wingeing Pom 652 Report post Posted February 28 I got 18 x 15-minute subs with the 200mm lenses on this region last night and combined it with some earlier 200mm data. Greg 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingeing Pom 652 Report post Posted February 28 Just realised that last night's data was actually buggered because the calibration files weren't right for one of the cameras. End of last year one of the cameras went back for repair - I didn't redo the BIAS and FLAT frames, and a close look at last night's image shows artefacts. So right now I'm making up new sets of BIAS and FLAT frames for both cameras, and then I'll redo the last 3 sets of data. Greg 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingeing Pom 652 Report post Posted February 28 Here's the reprocessed image using up to date calibration files. The two bright red stars over to the left are both Carbon Stars. Greg 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poppasmurf 334 Report post Posted March 1 LOL. I can't pick any artifacts in the first one mate. Both look good to me. Maybe my eyes are playing up on me. Shane Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Radar 520 Report post Posted March 1 2 hours ago, poppasmurf said: I can't pick any artifacts in the first one mate lol, me neither. Ray 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingeing Pom 652 Report post Posted March 1 Combining with the other data reduced a lot of the muck, but also I took a load off the left hand side in the first one that I didn't have to do in the second one Greg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tony 68 Report post Posted March 2 Looking good to me! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
