After a long hiatus with no sunspots, there is one at last.

Battling against a lot of cloud, I managed to get a few seconds of precious video in (about the only) clear spot there was and processed it to get the image below.

The photo suggests that my Quark is not quite flat to the image plain – I am not sure if this is the focuser or the Quark etalon itself – I do have a tilt adapter but today was set to 0 degrees.

Can anyone tell me which from the photo?

• ZWO ASI 174 MM camera
• Best 183 frames of 960
• Sky Watcher Equinox Pro 100mm OTA
• HEQ5 Pro mount
• Stacked in AS!3
• Deconvolusion in PixInsight
• Final processing in Photoshop CS6

Andy

ZWO ASI 174MM camera

• Sky Watcher Equinox Pro 100mm OTA
• Daystar Quark Calcium H filter
• 1.9GB video file
• Best 89 frames stackded in AS3
• Processed in Photoshop CS6
• Lichfield

Andy

I then ran the above image through PixInisght’s deconvolusion routine to produce following. Which do you prefer? Let me know!

Photos taken in Lichfield, UK, 19/7/2020 @ 12:47pm.

• Sky Watcher Equinox 100mm OTA
• HEQ5 Pro mount
• ZWO ASI 174MM camera
• 30 frames per second.
• Stacked in AS3
• Deconvolusion in PixInsight
• Colourisation in Photoshop CS6.

Andy

Do you think the image created from 39 frames or 166 frames is better? Although more frames potentially could give more detail it also can potentially add more blur as using lower quality images in the stack.

Best 39 frames out of 1039:

Best 166 frames out of 1039:

• Sky Watcher Equinox 100mm OTA
• HEQ5 Pro mount
• ZWO ASI 174MM camera
• Best 39 frames of about 800
• Stacked in AS3
• Deconvolusion in PixInsight
• Colourisation in Photoshop CS6.

Andy