Stargazers LoungeĀ 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.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

248 Excellent


About Gasman

  • Rank
    Proto Star
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Spectroscopy, imaging now and then,software!
  • Location
    North Yorks
  1. New customer beta today, AP runs a bit faster, they are not quite there yet speed wise but getting there!
  2. It ran quite slowly when I first installed it on my old dual core 4gb ram desktop but have just bought a new i7 and its running well. I just need to get me head around the way it does things as I keep looking for a browser to choose files to edit. I`ve added that in the `feature request` site. Another interesting imaging app I`m also trialling is On1 Raw here Steve
  3. Fully understand that Bobby, I'm lucky in having a dome which keeps stuff pretty dry and with a laptop warmer too ,never had a prob with the windows one! Steve
  4. Thanks for that John, didn`t know Nebulosity had a mac version neither did I know Pixinsight was on mac too!!. I think IRAF is available too for the mac for the spectro but comes with a bit of a learning curve. Steve
  5. Checked out the Skysafari pro handbook and its a bit vague about scope connection and the correct leads etc. I did notice that one of the forum members `NickK` has come up with some mac Atik drivers which is good. Found a link to Eqmac here so maybe with a bit of faffing about it might be a goer??. Eric - Yes seems a good package but I gather they have been promising a windows version since March! Steve
  6. Cheers for that Chris & Bobby. I alternate between BASS and ISIS for spectroscopy. I`ve also been checking out Dslr raw processing apps and really like the look of Affinity photo which is Mac only at the moment (a windows version is promised). Does Skysafari control your scope?Which planetarium app do you use?. I`ve had some success with Linux controlling my scope but after seeing a friends new Macbook coupled with Windows endless updates has made me want to change!. Steve
  7. Thats a shame Derek, I thought there would be quite a few packages for the Mac although trying Google doesn`t throw up that many and the ones that do show I`m not sure how good they are. There seems to be more apps for the Ipad but not sure how compatible they are with a Macbook for instance? Steve
  8. Hi folks Toying with buying a Mac and wondering about available Mac astro software please?. I`d like to be able to control my EQ6 mount (with Eqmod??), Atik 314 L ccd,Lodestar ccd and ZWO Asi120 . I use Cartes Du Ciel for a sky atlas and also wondering what if any Mac software might be available for spectroscopy. No idea if Mac drivers are available for the above but any other info would be helpful too. I`m not sure if/how Eqmod will work with a Mac setup either but I assume there are many Mac equipped astronomers and it would be iinteresting to see how you control your gear please? cheers Steve
  9. Hi guys I often wonder how much, if any post processing to do to spectra. I find it a bit of a juggling act using some of the post processing packages out there- Am I bringing out faint detail that wouldn`t normally be seen or creating artifacts that shouldn`t really be there? For instance this a raw spectrum I took some time ago of P Cyg uncalibrated just input as taken in fits and the same spectrum slightly enhanced in tiff format using a package called On1. No smoothing was done but you can clearly see a difference in the unprocessed peaks and also some slight difference in detail of the profiles so care must be taken . I suppose it could be argued not to do any processing at all to the fits but I`d be interested in what you folks think. cheers Steve
  10. I agree with you there Olly!. It would be interesting to know the prerequisites for the RGO images. For instance take the winning image, could you see that image from your garden? Well no and perhaps yes also with a bit jiggery pokery with an image processing package, could you go out in the garden and see the runner up image too ?. Again I'd have to say yes and no! No because its too faint to see without much processing and also Yes because it took 120x6min exposures,a 10inch scope, good mount and CCD and again processing to see it!. I'm interested in Spectroscopy and with the image processing its so easy to over do it and introduce artifacts that shouldn't be there and affect the final spectra. Regards Steve
  11. I suspect an identical discussion would be happening right now over on some arty forum if an astronomer had been asked to judge an art competition . As I`m not an imager it would be interesting to know what constitutes a `perfect` image (if indeed one exists)? Surely an astro imager patiently exposes for however long he/she thinks to bring out as much detail as possible of the object but who`s to say instead of exposing for say 5hrs then maybe exposing for another 30mins (40,50?) would bring out just a touch more detail?. The Photoshop experts among us - how about a little bit more red here, a bit less blue there maybe a touch more Halpha etc etc and so on?. Sorry for ranting on about this `personal touch` but I can`t see how you can produce an image without putting your own personal stamp on it. So have we been `creative ` in producing this image or, dare I say artistic!! ? cheers Steve
  12. I agree with you there Doug. Unquestionably a great deal of skill is involved producing the sort of images seen here on SGL. I too have all the gear but couldn't hope to imitate the images produced by you lot on here šŸ˜Š. I think the point of the original post was 'should it have won an astro competition' and much discussion followed. I think all imagery is personal and selective , you only have to look at the 'photo of the month' in the monthly astro mags, 2nd place might be a lovely image of some obscure nebula requiring 6hrs of Halpha then processed in Pixinsight whereas the winning image could be a snapshot of Aurora taken with a handheld camera, should the 2nd placed image have won because of the work involved in getting it? Regards Steve
  13. I just had another look at what the winner said about his image and it seems he pulled actual colours out of his video clip although out of focus they are actual images. I don`t think he claims to have made anything up just displayed it differently to how you or I might ! Steve
  14. But you and I could take an image of the same object using different equipment and different processing and come up with maybe similar looking images but who`s image is the correct one?. The `personal` touch must come in somewhere!
  15. You mean take an image and then put your own personal touch to it?. Isn`t that exactly what an artist does? Steve