Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Do more frames actually reduce noise?

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 17 September 2021 - 12:01 PM

For various reasons, I've been using ISO 1600 for most of my imaging.  Long story short:  not-so-great tracking limiting me to shorter exposures (maximum 30 seconds).  As a result, my images are rather noisy, and it's a challenge to reduce that noise while retaining image details.

 

The short answer to this is probably "No kidding.  That's why you should use a lower ISO."  Sure, I've love to.  At ISO 100, my Nikon D7000 produces fine images, limited mostly by what lens I'm using.  And yes, I probably need a better mount.

 

I get that adding frames is intended to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.  But how much effect does simply adding frames have on noise?  Or is that primarily a function of increasing signal, and not so much at reducing noise?  And will using a lower ISO actually reduce this noise?

 

By way of illustration, noise is somewhat reduced at higher frame counts, but not really that much:

 

Crop of a single frame of M31 at 30s, f/5.6, ISO 1600, 18-140mm zoom lens set at 140mm, brightness increased just to show noise:

 

Messier 31, single frame, cropped section

 

30 frames at the same settings, Siril for stacking, photometric color calibration, and automatic histogram adjustment (no other modifications):

 

Messier 31, 30 frames, cropped section

 

202 frames at the same settings, Siril for stacking, photometric color calibration, and automatic histogram adjustment (no other modifications):

 

Messier 31, 202 frames, cropped section
 
Even my stack of over 200 frames is still pretty noisy.

 

I know these images are not terribly sharp, but that's more a function of using my less-than-premium zoom lens rather than a nicer fixed focal length.  I guess I'm just curious as to whether this residual noise is to be expected at ISO 1600, and whether using lower ISO and/or more frames will actually reduce it.

 

Thanks for any insights!



#2 qswat72

qswat72

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 414
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2020

Posted 17 September 2021 - 12:09 PM

Are you dithering your images? I find it to be one of the single best ways to reduce noise. It won’t completely eliminate it on a DSLR, but it’ll certainly produce cleaner images.

#3 maadscientist

maadscientist

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,064
  • Joined: 08 May 2013
  • Loc: Atlanta, Georgia and Deerlick Astronomy Village

Posted 17 September 2021 - 12:40 PM

You need to take darks at your ISO 1600, 30 second exposures. Put your lens cap on and take 5-10 before you start, 5-10 in the middle of your shooting, and 5-10 at the end after you are done exposing lights.



#4 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 17 September 2021 - 12:47 PM

Are you dithering your images? I find it to be one of the single best ways to reduce noise. It won’t completely eliminate it on a DSLR, but it’ll certainly produce cleaner images.

I am "dithering" in the sense of taking one shot at a time and very slightly tweaking both right ascension and declination.  In fact, I have to tweak RA to re-engage the worm gear, or else I'll get a bad second shot if I don't.  It's very painstaking, yes, but it works often enough.  I actually don't see much walking noise, or at least it's not my biggest problem.



#5 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 17 September 2021 - 12:50 PM

You need to take darks at your ISO 1600, 30 second exposures. Put your lens cap on and take 5-10 before you start, 5-10 in the middle of your shooting, and 5-10 at the end after you are done exposing lights.

I did not mention it, but my stacking does use 30 darks and 30 flats, with the flats made using 30 bias frames.  My flats could definitely use improvement, of course.  It's a surprisingly difficult thing to get really good flats.

 

Edit:  But I've been taking darks and biases at the end of my sessions.  Your point about spreading them out at intervals is a really interesting one!


Edited by EPinNC, 17 September 2021 - 12:52 PM.


#6 DJL

DJL

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 948
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2020

Posted 17 September 2021 - 02:19 PM

De noising is a step in post processing. Photoshop can remove color noise separately from luminance noise. Obviously it’s good to minimise noise in capture but you can definitely improve the results a bit.



#7 galacticinsomnia

galacticinsomnia

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,668
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2020
  • Loc: Pacific Northwest - Oregon

Posted 17 September 2021 - 03:09 PM

Keep shooting.  In many cases noise is overcome by usable signal.  The object is to capture more data that is there instead of random data that is generated by the gear and post work.

I'm regularly shooting ISO1600, 3200, 6400, on a canon M, and can tell you absolutely, the more exposures you can provide the cleaner the image will be.

I do not use calibration frames as a typical practice. 

If it were me, I'd capture 1/3 to 1/2 of the histo for setting my exposure. 
Just shot this target again and using DSS live stack, you can see in real time how as each image is added and stacked how much cleaner the image looks.

