►
Description
My Astroimaging Story,
Stuart Heggie
This talk will describe my astrophotography, including volunteer roles, gear, and software choices. I will go over several recent images and the challenges they presented: an M31 LRGB 2-Frame Mosaic, a Veil Nebula 4-Frame Mosaic in NB+RGB, M17 in Ha, RGB and HaRGB, NGC1333 (APOD), The Bat & Squid, M42 and Milky Way Skyscapes.
About the speaker
Stuart has had a lifelong passion for all types of photography (https://www.stuartheggie.com). He started astro imaging with film in the 1990s, and built his first observatory, an 8'x12' roll-off roof, at that time. He later built his current 10x14' roll-off on his farm, plus a 2nd 2-pier clamshell for his small hosting business. He is an active member of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (RASC) and the chair of their Astro Imaging Certificate committee. He was the Ops Lead for the RASC remote telescope hosted at Sierra Remote Observatories (SRO) where he helped the team master the gear and assisted the photography team in target selection and in CCDAP scripting. Stuart shared an APOD in March 2021 with his good friend Kerry-Ann Lecky-Hepburn, an LRGB image of ngc1333.
A
B
Right
thanks,
hi,
hello,
everyone
and
I
really
appreciate
the
invite
we
we
covered
briefly
a
second
ago
I'm,
very
happy
to
stop
and
answer
questions
on
the
flyby.
So
if
it's
okay
with
everybody
just
just
y'all
or
or
chat
type
in
the
chat-
and
someone
will
tell
me
that-
there's
a
question
then
we'll
stop
in
and
see
if
we
can't
do
justice
to
it
and
answer
all
right.
So
I'm
gonna
take
us
through
tonight.
B
Hopefully
a
quick
bit
about
me
and
how
I
got
into
this
I'll
roll
a
couple
of
roles.
I
play
in
the
Royal
Astronomical
Society
of
Canada,
the
types
of
astrophotography
I
tend
to
focus
on
some
gear.
I
use
some
gear
I
used
to
use
just
in
case
it's
fun
for
people
to
see
just
how
many
crazy
telescopes
and
mounts
I've
used.
B
What
software
I
use
talk
about.
Some
I'll
show.
You
know
some
of
my
favorite
pictures
late
and
talk
a
little
bit
perhaps
about
to
unique
challenges.
Each
one
may
have
presented
a
one
slide
on
some
resources
that
I
found
really
helpful,
getting
to
learn,
picks
insight
and
things
like
that,
and
then
you
know,
subject
to
interest
and
time.
We
can
look
at
some
more
pictures.
I
have
some
stacked
up
after
the
the
conclusion
slide
in
case.
We
want
to
do
that
all
right
so
who
am
I?
B
How
did
I
fall
into
this
trap?
I
I
did
get
my
undergrad
in
astrophysics,
from
the
University
of
Toronto
graduated
in
1982.
I'd
been
an
avid
photographer
daytime
photographer
since
I
was
like
five
and
about
around
the
age
of
35.
36
had
enough
money
and
stable
career,
and
all
that
and
I
lived
in
the
country.
B
And
I'll
talk
a
little
more
about
that
in
a
second
and
then
many
years
later
we
moved
to
this
farm
near
Lake
Huron
and
put
up
a
10
by
14
Sky,
shed
style,
roll
off
roof.
Observatory
and
I
had
this
acquaintance,
who
had
contemplated
getting
into
the
business
of
competing
with
astrohaven.
So
he
had
made
molds
and
produced
the
leaves
for
a
12-foot
clamshell
dome,
but
then
abandoned
the
idea.
B
This
is
he
made
way
more
money
doing
just
about
everything
else
in
his
life,
so
he
decided
he
wanted
to
do
that.
After
all,
so
I
bought
the
one
set
of
spare
leaves
he
had
and
put
up
a
second
Observatory.
That's
a
12-foot
clam
shell
and
a
friend
of
mine
helped
me
put
that
up
and
I
now
host
other
people
in
that
Dome,
while
I'm
Imaging
from
the
the
roller.
B
People
who
want
to
you
know,
live
downtown
big
city
and
want
to
you
know
at
least
be
able
to
process
pictures,
even
if
they
can't
take
them
themselves.
So
then
they
have
those
and
then
they're
also
dedicating
time
to
sort
of
program.
Science
work
with
professional
astronomers,
so
I'm
the
when
we
started
up
I
was
the
operations
lead
because
I
have
equipment
similar
to
that
and
and
then
I
joined.
B
So
this
thing
about
this
certificate,
a
bunch
of
us
who
were
particularly
Keen,
were
talking.
You
know
an
email
and
kind
of
felt
that
across
the
the
RAC
in
Canada,
the
the
enthusiasm
for
Imaging
seemed
kind
of
spotty.
There
would
be
particular
centers
where
the
the
participants
were
pretty
keen
and
they
got
a
lot
of
support
and
there
would
be
other
centers
where
a
person
is
just
basically
alone
in
the
wilderness.
Like
everybody
else
was
visual.
There
wasn't
really
anybody
interested
in
imaging,
they
didn't
have
anyone
to
talk
to.
B
So
we
thought-
let's,
let's
really
promote
this,
and
let's
do
it
across
the
whole
resc,
and
so
we
put
together
a
criteria
for
what
it
would
take.
I
have
the
link
here
and
I
can
take
us
to
the
link.
I.
Think
I'll
just
show
it
to
you,
quick
if
it
works,
crush
your
fingers.
Okay,
here
it
is,
can
you
see
this
or
do
I
have
to
share
this
as
well?
B
So
this
is
just
rec.ca
Astro
Dash
Imaging
desk
certificate,
and
so
what
it
says
is
you
know
if
you
get
the
certificate,
you
get
a
piece
of
paper,
you
get
to
hang
on
your
wall,
it's
very
exciting
and
you
also
get
the
portfolio
you
submitted
that
past
semester,
you
get
it
hosted
in
a
zenfolio
gallery
that
the
rst
pays
for
and
you
get
to.
You
know
hobnob
with
other
people
who
have
you
know,
cleared
the
bar
and
and
and
want
a
certificate.
B
B
There's
a
big
long
list
here
and
we
remind
them
I-
have
to
do
this
a
lot
with
the
submissions
people
come
in
and
they
say
well,
here's
a
picture
of
lunar
Halo
and,
and
they
shoot
it.
You
know
with
Hydra
lines
crossing
them
across
the
moon,
and
you
know
their
next
door
neighbors
to
roofline
and
intruding
into
the
picture,
and
that's
like
you
couldn't
walk
like
40
feet
to
get
out
onto
the
you
know
into
the
open,
and
it's
like
you
remind
them.
This
is
art
form,
not
just
technical.
B
So
yes,
I
see
the
Halo,
but
it's
supposed
to
be
artistic
as
well,
so
we
could
encourage
them
to.
You
know,
go
back
and
think
about
it,
a
little
harder,
but
so
we
give
them
guidance
there
and
then
there's
one
on
solar
system
and
then
deep
sky-
and
you
know
we
remind
them
the
good
things
where
the
things
we're
looking
for.
You
know
what
you're
photographing
there's
the
Stars
around
the
focus
is
sharp.
The
framing
is
good.
There's
the
you've
got
proper
flat
starts
bias.
B
A
B
B
C
B
D
B
B
Oh
it's
not
in
here.
It's
too
bad
he's
one
of
the
very
few
people
who
has
shot
the
analemma
on
film
and
that's
a
pretty
incredible
feat
if
you
know
how
hard
that
is
to
do,
but
anyway,
this
would
be
what
we
would
look
and
to
me
like.
