Zakalwe

Quark Chromosphere on Esprit 120 Stacked in AS4!, Sharpened in IMPPG, final processing in Photoshop.

Captured using an ASI178 mono on Lunt L60 pressure-tuned, double-stacked with Lunt L50. Mesu 200 mount. Stacked in Autostakkert 4, sharpened in ImPPG, final processing in Photoshop. Thanks for looking. https://astrob.in/jhem8b/0/ https://astrob.in/g9tpj5/0/ https://astrob.in/g9tpj5/0/

Vignetting isn't really the problem here, it's uneven lighting across the whole image. The way I do it is to centre the image on the disc so the whole field is illuminated. Then either use a bit of clingfilm across the aperture and defocus, or just defocus without any film (depends if there is cloud cover or not). Dunno if it the correct way, but I know that it seems to work for me.

Thank you. I wouldn't really describe it as fighting against challenging kit, more it's just a necessary step in the overall process. Achieving sharp focus and trying to beat the seeing (I use a 120mm Espit refractor with the Quark) are much, much more difficult than spending 2 minutes taking some flats.

I've had my moments.....

Nothing wrong with that Quark at all IMHO. I wish that mine was that flat! Solar flats are an essential piece of the imaging workflow and are very easy to create- either stretch some clingfilm over the aperture or de-focus the heck out of the image. For example, here's a flat from one of my Quarks....and this is after correction with a tilt adapter to get rid of the Newton's Rings. You'd have a conniption if you saw the image without the tilt adapter!

Get shot of the tripod and tube. Carbon fibre is very rigid *along the strands of the fibres* but can be flexible in other axis. You also need mass to damp down the vibrations. That tube, mount and counterweights represent a heck of a lot of mass and surface area, all mounted on a tipod. I would wager that a decent steel or concrete pier will get rid of a lot of your problems. You could try hanging a substantial weight directly underneath the tripod, suspended off the ground to see if more mass will help with the damping.

Have at it then. Though, once you take the central obstruction into place, a 6" SCT probably wont get that much more resolution than say a 5" 'frac.

Works fine on mine.

For H-A, a 6" ERF (essential component) costs approx £1K. More for one with a mounting bracket. Then you will need an etalon and various blocking filters. You will end up with a highly specialised system that will need a lot of knowledge to use and will require superb seeing conditions. I'd recommend starting off with a dedicated H-A scope first. https://www.widescreen-centre.co.uk/baader-d-erf-energy-rejection-filters.html https://www.altairastro.com/altair-152mm-aperture-triband-d-erf-solar-energy-rejection-filter---h-alpha-plus-cak-cah-160mm-erf-11920-p.asp With H-A viewing (or imaging) the actual scope is probably the cheapest component of the whole system. I suspect that you may be putting the cart before the horse. For WL viewing, then a sheet of Baader Astro Film and a continuum filter is what you need. https://www.firstlightoptics.com/solar-filters/baader-astrosolar-safety-film-nd-50.html

Quark Chromosphere on Esprit 120 Stacked in AS!2, sharpened in IMPPG, finished in PS CS5 Thanks for looking ☺️ https://astrob.in/full/fo60g6/0/?real= https://astrob.in/kxdzzq/0/

The pixel size on the 174 is a bit too large for the 80mm, although it works extremely well with setups using a longer focal length (such as when using a Quark). Perhaps one with smaller pixel will work better. I pair an ASI 178MM with my Lunt L60 and it does nicely.

I've had a busy couple of years with a house move and life in general. Although I rebuilt my obsy, what builders pass for a lawn meant that using it wasn't really an option in wet weather. So this is sorta a first light. Yes, still got the Quark. Got some data to process, once I remember how!

https://astrob.in/5sje1s/0/ [URL=https://astrob.in/5sje1s/0/][IMG]https://astrob.in/5sje1s/0/rawthumb/regular/get.jpg?insecure[/IMG][/URL]