I think I took 5 hours of Andromeda the other day, and ran DSS Live stack to view the output as captured.
2min Exposures at ISO800 because the neighbor had their light on. 

Clear Skies !!



#8 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 17 September 2021 - 03:36 PM

De noising is a step in post processing. Photoshop can remove color noise separately from luminance noise. Obviously it’s good to minimise noise in capture but you can definitely improve the results a bit.

I did (and almost always do) some chroma and luminance noise reduction in post processing, using the G'MIC-Qt plugin for GIMP.  The result is the best I've ever gotten:

 

Messier 31 (Andromeda Galaxy)

 

but it's a bit soft.  Some of those denoising tools also blur edges a bit, so I have to tread that thin line between not enough and too much.

 

I don't know... I'm fairly happy with the result, but I just think it could be better.  (Isn't that always true?)



#9 iantaylor2uk

iantaylor2uk

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2020
  • Loc: Chester, UK

Posted 17 September 2021 - 03:55 PM

The signal to noise ratio improves as the square root of the number of frames. Compared to a single frame, the signal to noise ratio of 100 frames should be 10x better. However, to get to 20x better you would need to take 400 frames, so you do get diminishing returns.
  • vidrazor likes this

#10 robbieg147

robbieg147

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 993
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2020
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 17 September 2021 - 04:16 PM

For a 140mm zoom lens I think you have done very well, I don't use Nikon's but I think your ISO is too high?

 

When you use Photoshop or whatever program you use for the final changes set up a mask when reducing noise to protect the detail in the galaxy.

 

Don't worry about sub length 30 seconds is ok, but just get as many as you can. Try the trial version of AstroPixelProcessor!


  • EPinNC likes this

#11 KlausKlaus

KlausKlaus

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2020

Posted 17 September 2021 - 04:52 PM

Try ISO 200 (cf. https://astrophotogr....app/nikon.php)



#12 sharkmelley

sharkmelley

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,871
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: UK

Posted 17 September 2021 - 05:02 PM

Regarding calibration with darks, the Nikon D7000 has 2 problems:

  • Darks suffer from clipping to zero because the D7000 has a bias of 0
  • Darks and lights suffer from raw data filtering which cannot be disabled. 

Both these problems make calibration with darks less effective.

 

One possible solution is to install the NikonHacker firmware hack for the D7000.

 

Mark


  • H-Alfa likes this

#13 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 17 September 2021 - 06:23 PM

The signal to noise ratio improves as the square root of the number of frames. Compared to a single frame, the signal to noise ratio of 100 frames should be 10x better. However, to get to 20x better you would need to take 400 frames, so you do get diminishing returns.

Ah yes, the "diminishing returns" issue...  A good thing to keep in mind.  I think this is what puzzled me -- why 200 frames was not really that much better than 30 frames.  I've seen it written that total integration time is really what's important, but it might be debatable beyond a certain point.



#14 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 17 September 2021 - 06:28 PM

Following that link, I see that that table seems to be derived from data collated by DSLR Astrophotography , with Nikon-specific data here.  The charts given specify "Dynamic Range" on the Y-axis and not some simple expression of "noise."  I'm still at the stage of being a bit overwhelmed by the technical discussion, but this is very interesting nonetheless.  I will do some reading and pondering.  Thank you!



#15 vidrazor

vidrazor

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,493
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2017
  • Loc: North Bergen, NJ

Posted 17 September 2021 - 06:45 PM

Well, you ARE getting a reduction in noise, perhaps you're not really noticing it. Look at your two examples side-by-side. You have both color and luminosity noise. Now look at your 202 frames with a subtle application of color noise reduction in Adobe Camera Raw (you can find similar tools in GIMP and Affinity Photo). Look better? So you do get an improvement with more subs, however it will require additional work to make it better. You will also need to luminosity noise reduction, and that will need to be judiciously used.

 

Shooting M31 doesn't really require you to use that high an ISO, you can probably back it off a stop to 800. Slow, careful stretching will extract dimmer data.

Attached Thumbnails

  • noise.jpg

  • EPinNC likes this

#16 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 17 September 2021 - 06:45 PM

Regarding calibration with darks, the Nikon D7000 has 2 problems:

  • Darks suffer from clipping to zero because the D7000 has a bias of 0
  • Darks and lights suffer from raw data filtering which cannot be disabled. 

Both these problems make calibration with darks less effective.

 

One possible solution is to install the NikonHacker firmware hack for the D7000.

