Jump to content


Big Jim Slade

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


68 Excellent

Contact Methods

  • MSN

Profile Information

  • Location
    Leafy Bedfordshire, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The focuser on the Esprit is pretty bomb proof. I have a Lakeside stepper attached and it has no problems with slippage, even at the zenith with something over 2.5 kilos of imaging kit hanging off it. I've never had to tweak it. I'd leave the scope focuser out of you equation for now and focus on getting the Senso as firmly attached as possible. Hopefully someone with some experience there can chime in.
  2. My 6nm HA needs 28.5 seconds according to SGPro. That's not full brightness on the panel. I think I ended up preferring longer exposures because they gave a better histogram and averaged out any filter settle at the start of the frame.
  3. I'll chip in as I have the Alnitak. It's nice, does the job seamlessly. I use SGPro rather than EKOS - in that you just add it to the devices setup and everything is automatic. It opens for lights, and for flats it closes and turns on the panel at the level you've configured depending on the filter. You can't use it for darks as it doesn't seal the tube effectively. I tried running off some darks once astro dark ended and they were useless. One thing I've seen reported is that because it doesn't fold all the way back it can reflect moonlight back into the scope in some cases. I've not seen that, but that will depend on conditions and target I guess. The DSD one looks interesting. It flips out of the way completely, which is good. But it needs power, which the Alnitak doesn't, and it looks like they are 3d printing sized for different scopes so you'll have to hope they will do one that fits and the tolerances are ok. The Alnitak plastic tie isn't pretty but it is effective and I won't need a new one if upgrade to a FSQ. Not sure I see the point of the dew heater as it's at the wrong end of the dew shield? I would stick with a tape around the lens if I got one. That said if the DSD one had been around when I bought I would certainly have considered it.
  4. I do't shoot OSC so can't offer a lot of help, but running Debayer using Auto produces the right result. So I would guess your aren't setting up WBPP to debayer correctly during calibration. Have you watched Adam Block's videos on WBPP, he spends a fair bit of time on OSC/DSLR stuff?
  5. @FLO you might want to consider making your photo watermarks monochrome. The colour ones have the unfortunate effect of making the mount look like it's going rusty.
  6. I read 2 books by Alan Hirshfield last year that are well worth the time. "Parallax: The Race To Measure The Cosmos" is all about how astronomers went from thinking the stars were dots on a dome to realising they where ridiculously far away and proving it. "Starlight Detectives" touches on similar ground but focuses on imaging, the early pioneers through to Hubble and the discovery of the scale of the universe. Both very readable and answered a lot of questions I had about how we got to where we are today.
  7. I guess we'll have to see how all this shakes out but the G looks like a bit of a lemon. If you're in the market for a mount like this surely you already have a guiding setup or you want encoders so you don't have to guide? So that's a chunk of redundant tech for most people who just want USB 3. And don't get me started on the roughly 40% price increase for the mount in that slot in their range.
  8. Whoever they are they seem to go in bursts, I suppose when they get some new accounts to try. Reported a listing for an 8x10 camera that was using pics from a recent legitimate auction just this morning.
  9. See also the Cosmic Distance Ladder, of which parallax and the AU are just the first two rungs. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
  10. I'd post one of mine but it won't be much help as I have everything connected with M48 adapters so I have a fair bit vignetting. You're showing a 2.2% difference between top and bottom in that image, so the stretch is making it look far worse than it is. EDIT: Just compared one of yours to one of mine, and while they are visually pretty different, the MAD values are with 4 (yes four) of each other.
  11. Hehe, indeed. The problem with PI is you can start out trying to get a nice piccy and end up thumbing through tomes like "Image Processing and Data Analysis - The Mutliscale Approach" looking for tips. (Sez the man who has barely mastered calculus)
  12. Well, there's an interaction with all the steps here. If the weighting/noise evaluation of the images isn't working (for example giving too much weight to the shorter subs), then your pixel rejection has a much harder job to do. Fundamentally, it's the pixel rejection algorithm's job to get rid of statistical outliers, so if the weights favour the longer, lower noise subs, you should have less trouble tuning the pixel rejection. More signal, less noise.
  13. My recollection is that the docs suggest WSC for > approx. 10 images, and Linear Fit for more than 15 images. My policy is to run both on any given set of data and use what works best - it will vary I think. The best bit of PI wisdom I've learned is that there is no one single recipe that works on everything. Blue will always be the noisiest channel, there's just less of it. As far as integrating different length subs goes, a better approach would be to move to using the Subframe Selector to do the weighting but this is more than a little fiddly! It's my default workflow now, but it took a while to get comfortable with it.
  14. Yes that's the ones I was thinking of. They can't be exported outside and used on other servers, but they do the job for us.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.