This
is
a
pretty
a
pretty
accomplished
photographer
and
that
would
be
typical
of
what
we're
looking
for
from
the
wide
field,
people
and
then
in
deep
sky,
let's
see
nor
the
first
guy.
B
Let's
see
there
have
been
some
this
gal
here,
she's
in
near
Winnipeg.
She
she
has
some
terrific
photos,
but
you
know
remember:
these
are
beginners
in
a
sense
right,
so
I
don't
want
to
I.
Don't
want
to
overstate
like
these
are
not
all
you
know,
apod
winners,
but
they're.
You
can
see
that
the
the
quality
is
pretty
decent
and
you
know
some
of
them.
This
one
I
think
was
the
pass-through
without
any
difficulty.
B
She
should
get
a
cookie
for
Imaging,
the
Helix
from
north
of
the
49th
parallel,
that's
just
to
probably
skim
The
Horizon.
She
probably
took
her
20
nights
to
get
it,
but
anyway
that's
a
kind
of
an
example
of
the
the
galleries
there
and
in
the
solar
system.
We
don't
get
very
many
of
these
I'm
going
to
be
honest
way.
Fewer.
Let's
see
this
fellow
art
Cole
he's
he
was
one
of
the
judges
and
so
in
the
solar
system.
B
We're
looking
for
you
know
some
fun
like
his
first
picture,
with
the
leaves
in
front
of
the
Moon
and
there's
the
criteria
about
you
know,
snapshot
stacked
photo
so
looking
in
some
cases,
for
you
know
just
basically
some
you
know
as
rudimentary
as
holding
your
iPhone
over
the
eyepiece
of
a
telescope.
But
then
we
want,
you
know
an
actual
like
a
video
image
with
proper
processing
and
all
that
stuff.
B
B
The
actual
picture
is
more
more
elaborate,
but
anyway,
so
that's
the
kind
of
stuff
we
asked
them
to
do,
and
you
know
most
of
the
people
have
to
go
back
a
couple
of
times
to
get
it
all
done,
but
it's
a
fun
project
and
then
they
have
the
you
know:
bragging
rights
in
their
local
club
and
and
then
they'll
talk
about
it
or
I'll,
get
invited
to
talk
to
their
club
and
give
a
presentation
over
zoom
and
promote
it
and
sing.
You
know
their
praises
and
Shout
give
them
shout
outs.
B
So,
and
you
know,
the
general
idea,
though,
is
to
present
a
kind
of
common
front
for
Imaging
that
it's
a
worthy
hobby
that
there's
support
for
you.
If
you
want
to
take
it
on
and
so
most
of
the
people,
don't
just
get
a
piece
of
paper
in
a
gallery.
They
get
a
lot
of
encouragement
and
and
coaching
on
how
to
make
their
pictures
better.
B
A
B
B
Yes,
so
our
cost
is
kind
of
like
you
know.
The
military
grade
telescope,
like
everything,
is
so
overbuilt
and
and
they're
very
expensive,
but
their
quality
is
astonishing
and
there
are
a
lot
of
them
so
they're
out
there,
but
and
a
16
inch
R
class
is
small.
They
they
as
they
go
like
they
built
some
really
big,
telescopes
Rob
gendler,
who
you
would
know,
is
famous.
B
B
So
if
any
of
you
are
just
busting
to
have
a
16
inch,
R
class
at
SRO
and
there's
just
not
one
to
be
had
there's
going
to
be
one
for
sale
any
minute.
So,
okay
get
your
bank
balance
in
order
and
get
ready.
It
will
be
guessing
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
you
know:
20
25,
grand
for
the
whole
kit
and
the
the
rental
we
have
at
SRO
is
preferential
because
the
the
guy
we
bought
it
from
was
a
early
supporter
at
SRO.
B
A
B
Like
we
would
love
it
if
someone
bought
it
there,
because
it's
a
fabulous
location
and
the
the
crew,
if
you
don't
know
anyone
at
SRO,
they
are
just
taught
taught
tier,
like
they're
super
nice
people
very
expert,
very
attentive
the
communications,
excellent,
the
backups
on
everything
and
it's
very
professional,
very
professional.
So
this
is
a
great
rig,
works
great
and
it's
in
a
location
with
excellent
skies
and
and
really
good
tech
support.
B
B
Okay,
next
slide
all
right.
So
let's
talk
about
the
photography
I
do
on
the
left
in
this
picture.
These
are
my
two
observatories,
a
dome
that
desperately
needs
cleaning
on
the
outside
and
then
the
shed
and
in
the
shed
you
can
see
my
astrophysics
155
sticking
up
and
high
in
the
sky.
You
can
see
Comet
neowise
there
so
right
now,
I
have
a
12
and
a
half
inch
plane
wave
and
an
apogee
u16
on
camera,
which
is
old
as
the
hills.
B
B
B
So
I
don't
do
it
very
often,
but
you
know
one
day
my
kids
will
inherit
this
scope
and
want
to
sell
it
and
we'll
definitely
want
to
have
that
reducer
air
platter
and
then
because
I'm
out
of
my
mind,
I
got
the
call
last
fall
and
was
told
my
name
had
finally
come
up
after
years
for
the
AP
Mach
2
Mount,
the
full
encoder
Mount
and
I
naturally
blur
it
out.
Of
course,
I
wanted
absolutely
no
use
for
it.
B
B
B
They
have
a
astronomy
piece
in
their
curriculum,
and
you
know
they
they'll
come
over
to
our
farm
and
yeah
we're
surrounded
by
horse
and
buggy
Mennonites
and
Amish
people.
So
anyway.
So
we
help
them
with
their
astronomy,
school
studies
and
and
then
you
know,
family
and
stuff
like
that.
So
anyway,
that's
what
we're
doing
right
now
and
I
also
have
an
ioptron
Sky
guider
Pro,
which
to
me
is
just
an
insanely,
useful
and
well-built
little
portable,
guider
and
I.
B
Do
that
for
camera
lens
photography
with
my
knight
on
d810a
or
once
in
a
while,
my
z62,
which
is
my
new
camera,
and
then
I
have
these
lenses
that
I
use
for
various
wide
field
stuff
in
the
past.
Just
in
case
it's
funny
I
mean
we're
all
we're,
not
all
just
fresh
out
of
high
school.
So
we
probably
remember
all
these
things.
I've
imaged
with
you
know
an
Orion
ed80,
which
is
a
a
really
nice
Optical
scope,
but
I
remember
one
day.
Luckily,
I
did
this.
B
B
But
you
know
it's
a
pretty
pretty
terrible
focuser,
but
optically
good
I
had
a
vixen
r200
SS,
which
is
an
F4
Newtonian,
which
was
a
lot
of
fun,
Twitchy
but
fun,
and
now
Vixen
vc200l,
which
is
a
classical
casting
to
open
to
eight
inch
diameter.
Pretty
cool
attack,
FS
102,
which
to
me
is
the
most
undervalued
refractor
out
there
like
it's
slow
but
wow,
just
Christmas,
Crisp
Cuts,
and
it's
a
doublet.
B
B
So
it's
a
f
8.35
or
something
and
I
have
none
of
those
Scopes
now
and
I've
had
Vixen
two
Vixen
super
Polaris
Mounds
Vixen
super
Polaris,
DX,
two
laws,
Mandy
g11s
and
apq,
and
900
qmd
and
ap900
GTO
all
gone
and
and
right
now,
I
just
have
the
the
Paramount
me.
