willcastle

On 29/01/2020 at 16:28, vlaiv said:

Do you mind posting original sub, unless that exact jpeg came out of the camera?

Fact that above image is 1920x1280 means that either you or camera made image smaller. If this image as is came from camera - then Canon probably implemented very nice way to reduce image size - use of algorithms similar to binning.

Additional thing that can happen is jpeg smoothing. In any case, combination of those parameters could make image look as x10 longer exposure, so image was not in fact 11s but about 110 seconds.

Still impressive result.

IMG_2176.CR2

hey vlaiv, here is the original RAW file at 6000x4000 33.2 MB

I don't know if it will display (being a raw file)

23 hours ago, alacant said:

Hi everyone

We're gonna have a go at the lower layering frames to get the white bits coloured. There doesn't seem to be any rules to calculate which exposure these should be. Can remember guessing this some time but wasted a lot of time on it. Visitor leaves tomorrow so must get the frames -in between the cloud it seems- tonight...

These are 3 and 4 minute frames as we stupidly thought the shorter time would sort us, DUH.

Any guidelines most gratefully received.

As an anecdote: apart from advising on the colour scheme, our better halves got involved in competing for the most animal heads they could find in the image. Eat your heart out ngc2174.

Cheers and clear skies.

blimey it's not a very good image is it. i can hardly see the nebula at all :') :') 

I think you have great detail and the exposure is really nice. I think the colours are slightly off for my personal preferences though? It looks very blue-white. My attempt looked a lot more red

16 hours ago, Science562h said:

I used an intervalometer this time & 1 star alignment to Rigel. 

Image. M41, M42 and Flame Nebula. 55mm widefield 131 stack of 20, 8 & 5 seconds frames, at ISO 800. SLT mount and intervalometer used. 2020.

That seems like so much hard work! 131 stacks?! wow. well done for the patience. Here is a photo I took with just my lens (85mm at f1.4, 3 second exposure)

4 hours ago, rickwayne said:

It really is a kick, isn't it? Orion is a great target, it's easy to get something amazing and you can spend a career getting something just a little bit better every time. I certainly haven't gotten an image of it yet that really satisfies me, but I've done a bunch I'm proud of nevertheless.

And by "easy", please don't think I'm implying that you have a run-of-the-mill first result there. Yours is amazinger :-).

Yeah I have been transfixed by Orion for as long as I can remember. I know I have a long way to go to get a really detailed image but i will still blown away by a simple 11 second exposure. 

4 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Do you mind posting original sub, unless that exact jpeg came out of the camera?

Fact that above image is 1920x1280 means that either you or camera made image smaller. If this image as is came from camera - then Canon probably implemented very nice way to reduce image size - use of algorithms similar to binning.

Additional thing that can happen is jpeg smoothing. In any case, combination of those parameters could make image look as x10 longer exposure, so image was not in fact 11s but about 110 seconds.

Still impressive result.

Yes I will post the original picture tomorrow if I can (I am not home tonight so don't have my camera). I took the original image in RAW. Canon has an app that allows you to wirelessly transfer an image to your phone and when you do that it automatically converts the image to a JPEG. Can I upload the RAW file or will I need to convert it? But either way, it looks very close, if not identical to the above image.

But thanks for the feedback

15 minutes ago, Paul M said:

Absolutely.

And I'm sure you'll do great. Luckily I have the excuse of having no free time to keep me safe from the imaging black hole!

Now here’s the thing: I also have literally no free time either (I am a teacher and the workload never seems to end). I felt lucky I had half an hour to get out there tonight. But I have decided this hobby is totally a marathon and not a sprint. Changing my perspectives a bit is making me enjoy everything so much more. I used to get so angry with clouds and the weather. Now I’m very laid back about it all 😅

The 200p is an amazing amazing scope. I still love mine 9 years later. The motor drives are worth every penny. If you are feeling brave, you can mod the hand controller and add a guiding port. I didn’t end up using that set up for very long but you could undoubtedly get stunning results. Here is a FIVE minute exposure taken on your set up but with a hand controller mod and guide camera. It also wasn’t polar aligned properly and I hadn’t attached the guidescope very securely (hence the slight star trailing), but those issues could easily be fixed. 

1 minute ago, Paul M said:

I 'avin a laff

But seriously, it can't get simpler than your image above.

Add complexity and things can go wrong in ways you'd never imagine

Oh haha 😅😅 I did think so. I thought it would take me years to get a photo like this..... not 11 seconds on my first attempt 😂😂

complexity does have its benefits though:

- noise reduction

- extra detail

- can create a HDR style image that allows me to have less exposure on the trapezium stars in the centre 

5 minutes ago, rl said:

An excellent result...I'd quit while you're ahead!

More seriously, like a lot of things in astronomy, a law of diminishing returns sets in looking at the improvement you get for extra time, cost and effort. And your standards go up with more experience which only adds to the sense of frustration...

