem with the image at the centre at the bottom - that sort of mottled look. Peter has been most kind and has explained what is happening, and it will get sorted soon. As it happens I am going to post M8 later from the data provided here. Take care Ray and all the best today.

Simon