Might be a software or it might be a hardware question

[Casper15]

Hi.

I'm doing research for my first real telescope. I'm leaning toward the CPC1100hd. Mostly because of the ease of setup, and the intention of getting into astrophotography. I've read that with hyperstar the exposures are short enough to avoid field rotation, so that not even a wedge, let alone a GEM, is necessary.

But if I take a bunch of exposures over an evening, won't the exposures show rotation when they are stacked later on?

Does the software allow you to correct for this? I understand that each individual exposure won't show field rotation, but it seems logical that with a fork mount without a wedge the exposures taken later on will not be oriented exactly the same. I'm new to all of this please forgive me if my terminology is incorrect.

I like the concept of OSC with hyperstar, but I understand that many images are required to be stacked to make the final image. This is probably a dumb question but I'll risk it. Can you just copy the same exposure many times and stack those or do you take many hopefully indentical exposures?

Thanks for not laughing. At least I won't know if you are laughing.

Thanks in advance

[Casper15]

Sorry for the duplicate. My computer froze and I was unaware it posted.

[steppenwolf]

But if I take a bunch of exposures over an evening, won't the exposures show rotation when they are stacked later on?

Yes they will show field rotation over the course of an imaging session.

Can you just copy the same exposure many times and stack those or do you take many hopefully indentical exposures?

Sadly not!  Stacking only works because each image is different.

[ollypenrice]

Hi.

I'm doing research for my first real telescope. I'm leaning toward the CPC1100hd. Mostly because of the ease of setup, and the intention of getting into astrophotography. I've read that with hyperstar the exposures are short enough to avoid field rotation, so that not even a wedge, let alone a GEM, is necessary.

Thanks in advance

You read this in the adverts, I suspect. Did the adverts discuss the phenomenal difficulty of finding and maintaing focus in a system with such a steep light cone? Or the ability of filters to handle it? Or how to manage the cables in front of the objective? Hmmm, they do tend to skim over these things.

Deep sky imagers are not stupid and if the Hyperstar were the obvious and easy choice you would see little else being used by those posting on the forums. In fact this is far from being the case. I'm not anti-Hyperstar, I'm anti-Hyperstar marketing. There is no perfect imaging system and the Hyperstar has its place in the pantheon but it is not the easiest system, to use, it is one of the hardest. I'm deeply wedded to imaging at this kind of focal length with my colleague Tom O'Donoghue but we don't use a Hyperstar. We use refractors.

Olly

[Casper15]

Thanks for the replies. Yes, much of what I've "learned" is from reviews that are often biased. Sounds like I need considerably more education.

Thanks again

Barry

[Pompey Monkey]

Thanks for the replies. Yes, much of what I've "learned" is from reviews that are often biased. Sounds like I need considerably more education.

Thanks again

Barry

So do we all, all the time! It never stops.

Although admittedly I am a lot further on the left of the curve than the gurus here!