Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.


All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Even so, if you look at graph with replaced encoder, max error rate is 0.05"/s - which is x4 larger than my calculation above, but still x5 smaller than CEM120EC2 Don't know if all mesu mounts suffer from this and will it be corrected in MK2 - I've seen mention of new more precise encoders on motors.
  3. Where did you get those from, John? I removed my NEQ6 from its pillar last night and it's a pain fiddling around with an Allen key (especially when I dropped the box of keys on the garage floor!)
  4. Which extension tube do you have? I know that it will easily fit to the az mount head eq6 tripod/extension do to the matching bolt size (12mm). Using EQ5 equipment might be difficult because the bolt size is 10mm. On a side note: I also bought a used Giro Ercole AZ-mount. It also fits to the EQ6 tripod because bolt size is 10mm, so screw to fix the mount head goes through the threaded hole of the eq6 tripod. Hope thats not confusing :). best Michael
  5. My bad, I thought in this day and age all EQ mounts would have slip clutches or equivalent. I'll stick to my DSV-2B alt-az and Dob mounts.
  6. Although I do think highly of ASI385, for this purpose I think you will do better with ASI1600. Even if you do short exposures and try lucky DSO imaging. ASI385 is very very good planetary camera, and if you want to try that, then by all means - get it. But in comparison to ASI1600, we are talking significant difference that could, and probably will, offset small read noise difference. OSC vs MONO (I gathered that you have ASI1600 mono cooled). One thing that people often don't take into account - OSC camera can be viewed as one with twice larger pixel size (for sampling resolution calculations) - that has 1/4 QE in Blue and Red and 1/2 QE in green of mono version but can shoot R, G and B simultaneously It's a bit of brain twister to see how it compares to mono version in term of performance. I'm in favor of mono being a better choice in many respects. On a separate note - I think ASI1600 supports ROI, right? You don't need to download and store full frame for each sub - that will lessen load on storage and processing.
  7. No. The field of view is controlled by the size of the sensor. It wouldn't matter about the pixel size. Most digital cameras allow you to change the resolution (pixel size) of the image, but these leave the field of view the same. On some cameras you can use a 640x480 cropped mode which only uses the centre area of the sensor 640 x 480 pixels in size and this would have the appearance of a zoomed in image.
  8. Interesting comparison Wim. I much prefer the classic. The PCC version is swamped with red and the blue almost disappears.
  9. I suggest you read over this: Yes the iOptron plot looks rough but the Mesu site graph is likely not raw data.
  10. Thanks I'll keep trying, I'll, get the app Cheers
  11. If I am getting this correctly, let's assume they have brought out a new camera. If the camera was your pentax, with pixels 4.8 microns across, but the new part was that these pixels could be halved/quartered........down to 1.2, (electronic manual control in increments). Would this mean that the screen image on your pc could look as if it was zoomed in/out, obviously depending on pixel size chosen?
  12. Ok, why not give it a try, although you need to understand that you should not expect get much at all in individual subs at 5 seconds, it requires a bit of faith in the final product. Also pick something bright like M82 for your first try. Adam
  13. Yes, for the unsuspecting it could result in some damage, especially so if you have a longer scope, as the scope can suddenly and very swiftly swing to a vertical position, depending on the weight distribution. (keeping the scope balanced correctly would help avoid any damage) The clamp (threaded wheel) effectively holds both scopes in place, or even just the scope on the primary side if not used as a dual mount. I placed a cloth over the clamp to protect it and then use a set of hand grips and give an extra pinch after I have tightened it as much as I can by hand. Very simple. The clamp has been upgraded to a captains wheel type (still threaded) and this enables much better purchase, thus no need for the hand grips. I now have a captains wheel that was sent to me free of charge by Keith at Altair Astro. So all is good
  14. The second one looks nicer but they all seem to have blotchy green and purple backgrounds? I use gradient exterminator, even on images without a gradient, and its balance background colour always seems to give me good balanced colours.
  15. Nice image Don. Do you own this camera? How do you find deep sky observation with it? I have yet to get involved with software for these cameras as I need to decide which camera to go with. I have an mcp in vb6 so the software side should be fathomable for me. Is it becoming common to have chips rectangular in shape?
  16. Desiccant cap from FLO and some knobs for quick removal of my AZ-EQ5 mount from the EQ6 pilar extension.
  17. Welcome to the club, you know it makes sense! Really a great all round scope.
  18. Anvil Basher


    Cheers........Like the formula
  19. It's really not my fault - 300p flextube, with baader laser collimator and full astrozap shroud and all original accessories for £360. I'd have never forgiven myself if i didnt get it. And i've been trying to see M51 from my back garden for two years so if this doesn't work....
  20. Today
  21. Ok, that is a bit worrying to be honest. I counted roughly 90 local peaks in 240 seconds, if whole graph is indeed 240s. Let's say on average p2p of those excursions is about 0.75" - looking at the second mount (first one is a bit better) - labeled GB20002. 240s / 90s = 2.6666s. 0.75" p2p / 2.6666s = 0.28125"/s That is seriously rough ride in my book. Let's do comparison with mesu, just to put things into perspective. Let's read from above posted graph - to my eye one of the "roughest" places is at about 1020s mark (peak between 990 and 1035). Again eyeballing it - in about 30-40s (two / two and a bit tick marks), there is a change of about 0.5" (roughly 1/4 of 2" interval). Let's take lower time to get higher change speed value (it will put the mount at "disadvantage" - but I would rather think it's performance is poorer for this comparison than better). 0.5" / 30s = 0.016666"/s That is about x20 less "jittery" / more smooth than CEM120EC2. It also shows one important aspect - you can use for example 10s guide exposures and still have only 10s x 0.016666"/s = ~0.167" of movement from base position. In 10s you will certainly smooth out any seeing effect. That is far better behavior than "dynamic active control" of CEM120EC2 that jumps around the place in those 10s making about one whole 0.7" p2p trip and then some ... My above analysis might be flawed, so I urge everyone to check if I made a mistake somewhere, but as it stands, two mounts in same price bracket and to me there is no comparison in smoothness. Wonder what PE of CEM120 / CEM60 without encoders looks like measured with absolute encoder with enough resolution on the shaft (same technique as mesu).
  22. Reduced to £300 collected for a quick sale.
  23. The stars need their own process, so in a proper process, I wouldn't do it this fast way. I could always replace the stars f the cc version by those of the pcc version. I do background neutralization before colour calibration, even though pcc has its own background neutralization process built in.
  24. The adapter is brand-new; high-quality and has compression rings. The solar filter is homemade, I think, and was made for the 80ED. It works and fits well. £20 delivered for both. Thanks!
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.