The
MX
I
have
a
paramet,
my
T
and
now
I
have
the
Mach
2.
B
So
I
have
those
four
mounts
and
then
cameras,
I've
used,
Nikon,
F2,
film,
camera
and
then
a
a
bunch
of
s,
big
cameras,
starting
with
an
st7
e
way
back
and
then
an
st-10
which
I
found
pretty
good
in
STL
11000,
bigger
chip,
low
QE.
But
you
know
a
good
camera
and
a
lot
of
great
pictures
got
taken
with
that
camera.
So
no
complaints
and
software
for
deep
Sky,
I
I
use
the
sky
X
for
camera.
Mount
control
and
image
capture,
I
use,
CCD
Commander
for
scripting
the
Imaging
session.
B
So
I
can
sleep
through
them.
I
have
a
team
viewer
that
I
connect
to
the
observatory
from
the
house,
so
I
just
do
all
that
over
local
IP,
so
I
don't
get
any
Guff
about.
You,
know
commercial
use
and
all
that
stuff.
As
long
as
you
don't
go
through
the
internet,
TeamViewer
is
great,
but
it's
pretty
cranky.
If
you
start
connecting
to
your
regular
or
the
internet,
they
want
you
to
pay
and
it's
expensive
and
then
I
use
pixinsight
for
image
calibration
and
clean
up
alignment.
B
Stacking
and
RGB
assembly
I,
typically
use
switch
to
photoshop
for
blending
narrow
band
with
the
RGB
or
luminous,
with
the
RGB
and
I
can
do
it
in
in
pixel
site
and
I.
Try
it
and
I.
Compare
and
I
I
can't
say
that
one's
better
I,
just
I'm
so
used
to
photoshop
I.
Do
it
there
and
I
always
finish
everything
in
Photoshop
little
you
know,
cleanup
is
a
lot
easier
selections,
it's
already
easier
to
do,
Etc
and
then
for
DSLR,
Imaging,
I,
typically
just
use
Lightroom
and
Photoshop.
B
My
camera
can
stack
up
to
10
photos
in
camera.
So
as
long
as
you've
got
good
tracking,
you
get
the
advantage
of
stacking
done
in
the
camera
and
just
pops
out
one
file.
That's
you
know
up
to
10
Subs
already
combined,
which
is
pretty
cool,
so
I'm
gonna
just
go
and
do
the
sort
of
look
at
these
pretty
pictures
and
I'll
try
and
talk
about.
You
know
what
I
was
thinking
about
when
I
was
doing
them
and
any
challenge
I
had,
but
this
would
be
definitely
a
place
where
you
know.
B
B
Now,
apparently
they
now
have
one
that's
called
photometric
Mosaic
or
something
and
people
say
it's
even
better,
but
the
gradient
version
was
it
works
to
me
it
works
great,
so
I
had
no
complaints
and
I
have
a
link
to
a
video
tutorial
where
I
learned
how
to
use
it
that
just
basically
watch
Hold,
Your
Hand
all
the
way
through
it.
So
no
big
issue
there,
but
you
know
I've
done
mosaics
of
M31
in
the
old
days
and
put
them
together
in
Photoshop,
and
it's
just
hours
and
hours
of
work.
B
B
This
is
something
I
just
started
this
past
year
or
two
years,
Imaging,
dark,
nebulae
or
sometimes
they're
called
bright,
and
everything
I'm
not
sure
why
the
difference,
but
anyway,
these
this
one
has
this
horrible
name
of
the
rotten
fish,
nebula
I,
don't
know
why
it's
called
that.
I
was
pretty
pleased
with
how
this
one
turned
out.
B
I
found
the
interest
in
what
other
people
find
I
had
to
throw
almost
everything
I
knew
about
image,
processing
out
the
window
when
I
was
trying
to
do
this,
because
all
your
instincts
are
to
hold
the
background
back
and
brighten
the
the
mid-tones
and
but
don't
blow
the
stars,
but
meanwhile,
in
these
kinds
of
pictures,
you're
trying
to
actually
showcase
the
thing.
That's
the
dark
part.
B
B
B
So
yeah
like
it
makes
it
easier.
It's
way
more
accessible
and
the
same
thing
is
with
the
modern
equipment.
Right,
like
you,
think
about
some
of
the
Legends
who
were
actually
gluing
negatives
together
to
stack
photos
in
the
old
days
right,
Tony,
Hollis,
Jerry
law
degregress.
These
guys
were
literally
taking
two
negatives
of
the
same
image
same
like
two
pictures
of
the
same
Target
and
registering
them
in
a
microscope
and
then
epoxying
them
together
and
then
putting
them
in
the
enlarger
and
printing
them
and
using
all
the
Ansel
Adams
tricks.
B
You
know
dodging
and
burning
as
they
made
the
print,
and
you
think
you
know
they're,
not
complaining
that
you
know
well
in
my
day
it
was,
you
know,
super
hard
and
only
I
could
do
it.
You
know
it's
like
the
Hobbies
just
getting
better
every
day,
I
thought
that
was
very
weird.
The
guy
was
mad
about
that.
Maybe
not
mad,
but
he
seemed.
B
B
You
know
the
radar
and
test
stuff
for
him
and
let's
do
a
number
of
other
people,
and
you
know
there
is
a
learning
curve
and
the
the
the
tools
are
getting
better
all
the
time
and
apparently
at
neef
he
announced
that
there's
going
to
be
a
version
three
of
blur
exterminator.
That
will
be
so
dramatically
better
than
version
two
that
it
will
feel
as
different
as
if
as
it
was
going
from,
not
having
it
to
having
it.
B
So
people
are
pretty
excited
by
the
parent
imminence
of
an
even
better
version
of
that
now,
I
will
say
with
all
humility
that
I
have
I
like
bright
star
and
colorful
stars.
So
you
know
I'm
not
one
of
these
people
who
tries
to
make
them
all
look
like
bullet
holes
in
the
photo
like,
and
let
me
say
that
with
you
know,
probably
a
little
bit
of
attitude
like
I
I,
respect
people
who
want
to
do
that.
But
to
me
that's
I:
don't
want
to
do
that.
B
So
my
star,
my
star
fields
are
always
you
know
overflowing
with
color
and
I.
Let
the
Stars
you
know
come
forward
if
they're
bright
and
they
should
participate
and
and
so
I
get.
You
know,
pictures
like
this
I
think
some
people
would
say.
Oh
my
goodness,
you
know
you
should
have
used
star
exterminator
just
done
the
nebula
and
then
just
paste.
B
The
Stars
minimally
stretch
back
in
then
we'd
see
the
nebula
better
and
so
well,
okay,
but
there
are
all
these
stars
that
are
actually
there
and
they
have
color
and
they're
part
of
the
universe,
so
they
should
get
to
participate
so
I
have
a
bias
towards
letting
the
Stars
participate
fully
in
the
photo,
but
I
I
don't
know
that
I'm
in
the
majority
on
that
one.
So,
if
someone's
looking
at
going-
oh,
my
goodness,
what's
wrong
with
this
guy,
why
did
he
let
that
happen,
I'm,
actually
consciously
letting
that
happen?
B
It
was
very
fun,
so
I
try
to
remember
the
spirit
of
that,
even
though
I
don't
think
about
it
as
a
nearly
as
sophisticated
as
he
did,
but
I
think
about
everything.
That's
in
the
shot
and
I
try
to
make
sure
that
it
gets
its
moment
in
the
sun.
