×

INDI Library v2.0.6 is Released (02 Feb 2024)

Bi-monthly release with minor bug fixes and improvements

For those with focus issues

  • Posts: 278
  • Thank you received: 17

Replied by S on topic For those with focus issues

To comfort you, I can say that I see the same kind of error all the time. And with any of the star detection algorithms. Other non-star features are also sometimes picked up, like edges of dust mites, ccd defects and so on. Also sometimes extremely large features are found (most stars hfr 1.5 and then one with hfr 50). Maybe, when using full field, ekos should throw away outliers, i.e. extremely large and extremely small 'stars' when compared to the mean size of all stars?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Eric
Last edit: 4 years 2 days ago by S.
4 years 2 days ago #51197

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
I agree with the above comments, which is why I strongly recommend you use the "Full Field" focus setting (in focus tab, under settings sub-tab).
Use it with an Annulus of like 25% 80%. Doing this and it will detect many stars, throw away outliers, and then average the results. This is much more stable.
I recommend the SEP star detection algorithm also.

Finally, if you're not happy with the Polynomial algorithm, please try the "Linear" algorithm too ;)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Magnus Larsson, Eric
4 years 2 days ago #51198

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 278
  • Thank you received: 17

Replied by S on topic For those with focus issues


Not all field show "many stars" when doing this, one example is the image of the two galaxies I posted above. Maybe 3-8 stars are found with a 5s exposure and if one of them is not really a star it seems to throw the focus way off course. A more stable star-locator seems to be needed. Since it is generally assumed that one starts all the focus algorithms pretty close to focus, the star-locator could maybe be told to only look for stars in the same places as it located stars in the first image? It seems to me that sometimes new stars or non-stars are located and possibly throw the focus algorithms way off course. And if it gets way out of focus, it may even not detect any stars. It should be the case that the stars do not move notably between focus images and their HDR value should only change a bit. They may be some useful information to the star locator algorithm.
Well, that's my experience anyway and I could of course be doing something wrong or crazy :lol:
4 years 2 days ago #51201

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
I get many more stars with my f/5.6 scope on a typical image.
For an R,G, or B filter I use 3s exposure, gain 200 in the focuser (ASI1600 camera) and on most of my attempts was getting ~70 stars.
For Ha/SII/OIII I use 5s and get a similar number of stars.
Also, fwiw, I use a binning of 2x2 on my focus images.

If you aren't getting lots of stars, can you try adjusting your focus exposure and see if that improves things?
4 years 2 days ago #51202

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 643
  • Thank you received: 62
Hi!

You use 2x2 binning? I've been experimenting with that. What is your pixel scale? Mine is 1.42 arcsec/pixel with this setup. Problem is that you would want the star spread over several pixels, wouldn't you? As opposed to alignment, where I use 4x4 bining to make it fast, and just a few secs exposure time.

I do not focus in Ha anymore, I have Ha loced to Lum in the filter dialog/window, and an offest of 97 ticks, measured as a mean over 25 focus attempts on a mag 2 star.

Magnus
4 years 2 days ago #51203

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 278
  • Thank you received: 17

Replied by S on topic For those with focus issues


The galaxy image shown above is ~40 minutes of exposure and does not show that many stars in the field. Downscale the exposure to 1-10s and you only get a handful of stars showing up. The focal length is 1320 mm and chip is ICX285AL, so FOV is 0.39 deg. x 0.29 deg, which limits the number of stars in the field.
I'll try 2x2 binning to see if it helps.
4 years 2 days ago #51205

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
I see--I do not have experience with longer focal lengths. You may be right about that. Can you up your gain as well (of course, don't clip too many stars, though).

Here's a recent sub of mine (240s blue filter 1x1 binning gain 75 bortle 5 skies) uploaded to astrometry.net for the Sunflower Galaxy: nova.astrometry.net/user_images/3492359#original (hasn't finished yet, as I write this).
This is the full resolution from the ASI1600mm pro and my refractor, and the pixel scale should be about 1.34 arcsec/pixel

I understand your argument against 2x2, I thought the same, but honestly a friend recommended it and I found he was right, it worked for me. Try it!

I think it's important to get a reasonable exposure for focus, hence the gain 200 and binning 2x2 (of course, I could use longer exposures, but that increases the time for AF, and this tradeoff seemed to work for my setup).

I focus in Ha and it works fine for me. I really think the key is getting a lot of stars to average the HFR over. Even if you can't get 70 like I do for the wide field, if you can get 20, you may find an improvement.

I was tempted originally to try and write a better star-detector/hfr-calculator, but then I realized Jasem had put in a scheme (SEP) that had been worked on for years by the pros, so I figured that was something I wasn't going to improve upon.
4 years 2 days ago #51206

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1029
  • Thank you received: 301

Replied by Eric on topic Re:For those with focus issues

If you are using the Scheduler, and you image an area which has no, nearly no or actually fake stars, you need to change your workflow.

Add a first target as observation, where you know you can run a reliable focus. Enable the focus step, and add a short dummy capture sequence (you will trash its result). This will be your focus stage.

Then add your object as second target. Make sure you do not tick focus, and make sure the associated capture sequence does not trigger a refocus. Configure it so its total duration is shorter than the delay you want to between each refocus.

Then arrange your observation session to have focus, observation, focus, observation, etc. This makes your focus workflow independent. Just make sure your focus target is always visible during observation :)

You can use the same idea when unable to align on an object because of the lack of stars. Use a dummy intermediate job to approach and sync your mount, and untick align from your observation job.

-Eric
4 years 2 days ago #51213

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 643
  • Thank you received: 62
Hi!

What is your reasoning here? Why not 0% 80%? The 80% makes intuitively sense, due to vignetting etc, but why avoid the center? Or do I misunderstand it (I'm good at misunderstanding things here)

Magnus
4 years 2 days ago #51218

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 348
  • Thank you received: 69

Replied by Giles on topic For those with focus issues


I had the same thoughts as you, I guess it might depend on your target, if you have a bright small galaxy at the centre of your field of view then it might cause star detection issues. So when dooing nebulous images I have been setting 0% - 75% for my focusing (although still manually focusing in and out and just using it as a tool rather than autofocus).
4 years 2 days ago #51220

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1208
  • Thank you received: 559
Yes, that's it, not absolutely necessary to avoid the center/typical target area, but if you can get plenty of stars elsewhere then why not. If you're starved for stars then see if it works fine including it. I guess removing the edges would be avoiding areas that can have more coma, which might adding noise to the hfr values.

I just images m95/m96 where the galaxies weren't centered but I didn't change the annulus, and had no issues, so it's just something to make things run more automatically, that I've adopted from others, and I've seen bad star detections, eg in the center of m31, but the averaging and outlier removal would likely have avoided issues.
4 years 2 days ago #51221

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Posts: 1009
  • Thank you received: 133
Two things coming to my mind reading this:
  1. Star detection
  2. As Hy says, use SEP. It's what sextractor uses. And I wonder if results would get better if you switch the camera to 8bit. PHD2 seems to perform (for me) substantially better in 8bit mode.
  3. star field area
  4. One other reason to use a ring is a (possible) field curvature. For 1-star focus a suggestion also is to use a star half or 2/3rd away from center, then both center and rim would still be in the depth-of-focus range...
4 years 2 days ago #51223

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 1.225 seconds