Astrophotography diagnosis of M 27: Backfocus error

RawL120s28 oct. 2026

The Doc examined this image of M 27 (raw, L, 120s). Estimated overall technical quality: 6/10. 1 defect found: Backfocus error (severity 3/5).

Annotated image
Click to zoom

Info

Cible
M 27
Date
28 oct. 2026, 20:42
Lune
Croissant croissant 10.3% (26.3° d'alt., 111.2° de la cible)
Site
Bortle 4 · transition rural/banlieue (VIIRS)
Position
19h59m39s · +22°44'10"

Favorable conditions. The stated Bortle 4 gives a moderate sky background and the histogram confirms it: median 0.02, dark clipping 0.01 %, no background saturation. On the Moon side, the measured context shows a 10.3 % illuminated crescent, 26.3° above the horizon and above all 111.2° away from the target: at that separation and illumination, lunar contribution is negligible, no moon gradient is expected nor observed. M 27 is a bright planetary nebula, perfectly compatible with this sky in luminance. Use nights like this for luminance and save high-Moon nights for narrowband.

- the Doc

Setup

Type d'image
Brut
Télescope
Celestron C11 2800@F\10.0
Caméra
PlayerOne CCD Poseidon-M PRO
Filtre
L
Exposition
120s
Phase de lune
Gibbeuse décroissante (91 %)
FOV
45.8'

Setup is sound in principle, but demanding. With 1764 mm and 3.76 µm pixels you sample at 0.44"/px: heavily oversampled, well below the comfortable 1 to 2"/px range under typical seeing. The 8.1 px central FWHM corresponds to roughly 3.6", honest in absolute terms, but it means the signal is spread over many pixels. A 2x bin in processing would gain signal to noise with no real loss of detail. The 0.76° field frames M 27 comfortably. On settings, gain 125 and offset 30 are healthy, no dark clipping, sensor temperature at -10 °C is fine. The background to black point margin of 4.17 is a little tight: in luminance you can stay at 120 s and make up for it with sub count.

- the Doc

The diagnosis in detail

The diagnosis comes down to one axis: field geometry. The Moffat measurements are very readable, the center sits at the field floor (elong 1.05, FWHM 8.1/7.7 px) and the mid edges stay reasonable (B 8.0, R 8.5), while all four corners rise together between 11.1 and 14.0 px with elongations of 1.31 to 1.50. This symmetric radial progression, with no corner staying pinpoint, points to field curvature or a mis-set backfocus rather than sensor tilt.

Everything else is healthy. No elongation at the center betrays a tracking or guiding issue, which is notable on a 120 s exposure at 1764 mm: the mount is doing its job. The 25.9° PA dispersion confirms the absence of a common stretch direction, so no drift and no periodic error. The PSF panel validates the measurement: the cyan ellipses fit the stars well, including in the corners.

The sky background does not lend itself to a reliable instrumental measurement since the object occupies the center, and nothing in the preview suggests a calibration artifact. As this is a single uncalibrated sub, the calibration, color and processing axes are not assessable at this stage.

Priority actions

  1. Correct the optical train spacing to bring corner FWHM down to center level, testing in 1 to 2 mm steps
  2. Consider a field corrector or flattener suited to the C11 if the full frame sensor stays in use
  3. Bin 2x in processing to recover signal to noise at a 0.44"/px sampling