The more integration, the fainter the detail you'll get. More time on target would have been nice, but the full moon was rising in the east so I had to shoot targets low in the west. I shot 3 targets that night, each for about 4 hours, keeping to the opposite side of the sky as the moon.

With an OSC, you do not get a L channel. Use the same procedure, but just with RGB.

That's also a valid strategy. I used that method to make the HDR image of the Great Orion Nebula, covered in the link below. Some people don't like the multiple stretch and paint-to-merge method, though, so I wanted to provide an alternative. There are several ways to do this DSO, but luminosity masking of unconventionally combined linear masters gave the best results with this DSO. But no strategy fits all targets. With another DSO (even another star cluster), I may well have taken a different approach. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmqqaKx4iaele6M

Yep, as long the photosites are getting photons, it'll work out in the stack. That's my experience, anyway. I do wish NINA provided a way to zoom in on the histogram and see graphically what's happening in the light curve. But the Min/Max values mostly tell you what you need to know.

You're very welcome. My general feeling is as short as you can get away is the sweet spot lol I go with 60s to avoid losing write time between the camera and mini PC, which isn't super fast.

Let me know how it goes with OSC information, please. I haven't tried this with data from an OSC yet.

Unfortunately, following PI's "proper" method produces many artifacts that are much trickier to remove. I've posted an example of both methods on Astrobin using the recommended method vs my unconventional approach. The proper method also yields some odd saturation effects like saturation belts in the image. At least they can be removed more easily using PL8 to extract the relevant color ranges. I stopped worrying about PI's recommendations long ago as I've found they often yield less than ideal results. www.astrobin.com/xeh0ik/B/

@SKYST0RY I really don't care about how you do things or conventional pixinsight methods but the software was designed to work in a nonlinear state and they specifically state this a few times in the forums and there's a reason behind it, the fact of the matter is is that you cannot just tell people on KZbin to do the LRGB combination when you actually don't know how it works and you can potentially mess up people's data by doing improper things like this. When converting from RGB to XYZ and then to LAB, different math is used for values of the image thus values below 0.003 will actually be curved stretch lower and values above higher. And we all know that most linear data falls below this range so you can't just simply add the luminance data to the LRGB if it doesn't share the same background value because it will completely alter the RGB data and in many cases a negative way. Trust me on this. If you are going to use linear fit on the RGB data then you might as well use it on the luminance so you can get the backgrounds to match the RGB but I still think this is a bad idea

@@billblanshan3021 I'm sorry, Bill, but I processed this information several times before settling on this method and making this video. The conventional way yielded inferior results (shown in the link I sent to you). Color was odd and artifacts were plentiful and difficult to suppress. I even tried it using my usual method from my own workflow, which is to combine and stretch RGB in PI, then stretch L in PI, then combine in Affinity Photo using the Luminosity composite mode. None of those methods, including my own, gave the best results. So I began experimenting and this approach yielded the best results, which I define as clean space, balanced color and minimal artifacts. I've gone back and re-tested the data using some of the insights you have shared. Thank you for them, but they have also not yielded the best results. Applying LF to the L master yielded especially bad results. As always, I am just going to follow the outcomes to the method that produces clean space, balanced color and minimal artifacts. This method does it. If people find that combining linear LRGB in the LRGB Combination tool gives them results they are unhappy with, they can opt to undo it. It's not like their computers will explode or their data vanish. In fact, I have no doubt some people will need different methods, if for no other reason than having different hardware, software and drivers, or maybe simply different preferences. There are many other ways to any given photographic outcome, and this is the way I am going to go about it because it gets me where I want to go most directly.

How interesting this is 😊

Let me know how it goes.

🎄

The other method usually works because once you get the initial good focus, NINA is often able to find focus when it does focus checks. However, that doesn't pan out with huge targets that defy focusing, like Andromeda. This method is generally more consistent.

It can help to get the initial focus from another location since NINA needs a starting place relatively close to ideal focus. I usually just move the telescope a degree or so off the target and focus on stars in empty space, if necessary.

Personally, I'd go with a SCT. A Celestron 203 mm (8") SCT will give great results and not break the bank.

To the best of my knowledge, only NINA offers this.

I might help. If the autofocus software confuses haze for a star, it can try some pretty unusual adjustments.

You can also try putting a hole in the focus field: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jH_FdmyXm9GmqdEsi=tRVGgHqgx6u-oll4

I would have to increase integration time much more than that because I would have to use narrowband. Narrowband only uses a few percent of the visible light spectrum. I find friends that shoot narrowband often need 3 - 5 times as much integration time as I do shooting LRGB from dark skies.

Are you shooting with a color camera? If so, you need to separate the color channels.

@ I figured out why. I didn’t select the image to edit correctly.

I am sure you won't regret it. They have been a great company. My next astrocam will probably be their Poseidon.

@@SKYST0RY I had a question about one of their promotions (aka should I get the 1.25" filter wheel or 2" filter wheel with the Ares-M) ... and since I am not a popular KZbinr, I didn't think I would hear from them ... but they answer me the same day. I'm sold and IMPRESSED. Thanks for all your content!

@@traceymonroe9026 For the Ares-M, I use the 36 mm. It's a good compromise in cost and works great! I am using the Phoenix filter wheel from Player One.

I agree. Some applications have this capacity. Perhaps someone will make a plug-in to do this. NINA does have another trick up its sleeve to help with this that I making a video on now.

Sorry for the delay. I live in the Canadian backwoods and this is a very busy time, getting ready the big winter snow in. I hope to make a video showing the comprehensive addition of PL8 to my workflow shortly, and probably a separate video on PL8's light and color management power.