Okay point taken. That’s it from me. My astrophotography days are officially over. 

I know that at some point I’m going to be pursuing the impossible (perfection), but I want to push my current set up as far as it can go to see what it can truly do.  

3 minutes ago, R26 oldtimer said:

Haha, that's how it starts, welcome to the dark side! I am thankful for sticking a sensor in the scope just in time before the aperture fever was about to strike.

... But then came the mount fever, the cooled ccd fever, the filter fever, the pc & astro processing software fever, the....

Enjoy!

This is what is so strange. It’s a tiny 80mm scope... on an unmodded camera..... with no auto guided....

dont get me wrong.... overall I would have to say that I got a better visual view with my 200p as it is enormous.... but this image has just blown me away. 

I am exceedingly happy with my HEQ5 though... so I don’t think I would need to upgrade it. In fact, Based on this result, I am happy with my whole set up 

13 minutes ago, Paul M said:

That's great! But it'll go pear shaped when you start up the image processing software! 

Stack two frames like the one above and it'll be down hill from there

I’m trying to work out if you are being serious 😅 subtlety is not my forte. Why would it go pear shaped? I thought stacking was meant to improve results 😂😂

Just to add a bit of extra detail to my over excited post: this was also taken on an Unmodified DSLR (canon 80D)

Okay so first proper light with my new scope. 

I pointed my evostar 80ED at Orion (as you do 😅). 

I only had about 30 minutes spare. And just as I was about to go in I decided to sneak the camera onto the scope for the first time to see how Orion came out. This was the result of a SINGLE 11 second exposure with NO editing whatsoever. 

How on Earth does it look this good?!

this is straight off the camera. I’m blown away. Is this just luck? Or is that what I should expect?

i think I am going to get a pair of hawke frontier hd x 10x42

they do two versions, the more expensive ones (just under £400) that have ED glass that removes most of the chromatic aberration, or the cheaper ones (just under £300) that many reviewers say are extremely close to the ED version and have very little CA anyway. So to save £100 I think I will get those. I have found a store nearby that says they stock Hawke binoculars so I will head there next weekend and see if they have the ones I want to try. 

I just totally was astounded and blown away by the RSPB binos so I want something comparable to those (although a little cheaper hopefully). Many reviewers did say they were a bit on the expensive side for what they were. 

As for hand shake.... I was looking at birds on an island quite far away and I could hold the binos steady enough to get a really clear view. I think that 42mm is a sweet spot. They aren’t too heavy. Who knows how that will change when I point them up to the night sky. But for terrestrial viewing the ones I tried were staggeringly good. 

19 minutes ago, Ships and Stars said:

Needless to say, the general word is avoid zoom binos at all costs

Being inexperienced with binoculars, what do you mean by zoom binoculars?

the two I am looking at are either 8x42 or the same pair but 10x42. I don’t know which is more suited to astronomy 

I made a previous thread about trying to put a small scope on a camera tripod, but today I want to a nature reserve and they had six pairs of binoculars to try. I was BLOWN away by the incredible optics (since when did binoculars look so good?!). That being said, I have never looked through binoculars that were between the £400-700 mark. As a super portable grab and go option though, I don’t think they can be beaten. They are tiny, waterproof, fine with a case and the view was astonishing. 

But here is the question(s):

- the binoculars I tried were RSPB (both BG.PC and HD). One was 8x42 and the other was 10x42. Which do you think is best suited for astronomy? The 10x certainly got me a far closer view of the birds I was looking at, but both looked amazing, and perhaps a wider field of view could be more useful for looking at constellations?

- I have found another brand called Hawke, and I was looking at the Frontier ED X 8x42. I may not have an opportunity to look through these. Anyone have any experience with them? If anyone knows how they compare to the RSPB models mentioned above, that would be even better. 

- I’m also generally interested in hearing people’s experience with using binoculars for astronomy. I have been excited with just the views through my finderscope so I can’t see why I wouldn’t be impressed with what I see through some good binoculars. 

Many thanks,

Will

On 24/01/2020 at 12:47, rwilkey said:

Hi Will, I would recommend the AZ5, it looks pretty 'grab n' go', I am thinking of buying this one for my wife who prefers quick set up times,  found here: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe-alt-azimuth-mount.html

I spent a lot of time looking at that and it looks really great but definitely far too big for what I want. I have decided to get a really decent pair of binoculars. Will make a new thread about it. But thanks everyone for the suggestions  

I think that the baader EQ clamp is a very interesting option....

I think that dedicated astro mounts are just too big for me to take camping. I only have a small car so large tripods are out of the question.

My camera tripod is reasonably decent (it was around £150). It could definitely hold the weight (probably holds around 6kg). I am thinking that, without tracking, or the ability to smoothly follow targets around, maybe a skymax is the wrong way to go with its very narrow field of view.

