Integration Looks Bad....Any Ideas On Whats Gone Wrong?

[GeneralT001]

I wanted opinions on the look of this integration. To me it looks very "canvass like" and I am not sure if it should look like this.
 
The integration is 47 x 180s Ha. I'm just trying out the ASI1600 pro. I dithered every 2nd frame - Very High Dither.
 
The integration is - without ?- any calibration, just the subs registered to each other and integrated. Would doing the calibration (bias/dark/flat) change the "texture" of the integration?:

All I did was register the subs (I tried 3 different Interpolations and they all turned out like this) and do a LocalNormalization for the Integration. Although I did do one Integration without Local Normalization just to see if that made a difference....it didn't.

Here is a link to the subs and the integration if anyone wants to look:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dma84hhu9m15hyt/AAAzwySVO5ZHoMPhdShzq9XTa?dl=0

[pfile]

seems like this camera might be an OSC? i can't tell for sure, but it looks like it has a CFA pattern.

rob

[GeneralT001]

Hi Rob,

It is mono and the integration is a Ha NB image. I think my only issue I have to calibrate it to get to look normal.

[chris.bailey]

I find with my CMOS cameras that careful calibration is a must, more so than with a CCD, or this sort of fixed pattern noise bleeds through. I also find that CMOS Darks don't optimise too well so same duration and temperature and turn off optimisation in calibration. At that focal length I am also guessing you are operating at quite a slow focal ratio so 3 minute subs in Ha is on the short side. Crazy as it sounds, 47 x 3 minutes is also on the lower end for Ha. You still have only just over 2 hours of integration time. I aim for 100+ of that sort of duration and that is at f5. I have done a couple of targets with 180 dithered subs and the results are very noise free.

Chris

[pfile]

yeah i saw the thread on CN... i have zero experience with these CMOS cameras. i guess the QE between pixels is radically different?

rob