You
know
that
it
gets
gets
to
show
off
so
did
my
best
to
balance
all
the
crazy
stuff
going
on
here,
but
and
with
this
one
was
a
challenge
just
because
of
all
the
different
things
happening.
B
This
one
I
just
did
a
like.
A
week
ago,
I've
shot
this
pair
many
many
times
and
in
this
case
I
used
all
the
rest,
Chrome
and
tricks
I
was
able,
like
especially
blur
exterminator
I
was
able
to
get.
You
know
way
more
detail
in
the
M82.
I
got
the
dust
Lanes
down
into
the
core
of
the
m81
better
than
ever
before.
I
was
going
after
the
integrated
flux
nebulous.
So
you
get
this
bow
shock
here.
B
B
I
always
try
to
have
the
colorful
stars
survive,
but
you
know
still
want
fine
detail
in
in
you
know
an
82
and
then
the
explosions
there-
and
you
know
more
than
just
a
hint
of
the
companion
to
m81
I-
think
that
you
know
in
terms
of
balance.
It
I
think
it
came
out.
Okay,
but
every
time
I
shoot
this.
It
looks
different,
so
you
know
next
time
next
year,
I'll
do
it
again
and
it'll
be
different
all
over
again,
this
was
a
really
hard
one.
B
This
is
sharpless224
the
first
time
I
shot.
This
I
was
in
there
for
I
thought.
You
know
forever
in
h,
Alpha
and
I
had
something
like
you
know.
Five
hours
of
H,
Alpha
and
I
could
barely
see
it,
no
matter
how
hard
I
stretched
it
and
and
I
just
had
the
H
outfit.
So
I
abandoned
it
I.
Just
this,
this
is
hopeless.
B
This
is
how
I
do
it
I
know
you
can
do
it
in
piston
site
and
I
have
done
it
in
pixel
type,
but
I
do
it
in
Photoshop.
So
this
is
what
I
do
I
take
the
RGB
image,
which
is
basically
the
star
field:
I,
take
it
into
Photoshop,
I
split
the
channels,
so
you
go
to
the
channels
Tab
and
click
and
click
on
the
menu
and
say
split
channels.
B
That
would
be
there
if
you,
if
I,
had
a
h,
beta
filter
which
I
don't
and
then
you
put
it
you've
save
those
then
flatten
them
recombine.
The
RGB
have
a
look:
does
the
nebula
really
pop
yet?
And
you
can
go
back
in
open
them
up
again
and
then
put
a
curves
adjustment
with
a
clipping
layer
to
brighten
the
H
Alpha,
where
you
think
it's
not
showing
up
well
enough,
and
this
was
way
harder,
like
nearly
impossible
to
do
before.
You
could
do
the
star
extermination
stuff
and
focus
on
the
neighborhood.
B
B
Like
the
monkey
head
nebula,
it's
like
the
minute.
Someone
shows
you
what
they
think
is
the
monkey,
so
I
just
see
it
right
away,
and
then
you
always
see
it.
So
this
is
a
full
narrow
band,
plus
a
RGB
image
and
I'm
going
to
show
you
a
couple
of
different
versions
of
it.
This
is
90
minutes
each
of
RGB
and
then
a
tiny
bit
of
S2.
B
There
wasn't
really
a
lot
of
S2,
so
I
didn't
capture
three
after
an
hour
of
S2
I
thought
I'm
not
getting
anything
so
I
used
it,
but
it
it
wasn't
a
particularly
contributory
and
then
10
times
20
minutes
of
H,
Alpha
and
15
times,
20
minutes
of
O3.
So
this
is
the
whole
thing
put
together
and
I'll
show
you
the
next
photo
is.
This
is
just
the
RGB
image
and
so
I'll
go
back.
B
So
this
is,
when
you
add
the
narrowband,
that's
without
the
narrow
band,
so
it's
quite
a
difference,
but
the
RGB
itself
is
a
pretty
image
and
I
find
that
for
me,
I'm
kind
of
an
old
school
right.
So
I'm
always
thinking
well,
you
know
I
like
natural
color
images,
so
I
always
process
my
RGB
images
to
be
a
photograph
that
I'd
be
proud
of
on
its
own.
B
Like
sometimes
people
say,
why
do
you
take
so
much
RGB
when
you're
doing
narrowband,
because
you're
just
doing
it
for
Star,
colors
and
I
said
well,
actually
I'm
not
doing
it.
Just
for
Star
colors
I
want
the
RGB
to
be
a
pretty
image
on
its
own.
Then,
when
I
layer
in
the
narrow
band
I
get
a
more
interesting
image,
but
it
it
isn't
like
the
RGB,
isn't
a
pretty
image
on
its
own
and
then
this
is
just
the
pure
narrowband
data
and
you
can
see
the
star.
B
So
you
know
I'm
always
going
to
be
here,
but
that's
just
me,
nuts
and
a
wreck,
but
if
I
never
been
Imaging
processing
more
easier,
now
and
more
rewarding,
but
for
a
long
time
I
had
my
trouble
getting
my
head
around
it
and
my
plane
wave
cameras
doesn't
have
an
S2
filter,
so
I
can
never
do
real
honestly
in
Instagram
with
it.
I
just
do
ho
images
of
that
one.
B
B
B
It
looks
pretty
cool
I,
don't
know
if
you've
ever
done
that
but
place
near
here
does
printing
on
metal
aluminum
sheets,
and
it's
pretty
neat
to
put
an
astro
pick
on
on
metal,
but
the
I
have
other
versions
of
this
like
two,
the
top
half
of
it
we've
done
processed.
You
know
in
good
faith
this
similar
way,
but
a
very
different
looking
image
when
it
was
done.
B
A
I
did
some
metal
printing
through
a
service?
You
know,
obviously
not
myself.
Recently
and
six
months
ago,
ish
and
I
found
that
you
know
the
brightness
that
I
liked
on
my
computer
screen
was
very
different,
like
you
know
that
my
prints
turned
out
dark
too
dark
and
that
I
needed
to
you
know
like
sort
of
push
them
in
a
way
that
I
wasn't
thrilled
with
on
the
screen
in
order
to
get
it
to
look
good
I,
don't
know
if
I
just
didn't
know
what
I
was
doing.
No.
B
No
I
have
the
same
problem
so
so
like
I,
have
a
fancy
photo
printer
here
that
drives
me
crazy,
so
what
I
do
with
it?
I'll
come
back
to
the
metal
thing
in
a
second.
What
do
I
do
with
my
home
printer
is
to
do
a
test
print
I,
look
at
it
and
I
think.
Okay.
That
looks
nothing
like
what
my
screen
looks
like
and
I've
done
everything
I'm
supposed
to
do
calibrating
my
monitor,
calibrating
everything.
B
You
know,
write
profiles,
I'm
telling
it
to
you
know:
I've
got
the
the
firmware
for
the
printer
update
everything
you're
supposed
to
do
I've
done
and
it
does
not
work.
So
what
I
do
is
I,
take
the
test
print
and
then
I,
look
at
it
and
I
say:
okay,
I!
Try
to
make
my
computer
version.
Look
like
the
test
print
and
I
record
all
the
changes
I
have
to
do
so
now.
B
My
computer
picture,
my
computer
screen
looks
as
bad
as
the
print
and
I
know
all
the
curves
adjustments
and
other
changes
I
made
and
then
I
do
the
opposite
of
all
those
changes.
Now
it
looks
whacked
on
my
screen.
