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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_30_second_exp_2.thumb.jpg.7719b6f2fbecda044d407d8aba503777.jpg

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Bach to achro RGB-filtered imaging... I understand that blue would be an issue because of the violet component, but what about a blue filter stacked with a minus violet filter? Where there is a will there is a way! As for luminance, ditch the luminance and spend that time gathering more RGB? If you are imaging with a cheap achro, you are clearly prepared to make compromises...
  3. Somewhere in a cupboard somewhere I think I have an ex-Olly Atik 16ic(?). That must be getting quite "vintage" by now :) James
  4. Stumbled across this thread via a Facebook share, will be doing this over summer, odd thing is I live in Todmorden!
  5. I normally get around 0.7 rms while guiding after only using the polar scope of the az-eq6 for alignment, and I'm by no means experienced in this department. I use an app to tell me where to posistion polaris on the scope. Not sure what that would translate to for exposures unguided though.
  6. Very nice image. This is an Ha dominated target so getting it so clear from OSC is good going. CCD cameras haven't changed much. My own favourite one uses technology available more than 10 years ago. Olly
  7. Polemaster is good but when you move over to a guided setup sharpcap gives exactly the same results for £10. really hard to justify the cost when for the same money you can get a cheap guide setup that is much more useful.
  8. I think Olly is right in saying that there is nothing wrong with a well collimated Newton, and it is likely to outperform an achromat. Have a look at what Jens Zippel produces with his 10" Newton (and a 6" Newton would not be very far behind in the right hands). He gets a Top Pick or Image of the Day recognition for every second image he posts on Astrobin: https://www.astrobin.com/users/Jedi2014/ I think a good idea would be to stick to your Newton until you saved up for an apo, if you decide you really want a refractor. Buying an achromat now would make it take longer to save up for an apo.
  9. All a bit quite again, lovely looking disc though.
  10. Hi welcome to SGL from Peter in Bedfordshire
  11. Do a Drift Align by Robert Vice (DARV) using the DSLR. That'll sort out your Polar Alignment error.
  12. Great stuff Ed. This one has been my nemesis for a few years! I seem to remember seeing it once before, possibly in Gavin's TEC160, not sure. I'm reckon John's seeing must be better than mine, as I've tried and failed on numerous occasions with my Tak, and other larger scopes in the past. I do now have an Orion Optics 8" f8, 1/10th wave, so given your success with your VX8L, it seems possible I will have some luck with it. Thanks for the report.
  13. There is nothing wrong with a well collimated Newt, though... An apo will probably make life easier and lose diffraction spikes but it won't necessarily produce a better image. Olly
  14. Today
  15. Agree, especially where children are involved. For some reason there's always one of two small boys (for it is normally boys!) who insist on grabbing the eyepiece or sticking their finder on the eye lens. Partly because they get so excited, which is a good thing. Easily cleaned, of course.
  16. A very steep learning curve if you ask me. I'm still getting to grips with it. I think it's superb and probably nothing it doesn't do (except make the tea) well worth the money IMO.
  17. cool, thank you. i'll have a play with that later. pix can be a little intimidating
  18. Let me see if I can find doc for PI for you with description how to do stats on image. Look here for example: https://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=6328.0 It shows stats window displaying all the needed information (and more)
  19. I agree with all you say - cracking scope for the money and probably my most used scope. BUT !! I would carefully get rid of all the grease you have added - if it gets onto your eyepieces it will be a proper issue. Remove it and put a few turns of PTFE plumbers tape around the threads - it will take up the slack and provide a nice positive but smooth result and without any fear of damaging anything. Enjoy it !!!
  20. Hi guys, I'm still here loitering, despite being quiet of late. Our little bundle of joy has been teething terribly so sleep has become somewhat of a commodity, meaning I have achieved exactly ZERO scope time with the AA102ED-R I'm hoping to get out soon though. My horizons aren't the best so there have been few targets within reach of a 4" frac anyway, but things are coming around and there's always the moon when we're confident a good nights sleep can be had! P.S. I looked at the ZS103 at Kettering and to be honest there was nothing in my eye that justified the extra cost over the Altair equivalent. Yes, it's a robust scope with a quality feel, but so is the AA. The only real distinguishing feature was the livery, which unfortunately I found a little garish.
  21. First of all - I agree with above quote - we can't tell universe how to behave, we can only asses what are the facts. Let me just point out that positively curved finite / bounded universe is not just fringe / made up idea - it is one of the solutions of lambdaCDM cosmology - Einstein's GR equations. For omega>1 we get positively curved bounded geometry. I can offer you another quote that will emphasize my point: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". To my mind, claim that something in the physical world is infinite is extraordinary claim. It's a bit like having hypothetical scenario where you have an equation that has multiple solutions and you choose to focus on one particular solution that violates conservation of energy. It would be justified to do that only in presence of very firm evidence that it is so. Why did I use above comparison? I will draw a parallel on the fact that in all our experiments and all our observations we determined that energy is conserved. It is reasonable to assume it is one of the features of universe. We even made it into a law of nature - Thy energy will be conserved! We in fact have not observed anything that is infinite in the universe - everything so far has been finite. We could have similarly coined a law of nature that goes like: It will be within bounds! There might be a clue that flat / infinite solution is not the correct one? This of course does not imply that positively curved / finite universe is correct - we still have negatively curved hyperbolic universe. Also it might point out that we are missing something else in lambda CDM. I'm talking about discrepancy between Hubble constant measurements. Direct observations place this value at about 73km/s/mpc. Observations that rely on lambdaCDM model where flat geometry is assumed (this still does not mean infinite universe - it could be flat and finite, although isotropy would suffer in this case) give results at about 67km/s/mpc. With latest measurements error bars were significantly reduced and we now have great confidence that this is not due to random errors (I believe that it is now 1/10,000 for random error of measurement). People have no clue why this might be so, and some of hypothesized answers to this problem assert that there might be additional component to mass/energy density - like dark matter interacting more strongly with light / regular matter than is currently believed. This would shift density parameter to higher value making it "more positive" - hence omega>1 or positively curved universe - or rather finite / bounded universe.
  22. I bought the Heritage last summer as a complete beginner and I still didn't buy anything bigger, although I'm a bit tempted to do so. It's a great and portable scope and you can see stuff with it. The moon, planets and clusters look great, nebulas and galaxies are a bit fainter but still fun. If you find really dark skies probably they're less faint... I enjoy manual tracking and star hopping with a red dot finder, but for that you need dark skies, if you want to observe from a light polluted location then you're limited to planets and the Moon. The good thing about the scope is that it's very light, cheap, good optics (I'm no expert but they seem good), for storage I keep it in my not very big apartment and it actually looks nice on a shelf. The focuser is not very good, you can focus with it on small mag, but on bigger mag I find it very difficult... I've added some grease so it's better, but still... If storage is not an issue you can get a full tube scope of same aperture which should have similar weight but it's larger as it's not foldable, but should have a better focuser...Also I'd like to have a sun filter which doesn't seem to be a good idea with an open tube... As for the mount I use dome aluminum ladder and an improvised wooden box, it's actually very stable. Sometimes I use just the wooden box and sit on a small stool, that's also comfortable... So whatever you buy it should be fun...
  23. Hi Dean I hope you dont mind, I gave it run through PS this morning: 1) Colour noise reduction 2) Colour noise reduction and Gradient Xterminator to balance background colour
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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