 

Mark

Assuming I understand correctly (a big assumption), I wonder if this might explain why I still see artifacts even after applying my calibration frames.  In particular, a pinkish fringe around some of the image margins, as shown in the attached image based on 30 frames.  Again, this was after applying dark frames.  I assume this is noise generated by electronic devices around the periphery of the sensor.  There's a term for that... ?  (The dark spot was a bit of dust on the sensor, wholly uninvited and unfortunately placed.)

Attached Thumbnails

  • r_pp_Messier-31-30s-f5.6-iso1600-140mm-30frames_stacked-pcc-histauto.jpg


#17 vidrazor

vidrazor

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,493
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2017
  • Loc: North Bergen, NJ

Posted 17 September 2021 - 08:32 PM

Assuming I understand correctly (a big assumption), I wonder if this might explain why I still see artifacts even after applying my calibration frames.  In particular, a pinkish fringe around some of the image margins, as shown in the attached image based on 30 frames.  Again, this was after applying dark frames.  I assume this is noise generated by electronic devices around the periphery of the sensor.  There's a term for that... ?  (The dark spot was a bit of dust on the sensor, wholly uninvited and unfortunately placed.)

Did you use a light pollution filter? They can add dichroic color shifts.

 

BTW, I realized I had also add a mild luminosity noise reduction as well on the processed image above, 15 pixel radius on both color and luminosity, rather mild, but just cuts the edge...

...and here is another reason why you should shoot at ISO 800. wink.gif
 

Attached Thumbnails

  • d7000.jpg

Edited by vidrazor, 17 September 2021 - 08:44 PM.


#18 maadscientist

maadscientist

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,064
  • Joined: 08 May 2013
  • Loc: Atlanta, Georgia and Deerlick Astronomy Village

Posted 17 September 2021 - 08:49 PM

Regarding calibration with darks, the Nikon D7000 has 2 problems:

  • Darks suffer from clipping to zero because the D7000 has a bias of 0
  • Darks and lights suffer from raw data filtering which cannot be disabled. 

Both these problems make calibration with darks less effective.

 

One possible solution is to install the NikonHacker firmware hack for the D7000.

 

Mark

Hey Mark! I completely forgot about this on the D7000....it's one of those Oh it's THAT camera memories. You are dead bang correct.

 

Dan 



#19 sharkmelley

sharkmelley

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,871
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2013
  • Loc: UK

Posted 18 September 2021 - 12:32 AM

Assuming I understand correctly (a big assumption), I wonder if this might explain why I still see artifacts even after applying my calibration frames.  In particular, a pinkish fringe around some of the image margins, as shown in the attached image based on 30 frames.  Again, this was after applying dark frames.  I assume this is noise generated by electronic devices around the periphery of the sensor.  There's a term for that... ?  (The dark spot was a bit of dust on the sensor, wholly uninvited and unfortunately placed.)

The amp glow in the corners is difficult to calibrate for a different reason.  It tends to get worse over the course of an imaging session so it's difficult to calibrate it out accurately.

 

Mark



#20 robbieg147

robbieg147

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 993
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2020
  • Loc: Kent, England

Posted 18 September 2021 - 04:21 AM

Ah yes, the "diminishing returns" issue...  A good thing to keep in mind.  I think this is what puzzled me -- why 200 frames was not really that much better than 30 frames.  I've seen it written that total integration time is really what's important, but it might be debatable beyond a certain point.

I would expect 200 frames to be quite a bit better than 30 frames the SNR should be around 3 times better, but with shortish subs its the read noise of the camera that's important, as this is added into each sub.

 

I agree with you that diminishing returns does set in but not at 30 x 30secs, if I had say three hours available I would use it all on one target. How you break the time down into subs to me is not that important I favour short subs myself.



#21 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 18 September 2021 - 08:11 AM

Thanks so much to everyone who responded!  As always, lots of useful information and perspectives here.  I'm still soaking it up.

 

The answer to my original question seems to be "In a way, yes."  Based on this discussion, the logic behind stacking multiple frames seems to be to increase signal in relation to noise.  Some types of noise become less evident with more frames, but other types may not.  In theory, some of the latter can be dealt with by calibration frames, with varying efficacy.

 

By the way, thanks to sharkmelley who reminded me of the term "amp glow."

 

Two people indicated that there is some kind of ideal ISO for my particular camera.  One source indicates 200, while another indicates 800.  Without a thorough technical understanding of how such values are derived and presented, I'll just have to experiment to see what works for me.  I may start using 800 and see how it goes.

