To Hyperstar or not to Hyperstar....

[joecoyle]

Hi

Whilst reading around on here, and viewing Astrobin photos, I came across this gadget/ tech called "Hyperstar" which will apparently turn my f/10 6SE into an all-singing all-dancing lightning fast f/2 scope. That way I wouldn't need to buy myself a reflector and guide cam etc...

Is the advert on youtube really true? Is it a case of swap out the secondary mirror and stick the Hyperstar lens in and Bob's your uncle?

Or are there hidden challenges when it comes to imaging with Hyperstar?

Their website says its perfect for beginners like me and gets rid of auto guiding and guidescopes and hassle, and I will take awesome images on night 1.

I'm planning to buy an Atik 414ex either mono or OSC anyway whichever imaging route I go down.

Hyperstar recommend OSC plus light poll filter

Any other method suggests mono.

Has anyone got a Hyperstar and willing to share their experience (both good and bad!) with me? 

Thanks

Joe

[Feral Rabbit]

Was thinking about going this route, when funds allow (it is mighty expensive for the HyperStar unit). As with all AP things are never as straightforward as companies like to make them.

Linky

Nice blog here if you do get one and he has given some great tips to avoid pitfalls/problems just to make things a little easier.

Regards

 

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Interesting link above thanks. Some great images in the gallery there but I notice the author says it took them a year to consistently get good results and that it takes them 20 minutes to collimate for each imaging session.

[laudropb]

Very interesting post from feral rabbit . As usual, nothing is ever as simple as manufactures would have us believe.

[Davey-T]

Looked into this and as said it's not as simple as it seems, reading other folks experiences it appeared very fiddley to set up and focus, then there was the filter conundrum so decided it was a very expensive experiment if it all went pear shaped.

Others with more patience than me no doubt get along fine with it.

Dave

PS: not sure that the same camera would suit "both ends" of the scope, need to work out that arc sec's/pixels/ FOV thingy

[ollypenrice]

Quite honestly, if the Hyperstar 'just did' what it says on the tin nobody would use anything else. In fact it is not a very popular choice, though.

The focal depth is absurdly shallow, requiring ultra fine focus and extreme orthogonality. But the standard focuser is rather crude. Note that for the European market Celestron specify a Feathertouch upgrade for the slightly slower RASA.

Collimation is difficult and only possible through the camera.

Filters may be working outside their design specification.

What do you do with cables? You can attach them to a false spider to get symmetrical Newtonian-style spikes - but at these focal lengths you need to know you want them. I know I don't.

DSLRs will overlap the central obstruction and create assymmetrical spikes.

Many Hyperstar owners stop them down to make life easier and get better 'real world' results.

And finally, look very carefully at Hyperstar images. How good are they really? Look at the stars. Compare them with those of apochromatic refractos of similar focal length. (Narrowband is less demanding on stars so look at natural colour images.) I know what I think in answer to this. I think I'll keep my apo refractors.

Please note, I'm not knocking the Hyperstar, which has its place, but I certainly am knocking the hype. To believe some of the vendors you'd also need to believe in fairies.

Olly

[joecoyle]

Thanks guys. Probably will steer clear of hyperstar then for now.

Next question is colour or mono CCD?

I know you'll all say mono, but for the beginner, is colour better?

Do CCDs hold their value? So I could sell the colour and upgrade to mono in a few years ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Davey-T]

If you're happy with colour then you're better off starting out with  Canon DSLR anything later than a 450d will do.

Not much point buying a colour CCD, it saves buying , filter wheel and filters but probably a false economy.

Mono CCDs hold there prices pretty well and most astro stuff is easily resold.

Dave

[joecoyle]

What I have at the moment is an EOS 100D. Is that 'better' than the 450D? Certainly seems to take a great image (for a beginner).

Here's my astrobin (couple of likes already ) :

Cheers

Joe

[joecoyle]

Later* not better. 

[laser_jock99]

If you really need superfast optics then a Boren-Simon PowerNewt is a slightly less twitchy option than Hyperstar scopes, though collimation and orthoganallity remain fairly critical. It doesn't take me 20 minutes to collimate my F2.9 scopes, probably just a few minutes.

The main advantage is the camera is off to one side making cabling, camera choice, filter wheels etc. a non-issue.

[Davey-T]

No point buying another DSLR , are you planning on using the 414EX on your Nexstar, are you aware it will be a small FOV  about a quarter that of your DSLR.

Dave

[ollypenrice]

I see no reason to recommend one shot colour to beginners and I spend a fair amount of time teaching newcomers to AP. You may assume that OSC must be easier and in some ways it is but in others it isn't. I've used both fairly extensively. If you want an excellent image I think it is significantly easier, and significantly faster, to use mono. For example, faint emission nebulae take forever if you don't use an Ha layer and, having taken forever, they will still lack structure and contrast. Taking Ha on just a quarter of your pixels, which is what happens with an OSC camera and Ha filter, cannot be a good idea for obvious reasons. Mono also opens up moonlit nights for imaging so you have more opportunities for capture. If mono brings in a small number of extra steps it also brings in a nice breaking down of the processing workflow into discrete and logical steps. 

Olly

[swag72]

Next question is colour or mono CCD?

I know you'll all say mono, but for the beginner, is colour better?

I would say a resounding MONO....... here's my thoughts on it.

I've used mono for a few years now and have recently borrowed a friends colour camera. The processing itself isn't as difficult as I remember from a previous foray into OSC, but .......... I have found that you need A LOT of data to make life easier in the processing stage.