I
send
the
printer,
it
looks,
fabulous,
I,
think
that
is
the
stupidest
thing
ever
I.
Just
I
can't
believe
I
have
to
do
all
that,
but
it
it
I
get
a
nice
picture.
Well,.
A
You
know,
but
to
continue
for
a
second
it.
You
know
like
with
the
metal.
It's
not
just
the
calibration,
because
it's
it's
what
light
the
metal
print
or
the
or
the
Fine
Art
print
is
sitting
under
like.
If
you
put
a
you
know,
a
nice
really
bright,
light
bulb
right.
You
know
a
foot
and
a
half
from
it
and
you
know
shine
light
nicely
on
it.
It's
gonna
look
fine!
You
know
with
your
original
processing.
The
problem
is
you
know
unless
you
sort
of
display
it
that
way
anyway,
that's
my
theory
about
the
problem.
A
B
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
doubt
you're
right
with
the
metal.
Of
course,
I
don't
have
a
metal
printer.
Here
we
go
to
a
gallery
in
a
local
town,
and
the
woman
owns
a
gallery
is
a
friend
of
now
and
she'll.
Let
you
sit
with
her
at
the
computer
and
she
says
this
computer
view
is
exactly
what's
going
to
come
out
of
the
metal
printer
okay.
So
then
you
sit
with
her
and
he
calls
up
each
of
the
pictures.
You
give
her
the
jump,
drive
and
say:
okay,
my
picture
on
here
she
calls
them
up.
B
A
B
But
there's
no
way
it
would
have
worked
if
she
didn't.
Let
me
sit
beside
her
at
the
computer
that
she
uses
and
make
sure
like
she
says
for
sure
what
I
see
on
this
screen
comes
out
on
the
printer
that
part
I
got
solved.
Okay.
Well,
then,
if
you
let
me
sit
with
you
we'll
make
sure
that
I
like
what
I
see
on
your
screen,
then
we
send
it
and
she
was
cool
with
that.
B
B
All
right!
Zooming
on
this
was
the
picture
I
mentioned,
maybe
in
the
intro
on
the
emails,
so
I
I
have
a
close
friend
here
and
she
lives
down
near
Niagara,
A,
Gifted,
Astro,
imager,
deep
Sky,
wide
field
and
all-around
delightful
person.
Anyway.
She
lives
in
like
polluted
sky,
so
we
decided
we'd
do
a
couple
of
collaborations
and
one
of
them
was
the
ngc133
and
so
I
did
all
the
data
I.
This
is
my
version
of
it.
B
Her
version
is,
you
know,
predictably
slightly
better,
and
then
she
submitted
it
to
apod
on
our
behalf
and
and
it
won
an
apod,
and
so
I
was
pretty
stoked
by
that
and
I'd
love
to
say.
I
earned
it
all
on
my
own,
but
it
definitely
helped
that
someone
famous
was
collaborating
with
me
and,
and
they
knew
her
so
but
but
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
a
worthy
picture
and
I've
seen
other
ones
they've
published,
and
we
stand.
B
You
know
firmly
beside
the
other
NGC
1333
instead
of
one
apods
over
the
years.
So
I
was
pretty
happy
with
this.
This
is
another
one
where
a
lot
of
crazy
stuff
going
on
that
you
couldn't.
You
could
accidentally
stomp
out
if
you
weren't
paying
attention.
So
all
the
dust
clouds
and
all
that
and
then
the
the
emission
nebula
that's
buried
in
the
center
and
the
bright
blue
reflection
right
beside
it,
so
tricky
to
process
all
that
and
have
it
survive.
B
This
one
has
a
great
story.
So
this
is
the
the
bat
and
Squid
nebulae
and
image
this
a
long
time
ago,
with
my
apogee
camera
and
my
fsq
I
was
really
proud
of
it.
I
had
this
flying
bat
and
a
year
or
two
after
I'm,
so
proud
of
this.
Somebody
announces
hey
I,
just
discovered,
there's
this
squid
nebula
right
in
the
middle
of
it.
I'm
like
get
out
of
here
I'm.
Looking
at
my
picture,
there's
no
evidence
of
it
at
all.
B
Like
none
I'm
like
so
a
couple
years
ago,
I
went
back
to
it
with
my
155
and
you
know:
I
can't
get
the
thing
yeah
the
whole
thing
with
that
setup,
but
I
went
45,
20
minute
exposures
to
no
three
to
to
find
that
squid
nebulous.
So
when
you
see
a
picture
of
this,
if
you
haven't
done
it-
and
you
see
one
it's
astonishing,
how
faint
this
thing
is
that
whoever
discovered
it
should
get
a
a
really
big
cookie,
because
this
was
not
an
easy
thing
to.
B
B
This
thing
starts
to
emerge
from
the
background
and
that's
with
15
hours
of
O3
and,
and
you
know,
a
ton
of
H,
Alpha
and
and
of
course,
the
RGB
but
tough
image,
but
a
reminder
that,
just
because
you
know
we
think
nothing
changes
up
there
but
stuff.
You
know
either
gets
discovered
that
you
didn't
know
about,
or
you
know
this
kind
of
thing
where
it
was
there
all
along
and
just
nobody
actually
looked
so
I
thought
that
was
pretty
cool.
B
A
B
A
B
O3
is
is
yeah,
the
O3
is
not
something
you
can
shoot
with
light
pollution
or
with
the
moon
up
so
yeah
for
sure
yeah.
My
sympathy
there
it's
where
I
originally
shot
it
I
didn't
use
O3
in
there
Friday.
There
was
no
hope
of
seeing
it.
I
could
have
been
the
discoverer,
maybe
but
I
didn't
even
try
it,
and
then
it
was
years
later
when
I
started.
Seeing
more
of
these
and
I
thought.
B
Okay
I've
got
to
go
back
to
this
because
I
have
to
try
it,
but
even
from
here,
which
is
a
portal
3.
So
it's
not
like
you
know,
I'm,
not
you're
out
of
Canada
or
anything,
but
but
pretty
dark.
It's
just
an
astounding
amount
of
of
what
was
it
to
yeah,
15
hours
of
O3
and
and
I
got
to
be
honest
with
you.
If
you
just
saw
this
zoomed
in
it's,
it's
pretty
shaky
like
like,
it
would
need
a
lot
more
for
it
to
really
shine
like
independently.
B
I
was
just
stunned
at
how
how
faint
it
was,
but
it's
pretty
cool
to
get
it
once.
You
know
about
it
and-
and
you
have
access
to
the
kind
of
Skies
where
it's
possible
yeah
but
yeah
for
sure
O3,
tough
in
a
light
pollution
environment
or
with
the
moon
up
this
one
is
we're
going
to
switch
a
little
bit
over
to
more
wide
field
stuff
just
for
fun.
So
I'll
go
through
these
fast
because
they're
not
super
complicated.
This
is
Neil
wise.
B
We
went
to
the
shortly
Huron,
there's
a
parking
lot
in
the
lighthouse
and
it
was
lit
up
like
a
baseball
diamond.
But
you
know
I
can
close
the
viewfinder
on
the
camera
and
we
set
up
right
at
the
water
and
just
pointed
it
up
and
I
just
set
the
cameras
on
the
tracker
and
said:
take
10
shots.
We
couldn't
even
see
the
comment.
Actually
there
was
so
much
light
scattering
around
from
these
street
lights.
B
We
couldn't
see
it
so
we'd
take
a
couple
of
test
shots
to
figure
out
where
it
was
and
then
set
it
up,
framed
it
as
best.