I wonder what decent, small, wide angle scopes I could consider? I already have a small skywatcher ST80, so maybe I will get a second one to take camping, that I can use on my camera tripod. 

I am just getting a bit distracted by the fact I love the idea of the skymax range 

so peaceful. love it

On 21/01/2020 at 13:13, FLO said:

Have just opened one. It doesn't have the Schott logo and does have glue, though I think less than yours and willcastle's. 

Interestingly the focuser was faulty... 🙃 

Faulty Evostar 80ED scopes are rare but we have flagged our stock so they will be checked prior to dispatch, just to be sure. 

HTH, 

Steve 

 

A retailer doing exactly what they should be doing and making sure their stock is as it should be! Good job! What is your job role with FLO Steve?

19 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Yes, you are quite right with that designation. Getting stellarium on your computer can be great help with getting to know the skies.

Here is screen shot from stellarium with items you have marked:

Andromeda constellation on the other hand is real easy - at least part of it - once you learn to identify those parts - rest will be easy, but you do need to wait for summer for best view of it - now is pretty low.

You start by finding Cassiopeia - W shaped, very easy to spot - you have correctly marked it in your image - just below it - when it looks like W rather than M - you will spot 4 stars almost in line (very slight curve) - all of these stars are bright and easy to spot and sit right below W. You have named those stars correctly in your image as well - I put little arrows to those stars in my second diagram from Stellarium.

Going left to right - first star is in Perseus and is not part of Andromeda Constellation. Next three stars are in Andromeda Constellation. Above in diagram Andromeda is joined with Pegasus constellation - because they share star. Forth star in a row (third in Andromeda) is actually alpha Andromedae but also delta Pegasi. I added other lines not mapped out in Stellarium to see what other stars are also in Andromeda Constellation.

Finding Andromeda galaxy / M31 is super easy when you learn to find these four stars below Cassiopeia. Here is diagram and explanation:

I have marked 4 stars of interest - you need to identify third and "work up" towards Cassiopeia from it (let line connecting these stars be base line). Very small distance away you will find one faint star (marked with arrow) - then if you continue up about same distance as base line to this star - are two more stars (also marked) - together these four stars create sort of Y sign / or "cocktail glass" shape. M31 galaxy is "umbrella" in this cocktail glass

Once you have found Y and possible location of M31 (it might be challenging to see it even with averted vision if you have poor eyesight or have heavy light pollution) - M33 is just on the other side of "baseline" (marked as well) - about same distance away.

 

 

Wow that was amazing. Thanks so much. So glad I was definitely looking at the right thing. I was getting confused for two reasons

firstly, mirphak in Perseus looks like part of the andromeda constellation when looking at the sky. 

Secondly, in my star atlas, the andromeda constellation has an almost identical line right above the one I drew. See my attached picture. I didn’t know if I was actually looking at almaak and mirach, or the line above them. I’m guessing the line above is significantly fainter as I can’t really make it out clearly with just my eyes. 

As for andromeda galaxy, I seem to be able to find that relatively easily now. Where do you live again? I think you told me but I forgot. I’m in the U.K. and andromeda is almost directly over head at the moment! I think we must see it best here in the winter.

3 minutes ago, joe aguiar said:

The square isn't so hard to see but it's not easy either. But also the square is pretty big in the sky maybe your trying to find a small or smallish square. 

Try again this time try looking for a very large square. 

Could also be if any light source is in your way this will dim futher the dim constellations. 

If u looking at a map in the sky it maybe 3x the size, of course the map or chart cant be to scale as appears to us or that would need to be on 2x2ft pages.

It something I got used to long ago and it helped.

So if something is like 3 inches from a star on my map since the constellations will be bigger in sky I dont aim for the same 3 inches away but more 6 to 9 inches to compensate

Hope that kinda helps

Joejaguar 

Just to clarify, this is a photo of exactly what I CAN see and I labelled it.. but I have no idea if I have labelled it correctly. The square is huge and I see it very clearly  

Hello,

so I am pretty new to astronomy and have been spending a lot more time recently on identifying constellations. I have always had particular difficulty with andromeda. I can find the galaxy no problem but that isn’t the issue. I was just out looking at the stars and snapped a quick picture on my phone which was fortunately fairly close to what my eyes can see. I don’t have very good eyesight. 
 

there is a really distinctive parallelogram at the start of the constellation. I have attached three pictures

the first shows just the photo; the second shows the distinctive parallelogram and the third is by best guess at naming what I am seeing. With my eyesight, I can always pick out these particular stars. I’m less sure of the Triangulum star. 
 

can someone please help me work out what I am actually looking at?  

Will

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/skywatcher-skymax-102-ota.html
 

could I get away with putting this on a camera tripod for very casual viewing when I go camping?

and how do I attach the scope to the tripod? Does it have a standard camera thread on the bar?