 

Of course, different night-sky objects require different approaches.  M31 has been a real challenge for me, while globular clusters have been a real joy because they are relatively easy and spectacular.  My current project is Messier 1 (Crab Nebula).  I can see it at 24 frames (so far), but I know it's going to need a LOT more to tease out any detail at all.

 

A few people pointed out (and illustrated) that my noise level did actually decrease between 30 and 200 frames, and/or that post-processing could be used to remove the residual noise.  This is a case where my expectations exceeded reality.  I want the magic noise-be-gone button! laugh.gif   I will point out that the initial images I posted had not yet been subjected to any noise-reducing tools.  I do use luminance and chroma noise reduction tools, although I cannot say I actually understand them much beyond "that looks better."  There are several such tools in the G'MIC-Qt plugin for GIMP (e.g., Iain's various tools or wavelet smoothing).  I find that different tools have different effects and no single tool is always the best one to use.  I usually try them all to see what works.

 

Some people think that 30-second frames are OK, and the it's just a matter of getting many, many more frames.  On the other hand, I've seen many gorgeous, very low-noise, DSO images from others here based on a few dozen frames of several minutes each.  I would love to do that, but my lower-quality mount dictates shorter exposure times.  In my home territory (Bortle 7-ish), longer exposures capture too much light pollution anyway.  (And vidrazor, no, I don't have a light pollution filter.)  A better mount is the next item on my wish list.

 

A different camera is also on my horizon.  My original reason has been that the shutter count is over 86,000.  I now have another reason:  "Oh it's THAT camera" (from maadscientist).  I had suspected the D7000 is not one of the best cameras for AP.  I use it because I already had it (bought used from a friend).  It's great for terrestrial photography.

 

Again, thank you everyone for all your input!  A very active and helpful thread for a relative newcomer!



#22 DJL

DJL

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 948
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2020

Posted 18 September 2021 - 09:05 AM

I just googled “ astrobin m31 nikon d7000” - that will show you the kind of results people get with the camera, different lenses or telescopes, and exposure details.
  • EPinNC likes this

#23 EPinNC

EPinNC

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2021
  • Loc: Raleigh, NC, USA

Posted 18 September 2021 - 09:46 AM

I just googled “ astrobin m31 nikon d7000” - that will show you the kind of results people get with the camera, different lenses or telescopes, and exposure details.

Very interesting.  I did a search directly on AstroBin:

 

https://www.astrobin..._max=2021-09-18

 

Here's one that looks very similar to mine, with similar equipment (70-210mm zoom on a SW Star Adventurer Mini tracker) and exposures (15 x 30"):

 

https://www.astrobin.com/66zta6/

 

The location was Monasterio de Veruela in northeastern Spain, which is probably a rather dark site.

 

Looking through other images is quite remarkable.  Some people use high-end gear with long exposures and sophisticated processing, some with lightweight/less-expensive gear with short exposures and a light processing touch, and seemingly everything in between.

 

This illustrates well to me how complex AP is, and how so many variables are at work, not least of which is the person behind the equipment.

 

I am but a young grasshopper among Masters.


  • DJL likes this

#24 vidrazor

vidrazor

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,493
  • Joined: 31 Oct 2017
  • Loc: North Bergen, NJ

Posted 18 September 2021 - 10:06 AM

Thanks so much to everyone who responded!  As always, lots of useful information and perspectives here.  I'm still soaking it up.

 

The answer to my original question seems to be "In a way, yes."  Based on this discussion, the logic behind stacking multiple frames seems to be to increase signal in relation to noise.  Some types of noise become less evident with more frames, but other types may not.  In theory, some of the latter can be dealt with by calibration frames, with varying efficacy.

 

By the way, thanks to sharkmelley who reminded me of the term "amp glow."

 

Two people indicated that there is some kind of ideal ISO for my particular camera.  One source indicates 200, while another indicates 800.  Without a thorough technical understanding of how such values are derived and presented, I'll just have to experiment to see what works for me.  I may start using 800 and see how it goes.

 

Of course, different night-sky objects require different approaches.  M31 has been a real challenge for me, while globular clusters have been a real joy because they are relatively easy and spectacular.  My current project is Messier 1 (Crab Nebula).  I can see it at 24 frames (so far), but I know it's going to need a LOT more to tease out any detail at all.

 

A few people pointed out (and illustrated) that my noise level did actually decrease between 30 and 200 frames, and/or that post-processing could be used to remove the residual noise.  This is a case where my expectations exceeded reality.  I want the magic noise-be-gone button! laugh.gif   I will point out that the initial images I posted had not yet been subjected to any noise-reducing tools.  I do use luminance and chroma noise reduction tools, although I cannot say I actually understand them much beyond "that looks better."  There are several such tools in the G'MIC-Qt plugin for GIMP (e.g., Iain's various tools or wavelet smoothing).  I find that different tools have different effects and no single tool is always the best one to use.  I usually try them all to see what works.