We
could
and
then
took
the
shot
and
I
just
said:
do
10
and
stack
them,
and
this
is
what
I
got
and
in
one
of
the
10
bullied
went
through
the
shot.
So
that's
what
that
is
on
the
right.
That
was
pretty
fun,
but
that's
an
example
of
what
I
was
saying
earlier
about
in-camera
stacking
with
the
the
DSLR,
so
I
thought
that
turned
out
okay.
B
B
This
is
the
our
larger
Barn,
so
I'll
go
into
the
barn
turn
the
lights
on,
come
back
out
and
then
I
turn
all
the
house
lights
on.
So
the
foreground
is
being
illuminated
by
the
house
lights
and
the
interior
of
the
Barnes
by
the
Byron
Knights
and
then
took
the
Skyscape
that
way,
so
that
was
kind
of
fun.
B
So
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
resources,
I
rely
on
and-
and
you
know,
I
have
friends
who
teach
fix.
Insight
courses
like
Ron
brecher
who
lives
near
me,
and
Warren
Keller
who's,
the
palette
of
mine
and
and
works
with
Ron
as
well.
They
teach
those
courses,
I
I,
don't
I
haven't
taken
any
courses
on
pics
and
site,
but
this
Harry's
Astro
show
is
a
British
guy,
he's
a
picks,
Insight
tutorial
pages
and
he
had
a
two-part
tutorial
in
processing.
B
This
link
here
I
sent
the
link
to
this
presentation
as
a
PDF
to
hi
and
whatever
baptism
you
guys
have
for
sharing
presentations
feel
free
to
put
it
up,
but
that
link
there.
The
second
one
is
to
a
guy
named
Steve
Allen,
and
he
shows
you
how
to
use
the
gradient
merge,
Mosaic
tool.
If
you
want
to
use
that
it's
still
in
fixed
Insight,
it's
absolutely
Rock
Solid
like
you,
you
cannot
go
wrong.
B
If
you
just
follow
him
in
that,
and
then
someone
maybe
a
lot
of
you
know
a
guy
named
Bob
Frankie,
he
wrote
a
program
called
excalibrator
and
it's
program
for
doing
color
calibration
in
Photoshop.
If
you
don't
have
something
on
Guess
PCC
in
pics
and
site,
but
in
addition
to
that
he
also
is
a
really
talented
and
narrowband
image
processor
in
Photoshop,
and
so
this
link
takes
you
to
a
tutorial
where
he
shows
you
how
to
get
that.
B
B
B
Yeah
yeah,
no
doubt
I'd
love
to
see
that,
because
that
would
save
me
a
ton
of
time.
Yeah.
Okay,
thanks
yeah,
I
I
mean
I,
appreciate
Bob
doing
this,
but
it's
not
it's!
It's
not
five
seconds
of
work.
It's
like
half
an
hour,
but
you
know
at
least
to
get
you
there,
but
yeah.
If
there's
an
action
that
can
be
done
in
pics,
Insight
directly.
That
would
be
awesome.
B
So
thanks
for
that,
so
at
this
point,
I
have
other
pictures
which
I'm
proud
of
and
happy
to
show,
or
we
could
just
kind
of
Freewheel
and
talk
about
things
that
have
came
up.
I.
Think
it's
a
pretty
small
group,
so
you
know
we
could
just
open
it
up
and
and
chat
or
I
could
go
through
this
quick
and
just
look
at
a
couple
of
quick
ones.
B
B
Is
it
worth
the
amount
of
time
I
spent
Gathering
each
Alpha
I
don't
know,
but
I
could
make
it
more
dominant
and
then
I'm
not
sure
I
would
like
the
image
as
much,
but
anyway,
this
was
done
with
my
plane
wave
this
one,
the
Pac-Man.
This
was
the
image
that
told
me
my
shutter
was
failing
with
my
Pac-Man
shot,
because
you
can
see
there's
this
line
right
down
the
center.
B
It
turned
out
the
shutter
wasn't
closing
after
the
image
was
taken,
so
it
was
reading
out
with
the
Expo
with
the
shutter
open
and
you
get
what's
called
shoot.
I've
forgotten
the
theme
there's
a
name
for
when
you
get
these
lines
that
run
all
the
way
up
through
all
the
bright
stars.
Smearing.
It's
called
and.
B
B
Yeah,
it
has
a
mechanical
shutter
and
it
didn't
it
didn't
close
at
the
end
of
the
exposure.
So
as
the
camera
is
reading
out,
light
is
shining
on
the
chip
and
then
what
happens
is
the
bright
stars?
Get
these
lines
from
top
to
bottom?
They
they
fill
the
entire
column
and
it's
called
smearing,
and
it
took
me
a
while
to
pass
out
what
was
going
wrong
and
then
I
had
to
send
it
back.
Get
repaired.
A
C
C
A
B
B
That's
super
handy,
thank
you!
So,
just
quickly,
there's
a
couple
more.
So
this
is
the
again.
This
is
the
RGB
H
Alpha
and
then
you
add
the
RGB
and
to
me
is
not
that
different,
but
you
see
more
of
the
nebula
I'm,
always
a
little
conflicted
about
this.
Now
these
are
older
images.
So
if
I
did
it
today,
I
would
use
the
blur
blur
exterminator
and
Then
star,
exterminator
and
I
would
probably
be
happier
with
it,
but
you
know
anyway.
This
is
a
a
quick
sequence.
Again.
B
This
is
the
RGB
image
of
the
the
bubble,
nebula
and
all
its
friends
sam52
NGC.
What
is
it?
Seven
I
forget
the
one
at
the
bottom
and
then
so.
That's
RGB,
that's
the
RGB
with
H,
Alpha
added
and
then
here's
a
pure
narrow
band,
Sho
version
and
then
I
added
the
color
back
to
just
for
it
to
get
the
Stars.
So
you
know
everybody
would
have
their
own
opinion
about
which
one's
the
nicest
you
see
way
more
interesting
structure
in
the
nebula.
B
It's
a
little
harder
to
wrap
your
head
around
the
the
more
conventional
objects
in
the
in
the
field,
but
so
I
have
this
printed
on
metal
in
both
both
forms
just
for
fun.
There's
an
m33
with
the
AP
155.
This
this
the
reason
I'm
showing
these
is
even
it
took
these
this
shot
and
the
next
one
in
parallel,
one
with
the
plane
wave
one
with
the
155
process,
them
I
think
Faithfully
the
same
and
look
how
different
they
are.
B
Obviously,
one's
closer
up
right,
but
but
I
find
this
funny
as
a
person
who
thinks
he's
got
a
method
like
I.
Do
these
what
I
think
are
identical
to
me?
They're,
you
could
easily
be
convinced,
they're,
two
different
galaxies,
yeah
you're,
putting
aside
the
scale
of
course,
but
just
the
color,
the
the
the
balance
of
contrast,
how
the
the
the
whole
thing
that
just
the
whole
vibe
of
it
is
so
different.
B
I
just
find
that
odd,
when
I
think
I'm
doing
it
the
same
way,
and
then
this
one
just
an
interesting
reflection,
nebula
again
to
get
all
these
colors
to
pop
and
let
the
Stars
participate
it's
kind
of
fun
and
I.
Think
there's
just
one
nope,
that's
it
I
think
I
think
oh
yeah!
This
is
the
last
one.
This
one
was
fun,
so
some
of
you
know-
maybe
you
all
know,
Dave
gerasovich.
