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. It’s the business! Have no fear; you have invested well.
  3. Agree with the above. It’s really amazing what you have shown us, a fantastic post and series of images.
  4. I suspect the staircase is a spiral round the inside of the building. Otherwise there's no way to get to the scope. Can't see any way of getting into the dome though, or to get the scope up to that level
  5. Hi cotak, This has not been denied nor confirmed by iOptron. I did ask and they just keep silent about it ... ¿ from where did you get the information or is it based on an ancient post in Cloudy Nights forum ? ¿ or is it an assumption from your side ? Sorry, but I think it is time to put down facts and not guessing or assumptions or I have heard from somebody ... regards Rainer
  6. So I've had the chance to do some work with my replaced Hypercam 1600M over easter, and I must say it has performed very well. I can't wait to try it out on some nebulae after the summer. :) Attached is a very short 75minute RGB of M3 in pretty much full moon which shows in the background noise..
  7. Seems like a fair amount of confusion all round Gaz, not least for myself Hopefully someone can clarify it for us.
  8. I bought the medium format f4 Pentax off Ebay recently and from a Japanese supplier. It cost me £120 with charges and VAT so quite a good price really. Anyway, it's in very good condition and is a lovely piece of glass. I've mounted it on the EQ3 Pro, now with a qhy mini guide scope: It weighed a couple of kilos with the adapter and camera. I initially fitted it to a fs 1100d and did some subs the other week but had problems with the flats not working properly and with red halos around the brighter stars. It turns out I think the halos are caused by the Astronomik cls ccd lp filter... Very annoying but I'm pleased with the lens itself. I've been doing battle with the subs I took - I'm well out of practice with taking and processing dslr pics! I always get terrible lp gradients. I've had Pixinsight for about 3 years... So I finally got around to trying it, mainly to use the gradient removal processes (ABE and DBE). Works quite well but didn't eliminate the gradients entirely . I'm impressed with PI's colour calibration. It's certainly a powerful piece of dedicated astro software. Anyway, here are the subs I took the other week with an unmodded 1100d. Nothing very exciting in terms of targets - just stars, really. The first lot I tried with the FS 1100d were 60s but seemed to be underexposed for the targets though, as usual, transparency was poor. The subs below were all 90s but seemed a bit overexposed - exposed to the right, overall. I'm going to have to try taking 75s ones! Also, I need a lot of them... None of the stacks are very good - if only I got more imaging opportunities.... Some stars in Herc. 23x90s: In the region of LDN712, 7x90s: M71, 7x90s (too faint to make out!): NGC6823, 6x90s: NGC6802, 14x90s: All stacked in dss. Louise
  9. Thanks John, I'm sure that's where I read it in the first place. I think i just assumed the whitepaper would back it up, but am beginning to doubt that a little now...
  10. Just found a page at Rother Valley that gives the system at f2.2 or 2.3 depending on the Hyperstar version. Looks like Celestron, my info and maybe even Damien Peach are off the mark
  11. Agree with @vlaiv - congrats for even giving this a go and thanks for an interesting, informative, and well-constructed post. I'd be delighted to have emulated the Hubble image as well as you have!
  12. To be honest no it makes no sense,the IMX290 certainly does not have a 3e read noise at unity...they are implying that these are three almost identical chips in terms of read noise and that's just not the case. So when they say it reduces to 1.5e which one is that, all of them? The information on @FLOs web site for this new camera is very poor in comparison to other CMOS sensor cameras that they also sell. SX make claims about amp glow so a 15min dark frame to back that up would be great. Also as above, at the very least I want to see some gain vs read noise vs dynamic range curves..etc. I would also like a QE chart. Its a specification that is almost identical to their CCD cameras, problem is that is not the level of information you require for a CMOS camera with variable gain etc. Also at 2200 pounds it had better be spectacular in comparison to the ATIK or ASI offerings. I just feel its asking a little too much when pitched against some of the competition. Currently anyone buying this is buying it blind. If I could try before I buy then no problem but this is a totally new sensor to the astronomy market I will be wanting more than the basic information of FLOs web page to make a decision to jump in as a lead customer. For example If you look at Sonys tech documents then the max exposure for the IMX304 is 30seconds, at the moment they are implying at least 15 mins but there is no specification for max / min exposure even. Hopefully FLO can extract some more information from SX to help people make an informed choice. Adam
  13. I've installed the firm for my nexstar non plus hand control and had a little of time for checking whether the fix solved the date issue and, I am happy to report, it does. I still need to properly use the scope but, as far as I can see, everything works as usual. Excellent job Celestron! NV
  14. Selling a Skywatcher ED72 OTA. In as new condition,as to be expected. Comes with rings and case. Asking £180 posted. Mick.
  15. But all the Starizona Hyperstar literature gives system as imaging at ~f2? Both can't be correct, surely?
  16. Gosh - what a sorry tale...
  17. Contact the SGL admins by PM with all relevant information. Do not go public!
  18. A fellow member of a facebook group has alleged that an SGL member has posted one of his images as his own. What should he do about it?
  19. First of all, I applaud the effort! Second, I don't think you were far off with that image, which I find great as I was looking into similar endeavor not long a go. At 0.78"/px you are clearly oversampling for given conditions (what is your star FWHM in that image?), but it looks like effect could be recorded at 1"/px resolution if conditions were such that given resolution was optimum (which would mean about 1.6" FWHM). As it stands, I believe lensing is smeared due to blur present in the image - and that just reduces SNR of effect dramatically.
  20. Damian Peach’s review of the C9.25 which has comments on the differences between the C9.25 and C11. http://www.damianpeach.com/c925review.htm
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...

Important Information

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