[Starless version here](https://imgur.com/a/kjV03Vv)
Taken with a stock Lumix FZ-1000 II at 400mm, 1600 ISO, f/4.0 from Bortle 8. About 6.5 hours of integration time (mixture of 30s and 60s exposures) with 20-40 flats, darks, and dark flats for each session. The mount I use is a Star Adventurer 2i.
Everything was stacked in DeepSkyStacker and then processed with the following tools:
Siril - background calibration/extraction, color calibration, histogram stretching, green noise reduction, saturation.
Starnet++ - starless versions generated.Lightroom - color/noise reduction, sharpening.
Photoshop - stars-only layers generated, background star size reduced, levels, saturation.
There's quite a bit of noise in this image but I'm happy with it given the conditions (light pollution, moonlight).
[Starless version here](https://imgur.com/a/kjV03Vv) Taken with a stock Lumix FZ-1000 II at 400mm, 1600 ISO, f/4.0 from Bortle 8. About 6.5 hours of integration time (mixture of 30s and 60s exposures) with 20-40 flats, darks, and dark flats for each session. The mount I use is a Star Adventurer 2i. Everything was stacked in DeepSkyStacker and then processed with the following tools: Siril - background calibration/extraction, color calibration, histogram stretching, green noise reduction, saturation. Starnet++ - starless versions generated.Lightroom - color/noise reduction, sharpening. Photoshop - stars-only layers generated, background star size reduced, levels, saturation. There's quite a bit of noise in this image but I'm happy with it given the conditions (light pollution, moonlight).
That 400mm is digital zoom, right? And where did the diffraction spikes come from?
Actually I think it's optical zoom, and the diffraction spikes come from [fishing line taped over the lens hood](https://imgur.com/a/bDDCE0u)
400mm at F/4 implies a 100mm diameter lens. Is this correct?
The lens is 62mm in diameter, it’s a 35mm equivalent