B
He
works
at
Mel,
Wilson,
I
think
a
veteran
image
imager
and
he
discovered
this
soap
bubble
nebula
here
this
is
in
the
inside.
It's
actually
dead
center
of
the
frame
and
as
stunning
that
he
found
that
so
I
took
this
H
Alpha
O3
RGB
image
of
the
the
Crescent
nebula
and
its
environs
processed
it.
You
know
for
a
pretty
picture
effect
and
that
would
be
hard-pressed
any
you'd
all
be
hard-pressed
to
find
the
soap
bubble
in
there.
A
E
B
B
It's
just
amazing.
He
found
that
this
is
like
that
squid
nebula
right.
So
once
he's
found
it,
then
everybody
goes
and
photographs
and
it's
like
you
realize
holy
cow.
This
was
not
easy
like
that,
that
he
even
could
see
it
in
his
data.
It
was
Testament
to
how
deep
he
went
and
then
how
keen
and
I
he
has.
B
D
B
My
opinion
is
they're
game
changers
for
the
good
I
think
that
the
early
generation
CMOS
cameras,
some
technical
experts
that
are
on
lists
I'm
on
Richard
crispy.
You
may
know
he's
a
chip
designer.
He
had
a
lot
of
negative
things
to
say
about
early
CMOS,
the
difficult
to
flat
field
them
and
a
bunch
of
other
problems
and
I
think
those
have
been
all
overcome.
B
I
think
the
the
QE
is
sometimes
overstated,
but
generally
I
think
it's
like
to
me.
The
I've
seen
people
first
of
all,
the
tiny,
pixels
and
people
are
getting
the
same
shot
in
a
quarter
of
the
exposure
time
or
10th
exposure
time
and
they're
getting
detail
with
a
refractor
that
people
were
buying.
You
know
16
inch
slopes
to
to
do
with
CCD
cameras
and
nine
Micron
pixels.
So,
to
my
mind,
it's
a
no
a
non.
B
D
I,
just
I
sort
of
had
you
know
changed
over
from
the
advice
of
some
friends
and
I.
Have
one
of
those
I
have
a
6200
Zoe
ASI
6200,
with
that
3.76
pixel
and
I
was
running
that
on
a
stellar
view,
130
millimeter
and
of
course,
I
have
recently
gotten
a
C11
and
I
thought
well,
I'm,
just
gonna
be
so
terribly
over
sampled.
D
D
And
then,
when
you
bend
them,
your
signal
to
noise
ratio
really
improves
already
on
something
that
didn't
have
much
noise.
So
it's
I,
just
I'm,
just
encouraging
you,
the
one
other
thing
I
just
mentioned:
I,
just
I
sort
of
I'm
sort
of
I'm,
not
a
Zoe
I,
don't
get
any
money
from
Zoe
or
anything
message.
But
that
being
said,
they
have
a
new
2600
coming
out
which
they
call
the
duo,
but
it
comes
with
a
guide
shot.
D
D
B
B
There
was
a
tiny
little
guide
chip
and
it
was
it
was
great
and
as
long
as
you
weren't
Imaging
in
h
Alpha,
you
know
you
could
do
that
because
you're
behind
the
filter
wheel,
but
you
would
have
trouble
with
a
full
narrow
band
setup
and
having
that
guide
chip
behind
the
filters.
So,
but
if
you're
gonna
do
lrgb
even
behind
the
filter,
wheel,
I
think
it
would
be
fine.
I
did
it
for
years.
B
B
The
one
thing
that
I
and
I
see
on
this
astrophysics
list
is
just
an
obsession
they
just
won't
shut
up
about
is
camera
tilt,
so
the
the
the
these
really
tiny
pixel
cameras
stress
the
heck
out
of
optical
designers
in
terms
of
unmasking
imperfections
in
the
flatteners
and
and
and
revealing
any
possible
sag
in
the
Imaging
train
or
lack
of
orthogonality
in
the
the
chip.
So
you,
the
I,
think
you,
the
one
you're
talking
about
than
the
one
you
have
does
actually
have
a
a
tilt
adjuster
built
into
it.
Yeah.
D
Yeah
I
had
the
the
6200m
I
have
the
mono
one
and
you're
right
about
it.
You
know
what
I
have
that
on
a
stellar,
View
and
I
would
tell
you
that
I
had
a
a
long
time
getting
that
thing
flat
all
right,
and
it
was
only
through
use
of
Nina
and
its
tilts
software.
That
I
finally
got
the
thing
flat,
because
you
know
the
sensor
is
so
big
that
if
you
don't
have
it
flat,
you've
got
Stars
screwed
up
stars
in
the
corners
and
you'll
see
them
you'll
see
every
one
of
them.
D
B
D
B
D
D
Thing
is
that
the
critical
focus
zone
is
so
big
which
you
can,
if
you
can
there's
a
lot
of
room
for
for
stupidity
and
that
you
can
get
away
with
it.
But
anyway,
I
I
just
thought.
It's
very
interesting
to
see,
because
I've
been
running
a
saga
trying
to
run
that
6200
on
that
on
that
long,
Pokemon,
camera
and
I
thought
I
was
going
to
have
to
bin
it,
but
I
don't
have
to.
It
turns
out
well.
B
That's
good
I
know
the
youth
16m
from
apogee
as
I,
and
this
and
I'm
gonna
say:
I
can't
explain
this
but
John
Smith
who
works
for
CCD.
Where
gave
a
talk
at
AIC
years
ago
and
showed
my
camera
he
says
does
not
benefit
from
binning.
He
says
you
can't
improve
the
signal:
the
noise
ratio
by
binning
this
camera
because
of
how
the
architecture
is
designed
and
the
way
it's
read
out
and
he
went
through.
It
was
very
elaborate
and
there's
like
hundreds
of
people
in
the
audience.
B
D
You
want
to
do
it.
Yeah
I
actually
fought
my
way
through
the
math
on
this
and
the
CCD
cameras.
The
noise.
You
get
twice
the
essentially
double
the
noise
reduction
for
the
CCD
cameras,
because
somehow
the
the
readout,
the
analog
readout,
takes
the
noise
out
essentially
of
each
pixel
individually,
the
CMOS.
Somehow
the
way
it's
read
out,
big
noise
comes
out
in
such
a
way
that
you
can
only
get
the
benefit
from
sort
of
post-hoc
processing
and
software.
D
You
can't
get
it.
You
do
not
get
a
hardware
binning
benefit
from
the
CMOS.
Yet
that
being
said,
you
can
still
get
the
the
square.
The
square
root
of
the
number
of
pixels
of
the
number
of
pixels
you're
binning
as
an
improvement
of
your
signal
to
noise
ratio.
So
if
you're
going
from
one
pixel
to
four,
it's
the
square
root
of
four,
so
you
double
the
signal.
Noise
ratio.
If
you
go
three
x
is
is
three
and
four
x
is
four.
B
D
B
A
A
D
B
So,
just
to
finish
the
question
about
CMOS
cameras,
they
don't
even
make
ccds
anymore.
So
it's
a
moot
point
whether
I
will
buy
him
CMOS
as
my
next
camera,
but
yeah
I'm,
totally
won
over
by
the
latest
versions
of
them
all
the
the
enclosure,
the
the
build
quality
of
the
housing
I
I
I'm
not
ultimately
committed
to
any
manufacturer
right
now.
B
I
think
you
know
it'd
be
nice
to
buy
a
North
American
camera.
So
that's
big
is
now
owned
by
diffraction
Limited
in
Ottawa
and
I
know
those
guys
and
I
would
like
to
support
them.
