labtech1122

Good afternoon I'm going to Yorkshire dales on the 8th of May for a personal retreat away with my telescope for a few days. Lovely place

Also this is using DDS

Hi, no filters have been used. The first image is with no calibration frames and after a dynamic background im PI the final is with dark and flats. It end up like the final image if I put any calibration frames in, I have tried doing one tried them all (bias, darks, flat light and flat dark) I have tried doing all together. I've deleted the registration files and started again and it still does it. I have been able to get an ok image without the calibration frames but I can't avoid the rings I get in the image (like picture 1) even if I don't do background extraction and just edit the image I still get rings. This is an image I got near to ok (although by the end of the process I lost all colour) but you can see there are still rings around the image

hi, please can someone help. when i go into pixinsight and go to either dynamic or automatic background extraction it always comes up like this in the end. attached is the image before, the background removed and the image after i have also included what happens to my image when i stack it with the flat, it seems to well over correct and remove alot of the galaxy too

Hi, is there any star parties this year around the Midlands area in the uk? I live near peterborough but don't mind travelling a distance to get places

This is my first image of these galaxies after some head scratching with pixinsight I got an image I'm quite happy with. I'm going to do another session with better focus and more subs but so far I'm happy

Hi, why is my pixinsight making the image look like this after doing any kind of background extraction? I've tried dynamic and automatic, filled lots of videos and went with loads of different settings but it either doesn't touch the image or it well over does it (the multiple rings)

OK great, thanks. What lube did you use to assemble it again?

Are there easy ways of removing it or is it a job for post processing?

Haha yea that makes sense 🤣

Hi, I've seen a video of someone stripping down and replacing the plastic washers in the eqm35 mount and replacing them with bearings. Has anyone done this before? They have listed the parts needed for this upgrade (it's a really good video BTW with a very detailed way of stripping the mount)

Thats what I have been using but all my stars on the edges have rotational trails. I've managed to master up a total length of 87mm so I'm going to try that and see what happenes then buy the appropriate adapters. I can just see my self getting the adapters and not having the right ones. Measure twice, buy once haha

Might be a stupid thing to say but doesn't pointing the telescope at the sun damage it? Excuse my ignorance haha

I'm having this issue at the moment with not actually knowing the BF of the antares FR 😕 I've been using 105mm but rotational star trails at the edges suggesting its too far away. I've managed to get it down to 87mm with the e tra buts I have have but not tested yet

ive had a play and managed to get 87mm BF, thats the minimum i can get with the bits i have. the only issue is instead of the t2 adpter its on a 1 1/4" t-piece. will the smaller ID result in less light to the sensor?

also you would happen to know the correct or where i cand the correct BF for the ntares x0.63 FR do you?

at the moment i have it pretty well balanced but have very little room to move further down. the only thing that does change the balance is the guide scop is in the 2 oclock posion on the telescope with refernce to where it attaches on the mount so its heavier one side than the other. not sure if thats a problem though or how to change it, i dont hae any other mounting points on the telescope

i havent really had an issue with the guiding in all fairness, i will try binning at x2, how do i do that on phd2? ah yes nice idea, i would do that but it would over weight the mount

"In the past, before the age of computers and digital cameras, astro images would use a guidescope that was about 1/3rd the focal length of a telescope for visual guiding with the human eye. So when talking to older Astro- imagers, you may still hear this recommendation. For example, if your telescope has a focal length of 1500mm, older astrophotographers may recommend guide scopes with a focal length of 500mm. However, digital cameras today are much more sensitive than the human eye and most guide cameras can detect apparent deviations in the guide star of about 0.1 pixels on average. So assuming that you want to detect a tracking error with a sensitivity up to1 pixel, a soft rule of thumb would be to select a guide scope with a focal length that is at least about 1/10th the size of your imaging scope"

would having a barlow on the guide scope work? just spitting ideas

ok fair enough, i think having a 500mmFL refractor on the side would look mental and put the mount well over its weight. i was looking at off axis guiding but this puts more weight on the back end of the image train and ive got the scope nearly as far as it goes on the dovtail to balance as it is, i dont think i would be able to balance it with added bits on the back

my The imaging / guiding ratio is 1:2.2

"A small 150-200mm guide scope should work up to 1,500 to 2,000mm focal length telescopes" i quoted this from google, is that right?

i was haing a look at what you said about the guide scope not being enough, i just read that for a focal length of 1500mm main scope a 150mm+ guide scope will be fine. so with the reducer i hae just under 1000mm FL and the guide scope is 240mm FL. in yoour opionion is 240mm enough?

or maybe this one? what is the correct thread and pitch of the back of the celestron 6" sct telescope