Here's another thing ......... OSC actually seems quicker....... I say seems as I just get the thing running and wake up in the morning to x number of subs. The calibration and stacking is easy enough and is quicker compared to mono as you are only doing it once . In mono you are doing it at least 4 times (L, R, G, and B ) - I know that it is only an appearance of speed..... It really is and I'm hoping to do a direct comparison between some mono and OSC data soon.

When I borrowed this camera I really wanted to like the OSC - I was in two minds about buying a OSC to compliment the mono and take the colour in the OSC and the luminance in mono.... but ........ I've really not found it as good as I was hoping. When the moon is out then the thing is nigh on redundant.

Have a look at this ................ This is every 5th sub from an imaging run when there was about 3/4's moon. As you can see, for the first considerable number of subs the data was so so washed out that there was little or no point in capturing it. I just wanted to do this for my own peace of mind that I wasn't missing a trick after all.

Processing wasn't too difficult, but I found mono much more versatile and easier to process. 

From me now, having used the OSC for almost a month I would definitely say mono more than ever. This is not a flash in the pan thought, but one now formed from living with and using a OSC solely for almost a month. Now they clearly have their following....... but it's certainly not in my stable.

I hope that you found these ramblings remotely useful!

[Feral Rabbit]

If you have the money then by all means throw it at what is going to be the best for you in the long run. But it is a deep pit to slide into and your pockets will have to be just as deep.

Most on here that use mono say it is the way to go and I have no reason to argue against this. In fact when I have the money I will go this way. Camera, filter, filter wheel.... It all starts to mount up in cost though.

If you don't have the money then use what you've got to the maximum of the equipment and your ability. People say that DSLR's are not the best for many types of AP, and they're not, but they can take very respectable images of many DSO's/solar objects. You just need to pick those objects that are suitable for your equipment for the night you are photographing. Just look at what a lot of guys on here post with their modest equipment (cheap, unmodded dslr's, 10 year old self modified web cams etc) . I would be more than happy with many of the results posted here.

It is a minefield and advice is free but try using what you have, get advice re the equipment you are using and go from there. If you do have deep pockets that's great (I'll only be a little jealous   as I could spend another small fortune  )

Not trying to put you off just trying to get you to maximise what you have and think about which way you want to go in AP

Regards

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Mono is clearly technically superior but I do wonder if there is a bit more of an argument for OSC in dodgy UK weather, where imaging runs are frequently interrupted. At least when my runs are cut short I can still produce a colour image, although getting decent star colours can be a real pain without enough data.

Adding narrowband filters to a mono setup would more than compensate for this issue though as it makes imaging practical when the Moon is up.

[Davey-T]

There are some targets perfectly suitable to creating a nice image using OSC , there are even a few by a certain O Penrice lurking around the net 

There are also some targets that would be a complete waste of time imaging with OSC, so you pays your money and takes your pick.

Dave

[joecoyle]

I think Im going down the mono route based on your friendly / helpful advice.

Now, this is probably a separate topic in itself, but: RGB filters or LRGB©

FLO sell Baader RGB filters for like £75, LRGB for £210 and LRGBC for £240. So clearly the LRGBC are a valuable addition (matched to NB), but do i need to start imaging with a Luminance filter? or will the £75 RGB get me started?

Cheers

J

[swag72]

I have the LRGB Baader filters - But these days I don't use the luminance filter and have replaced it with a Hutech IDAS P2 Light pollution filter. So I have that capturing the 'luminance' data and the Baader's doing the RGB.

[Davey-T]

If you're working in lots of light pollution may as well go straight to narrow band, more expensive filters but you can play around creating false colour images of various hues.

Dave

[joecoyle]

Manchester counts as only slightly light polluted right?

Being 3 miles from the airport doesn't help!! Planes flying left right and centre.

I'm currently in a battle with Dad about false colour imaging -- he wants natural "what the eye can see" and I want narrowband. So we may have to get both!!

Joe

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Davey-T]

Non of it is "natural" you can colour it anything you wan't.

Dave

[ollypenrice]

Non of it is "natural" you can colour it anything you wan't.

Dave

I can't agree. NB imaging is false colour and you can map any filter to any colour channel. In natural colour imaging you map red to red, green to green and blue to blue. You don't make up the result! 

From close to the airport natural colour imaging will be incredibly difficult. However, if you map Ha to red and O111 to green and blue you can apporoximate the natural colour of emission nebulae. Or you can produce excellent monochrome images.

Olly

[ollypenrice]

There are some targets perfectly suitable to creating a nice image using OSC , there are even a few by a certain O Penrice lurking around the net 

There are also some targets that would be a complete waste of time imaging with OSC, so you pays your money and takes your pick.

Dave

Not that many, in fact! Most of my OSC data from an Atik 4000 was used in conjunction with Ha from the sister camera. Here are examples.

...and my standard demo of the importance of Ha. On the left, without it. On the right, with it.

I've posted very few pure OSC images. While I used to have a dual OSC/mono setup I now have a dual mono. 

Regarding the frustration of not completing a colour set, I can fully understand that. However, if your rig is parfocal or you have robotic focus then you can scroll RGB RGB RGB etc. This is what I do. (In fact I go RGB on one half of the tandem and BGR on the other. Belt and braces!)

Olly

[Owmuchonomy]

Some great advice on here as usual. I love the debates but 18 months into sporadic imaging and I am nowhere near exhausting the potential of my DSLR. Once I feel I have done that I will move to mono CCD (if Solar doesn't take over which I must admit it might do). For me the challenge still remains to produce images I enjoy and that takes enough effort with my current kit. Some DSLR images on my link below. Good luck whatever you decide to do.