But
I
have
this
Moravian
camera
from
Europe.
That
just
knocks
me
out.
It's
so
well
made
so
and
they
make
a
bunch
of
CMOS
cameras.
So,
probably
for
me
it
would
come
down
to
one
of
those
two,
but
all
my
friends
have
zwo
or
qhy
cameras.
B
One
of
my
clients
here
has
just
got
a
the
qhy
version
of
your
camera.
Like
the
same
chip,
which
is
called
the
I
forgot,
what
it's
called
yeah
600.
No
yours
is
600.
6200,
qhy
6200.
It's
the
same
chip
as
in
your
camera.
So
we'll
see
how
that
goes.
He's
going
to
put
it
on
the
back
of
the
TV
101
or
then
they
have
a
10
inch
officina
stellari
ricardi
honder's
here,
which
is
a
pretty
cool.
Looking
scope.
I
got
to
tell
you:
have
you
ever
seen
a
ricardi
Honduras?
B
Do
you
know
how
they
work?
So
it's
it's
like
a
casa,
green
style
has
a
very
curved
front.
Glass
element.
The
secondary
is,
is
you
know
on
the
the
secondary
mirror
is
actually
aluminized
on
the
back
of
the
lens
on
the
front.
The
rear
mirror
is
rear,
surfaced,
it's
actually
a
lens
10
inch
diameter
lens
and
it's
back
silvered.
So
the
wavefront
goes
through.
B
The
lens
hits
the
mirror
on
the
back
comes
back
out
through
the
lens
and
then
goes
to
the
front,
then
comes
down
through
the
hole
in
this
in
the
in
the
primary
really
complicated
design,
but
super
fast,
like
they're,
like
f
3.5
kind
of
f
ratio,
astrographs
astrophysics
makes
one
as
well
a
12
12
and
a
half
inch
ricardi
Hondas.
There's,
like
you
know,
twenty
two
thousand
dollars
and
my
name
came
up
for
one
and
I
just
said
no
I'm.
Sorry,
no!
B
You
can't
you
got
to
be
really
careful
yeah,
like
a
lot
of
filters.
I
remember,
I
was
talking
to
Roland
at
AIC
about
some
of
these
super
fast
astrographs
and
he
said
like
a
lot
of
the
filters.
People
are
thinking
would
be
obvious.
He
says,
they'll
be
like
opaque
to
the
to
the
wavefront,
because
the
cone
is
coming
in
so
steep.
The
filter
shifts
and
blocks
all
the
light.
B
B
D
A
D
Ahead,
I
want
to
ask
the
thing
one
of
the
things
that's
driving
my
life
in
astrophotography.
Is
this
process
or
script
in
picks
inside
called
generalized
hyperbolic
stretch?
Now
we've
had
you
know
some
of
the
experts
on
that
here
and
I'm,
just
wondering,
because
I
asked
you
what
you
thought
of
CMOS.
We
have
you
here
to
pick
your
brain.
What
do
you
think
about
about
this
process?
Have
you
used
it,
and
what
do
you
have
you
used
it?
If
you
have?
What
is
your
opinion
of
it.
B
A
lot
of
us
I
think
recoil
at
the
whole,
you
know
push
a
button
and
you
get
the
picture
like
you're
done,
and
it's
like,
like
with
Fitz
Liberator
when
you're
importing
it
you
give
it
the
the
algorithm
you
wanted
to
use,
and
it
appears
in
photoshop's
already
stretched
for
you.
It's
like
well
I
hope,
that's
what
I
wanted,
because
that's
what
I
got
so
I
haven't
used.
It
friends
of
mine
have
spoken
kind
of
like
a
little
bit
qualified
about
it.
General
Buzz
is
positive
about
it.
B
So
if
you
click
in
the
image,
you'll
see
bars
appear
in
the
curve
window,
tell
you
if
I
want
to
stretch
this
part
which
part
of
the
curve
do
I
adjust
I,
pull
that
up
a
bit
if
I
want
to
hold
the
stars
back,
I'll
pin
the
top
of
the
curve
and
I
tend
to
do
it
that
way
so
I'm
thinking
about
what
do
I
want
the
image
to
look
like
what
parts
of
it
are
interesting
to
me.
How
do
I
want
to
draw
the
contrast
out
between
things
that
are
competing
for
attention
so
I?
B
A
A
D
D
B
B
Okay,
just
to
finish
that
in
pics
and
site,
typically
I'll
use,
depending
on
the
state
of
the
image
I'll
use
the
histogram
transform
to
pull
the
histogram
away
from
the
left
wall.
I'm
watching
for
the
first
bright
objects
to
appear
and
make
sure
they
don't
start
blowing
out
and
then
I
switch
to
the
curve
stretches
and
pin
the
top
of
the
curve
so
that
those
things
don't
get
any
brighter.
While
I
bring
the
faint
stuff
forward.
B
It
doesn't
take
very
long,
but
I'll
still
have
a
look
and
see
if
I
can't
do
better
within
the
new
tools.
I,
don't
think
people
go
with
all
the
trouble
of
adding
new
tools
to
pics
and
site
to
make
it
worse.
So
it's
bound
to
be
interesting,
but
generally
I
think
with
picks
Insight
I'm,
probably
in
the
a
large
group
of
people
who
are
like
enough
already
guys.
B
There's
like
way
too
many
toys
in
here,
I
just
saw
I
was
suffering
from
over
Choice
all
the
time
that
the
so
I
get
to
the
point.
Where
you
know
I
I've
got
a
system
working
for
me,
I
think,
but
I
need
to
be
more
open.
So
I'll
have
a
go
at
it
and
I'll.
Let
you
guys
know
if
I
I
become
a
convert,
because
there
is
a
lot
of
Buzz
about
it.
So
it's
definitely
worth
checking
out
for
sure.
E
B
E
B
Oh
yeah
yeah,
yeah,
yeah,
yeah,
yeah
I
use
I
use
that
filter
in
Photoshop
auction,
because
I
find
the
gradient
removal
tools
in
Lay
room
way
better
than
in
Photoshop
and
then
when
they
brought
that
camera
filter
and
put
it
in
Photoshop.
It's
like
done
now.
I
can
do
everything
in
Photoshop.
So
so
you
would
take
your
stack
from
where,
whatever
whether.
B
E
B
Well,
I
remember:
it
was
seeing
a
talk
at
AIC
by
someone
from
Adobe
who
was
one
of
the
writers
of
Photoshop
and
again
it's
like
I,
said
about
picks
and
say
people
aren't
going
to
all
this
trouble
to
make
the
tools
worse
so
I'm
not
shocked
that
it
works,
because
they
know
a
lot
about
image
processing
and
if
I
guess
it
shouldn't
almost
be
surprising
that
it
does
work
but
I
haven't
tried
it
so
I'm
going
to
do
that,
see
what
happens.
I
think
that
sounds
pretty
cool
yeah
and.
C
B
Brilliant
well
and,
as
you
said
to
the
group
earlier,
you
know
I
I'm
active
on
the
the
AP
Discussion
Group,
because
I
like
talking
about
image,
processing
and
imaging
and
happy
to
to
get,
you
know,
make
contact
and
chat
about
stuff
one-on-one
if
people
want
to
rather
do
that
the
most
happy
to
do
that.
I,
don't
pretend
to
be
an
expert
on
everything
I.
Just
you
know,
I've
got
some
things
that
are
working
for
me,
some
things
that
I'm
still
scratching
my
head
over
and
yeah.