 

Some people think that 30-second frames are OK, and the it's just a matter of getting many, many more frames.  On the other hand, I've seen many gorgeous, very low-noise, DSO images from others here based on a few dozen frames of several minutes each.  I would love to do that, but my lower-quality mount dictates shorter exposure times.  In my home territory (Bortle 7-ish), longer exposures capture too much light pollution anyway.  (And vidrazor, no, I don't have a light pollution filter.)  A better mount is the next item on my wish list.

 

A different camera is also on my horizon.  My original reason has been that the shutter count is over 86,000.  I now have another reason:  "Oh it's THAT camera" (from maadscientist).  I had suspected the D7000 is not one of the best cameras for AP.  I use it because I already had it (bought used from a friend).  It's great for terrestrial photography.

 

Again, thank you everyone for all your input!  A very active and helpful thread for a relative newcomer!

I wouldn't worry too much about what you camera can't do and make the best of what it can. You can shoot well with what you have, you just need to optimize the parameters. What mount are you using? If it's a SkyGuider Pro or Star Adventurer, the three most important things you can do to maximize unguided exposure times is to have a sturdy tripod, as accurate a polar alignment as you can have, and to make sure it's properly balanced at target. Many people balance the mount while in the home position, but the balance changes once the camera has been aimed at a target, so you need to re-balance the camera in it's target position, and then add an eastern bias. Adding a stone bag to the tripod, any tripod, will help to make it sturdier and more rigid. These simple optimizations can add 10-15 seconds to unguided times. Shooting at ISO 800 will not only reduce noise but run the sensor within it's normal working range, which I think will make a significant difference by itself. These small adjustments I think will improve your image quality overall.


Edited by vidrazor, 18 September 2021 - 10:09 AM.


#25 DJL

DJL

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 948
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2020

Posted 18 September 2021 - 11:43 AM

Very interesting.  I did a search directly on AstroBin:

 

https://www.astrobin..._max=2021-09-18

 

Here's one that looks very similar to mine, with similar equipment (70-210mm zoom on a SW Star Adventurer Mini tracker) and exposures (15 x 30"):

 

https://www.astrobin.com/66zta6/

 

The location was Monasterio de Veruela in northeastern Spain, which is probably a rather dark site.

 

Looking through other images is quite remarkable.  Some people use high-end gear with long exposures and sophisticated processing, some with lightweight/less-expensive gear with short exposures and a light processing touch, and seemingly everything in between.

 

This illustrates well to me how complex AP is, and how so many variables are at work, not least of which is the person behind the equipment.

 

I am but a young grasshopper among Masters.

You're on the first step of an equipment roadmap :-). I counted about 17 sessions on M31 last year, and went back to it each time I added anything new. 

 

- starting with a Star Adventurer (not mini) and unmodded DSLR, controlled by cable remote

- adding guiding on the Star Adventurer, attached to DSLR L bracket, controlled by Mac and long USB cable, PHD2 and AstroDSLR

- adding a right angle viewer for the Star Adventurer polar scope, no more limbo dancing to see through it

- moving the DSLR, guiding system and right angle viewer to an HEQ5, controlled by Asiair Pro

- adding a telescope

- adding a dedicated astro camera (ASI 071MC).

- adding an EAF which made everything I shot previously look out of focus

- at some point, choosing a DSLR clip Ha filter that I was able to convert to a 2" filter and continue using with my telescope, first with a filter drawer and later with a filter wheel. I started adding Ha to my color images. 

 

Adding the HEQ5 was a big leap. Instead of spending hours taking test shots trying to find M31, I could find it with a few clicks on the hand controller. It also enabled longer exposures and I was able to capture an M31 that looked decent.

Getting the AAP working for polar alignment and goto as well as capture has also been transformative.  

Switching to the dedicated astro camera somehow brought M31 to life with better color and less noise.

 

One issue I had this time last year was wildfire smoke. It can cover the whole USA as well as getting to Iceland and even central Europe. On one particularly bad night I captured a series of pink subs. I thought it was light pollution and got myself a light pollution filter, which didn't help. Smoke may be part of the problem here. Definitely check https://fire.airnow.gov before every session and learn to evaluate the smoke density overhead.


  • galacticinsomnia likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics