Deep Sky My stacked M1 capture

[Tracy]

Gain:  101
Offset:  50
Exposure Time:  1200 seconds
Camera Temp:  -5°C
Camera:  ASI533MM Pro

Just a mono of my recent start of capture of M1. You can see some elongation in the stars, which just reinforces my need to a better mount as the EQ35-Pro is being sorely pushed at a 20 minute exposure.

M1 in mono

• Tracy
• October 7, 2022

This is an Ha/OIII/SII capture

 

[OhNo]

Knock the exposures back to 4-5 minutes and life is much easier and cheaper. I don't know anyone who does 20 minute exposures even with the best of the consumer grade mounts. You lose a 4 minute exposure you are ticked, lose a 20 minute one and a 1/3 of an hour is gone.

 

[Tracy]

Knock the exposures back to 4-5 minutes and life is much easier and cheaper. I don't know anyone who does 20 minute exposures even with the best of the consumer grade mounts. You lose a 4 minute exposure you are ticked, lose a 20 minute one and a 1/3 of an hour is gone.

yeah.. this was basically to see the difference between 240s exposures (which I have about 10 each of Ha/SII/OIII) and a 1200 second. I'm going to stack the 240s ones and then post it in this thread to use as a comparison. There IS some difference (albeit slight to me) in the detail that the 20 minute exposure gives if using fewer numbers of captures in the stack.
I also wanted to see what the mount was capable of.. and actually it surprised me.

 

[Stan]

I agree with OhNo 3-5 minute exposures are more than enough, besides if something happens like a gust of wind or clouds it's easier to throw away a single 3-4 minute frame than losing 20 minutes. Also on targets with bright stars, the star bloat will get bad from over saturated pxiels on longer exposures.

 

[OhNo]

Yes, blowing out something with a strong signal (bright nebula, stars...) is easy too IF your exposure is too long. Prime example of this is M42. Few people actually capture the stars at it's heart. Even if using short exposures. This is a classic case of "Less is More".