JCIdaho

On balance, I think it would work with the rotator in between the flattener and the scope, but then I'd need to reduce the 10,7 accordingly. I'll certainly report back!

Hi @globular - Thanks! I have to say, it's extremely confusing. Looking at what you posted, I would agree the backfocus from the end of the flattener to the sensor should be 65.7mm.

But, have a read of this: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/833579-william-optics-flat-68iii/.

That convinces me the backfocus should be 65.7 - 10.7mm = 55mm.

If this is indeed the case, then their website/specification is v poor and confusing?

As for what you say "And I suspect that all this is optimised for the flattener directly connected to the telescope thread..."

Agree - this is my hunch too. I'm tempted to test it anyway, and gamble the cost of the custom adapter if it doesn't work. The adapter may one day (?) come in handy if I don't use!

Thanks @Laurin Dave I've ordered the bespoke part. If it works, would be good for the flats, and maybe to add an OAG down the line.

@Laurin Dave if the rotator goes before the flattener, the light cone is trimmed to ~68mm, so a more shorter cone going through the flattener. Presumably no concern with that? Thanks 🙂

Hi @Laurin Dave - I've considered this, but I can't find an adapter that goes from M68 - the rotator, to the flattener (M94M)....

44 minutes ago, tomato said:

Are you sending the kit direct to the remote site from the supplier? I would recommend setting up in your backyard and trying it out before sending it off if you can.

thanks, I'll get to test a couple of nights in advance - so not much of a window. Am flying out to the remote site prior to handing over. I've ordered some spacers etc just in case!

@globular thank you - will do!

Hi, I'm buying a new rig to send out to a remote site.

I'd really appreciate any second pair of eyes on the following image train. The backfocus for the 68III should be 55mm, I hope this will be close enough..

thanks!

Why does the hosting provider want you to have a UPS and Ethernet Switch? Can't they just provide an ethernet cable?

Apologies for this @scotty38. Please see the below two images I originally meant to post.

One is a sub after calibration:

The other is the same sub, after calibration + registration.

I've never seen this kind of weird lattice pattern before.

As mentioned, this sub is the R. All the post registration subs have this problem. The other L/G/B subs are absolutely fine. The R flats look OK, so I'm just puzzled.

thanks.

Hi,

(edited, - please see my next comment in this thread for a more accurate description of my issue)

Please, any idea why this registration would result in the attached?

During calibration it checks out OK - also attached.

This is for all my R images - the L/G/B came out just fine, with the same bias frames etc.

Thanks!

I bought a counterweight for the AM5 and it has made a difference. I've been tracking tonight a between.4 to .6 arc secs. Much better than had before, around 1 arc sec.

On 15/01/2023 at 22:29, AstroGS said:

Hi Gordon,

It is the opposite I am afraid - I did widen the BB Planet's adaptor circumference by almost 1mm. I did not want to alter the PE200 as I will be using it with other tripods when I am in the field.

Excuse me - how did you widen the adaptor by 1mm? Filing?

Thank you both @Paul Puntin and @Starflyer, good know the iOptron Tri Pier received!

Hi All,

Looking at Trevor's latest video on YouTube, I'm quite taken with the Starfield Tri Pier. I've never considered a portable Tri Pier, but I'm considering now because a) I think I'd getting better guiding for my AM5 than the carbon fibre mount, b) thinking of getting a bigger refractor than my SM90, and the extra vertical clearance would help, c) more vertical clearance helps generally to access more sky, d) it just looks very cool, and I want one.

There doesn't seem to me, to be much in the way of reviews for Tri Piers, probably because despite my reasons above, they aren't killer reasons? Has anyone had recent experience with a portable model, like this Starfield one, or perhaps the iOptron portable Tri Pier?

I'm based in the UK, and so getting the Starfield one in Trevor's video could be tricky. I note that Altair Astro, that look a lot like the Starfield one, but they're out of stock.

Any thoughts / recommendations welcome!

Hi All,

Appreciate some help. I messed up the rotation of the image train between consecutive nights, by a whopping 90 degrees difference! You can see below that I have 5 different exposures here for L: 60, 30, 15, 8, 4 seconds.

On the first night I took the 15 seconds - the top right image - and you can see how registration has rotated it, but I've lost a substantial chunk in the process (the black areas).

 This is my first attempt at HDRComposition. If I blindly run HDRComposition against the five images, PI gives an error, which is fair enough: "Error: Inconsistent HDR composition detected (bad linear fit, channel 0)".

Any ideas here? For completeness sake, the 30 exposure was completed over both nights, and you can see an imperfect blending of the two framings, in the middle left image, happening during registration.

Is there a tool, to potentially stitch together two of the images, so I use the foreground of one, on top of the other, to allow HDRComposition to then work?

I'd appreciate any advice on a route to take!

Thanks.

Thank you all for the feedback. I'll have a continued play with it. I didn't apply PCC, and that has made a difference. Thanks!

Hi All,

This is my third go at M45. I'm going a bit blind looking at it! I'd really appreciate any feedback. My PixInsight process:

R G B -> DBE, BX, LinearFit, ChannelCombination, BackgroundNeutralisation, HistogramTransformation

L -> DBE, BX, HistogramTransformation

LRGBCombination

EZ Denoise

HistogramTransformation

RangeSelection Mask, then CurvesTransformation, increase saturation, make the background darker. More Curves work to try and make the blue pop out.

XISF is here if anyone fancies poking about: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1an-M2oCxnTdO1diHoSP71UT143wgRG7K?usp=share_link

thank you.

Managed to solve it - ABE wasn't my friend here. DBE was 🙂

Hi,

I look some data on M45 - there is some light pollution, which has caused some gradients and vignetting. It's a shame, as the image has the potential to look good I feel. I am new to LRGB processing, using an asi2600mm-pro camera. I'm using PixInsight.

I've tried running ABE (automatic background extractor) loads on the sub images, but when I combine RGB, I get the corners full of light, which makes creating a subsequent mask using RangeSelection difficult. Any tips would be appreciated. I can't seem to effectively kill these gradients! Is my data just too light polluted?

The stacked-data for the LRGB images are here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d_W0KYxmWyDV_ONhkSR8elmxMXph-Q2B?usp=sharing.

thanks.

On 28/11/2022 at 22:51, tooth_dr said:

Wee bit of haze creeping in

 

What camera / setup is that?

8 hours ago, Ratlet said:

The full moon always brings clear skies.

Is that a thing, or sods law?

@MartthebassThanks. Are you using the AsiAir? I've bought the pier, and the guiding still can go whacky when it gets near the meridian, using NINA and PHD2. Seems it's a known issue - near the meridian, the AM5 'stops' - https://bbs.astronomy-imaging-camera.com/d/12297-major-issues-with-meridian-flip-please-fix/37.

Using a StellaMira90, but with a chunky imaging train on the back.

I can't see any damage, and it subsequently worked OK. I've ordered the pier extension, I hope all will be well.

Anyone else having issues with the scope/camera hitting the tripod when focusing on something at/near the Zenith. I've just ordered the pier to help with this, but wondering if others have had issues?