Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

gthomas

Members
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

1 Follower

About gthomas

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Suffolk, UK
  1. I've run both my 130p and 200 on an Eq3 with very good results. Very substantial tripod and mount but if you need the motors then they are not really built-in and can catch the scope at certain angles. The newer GOTO versions are probably better. I've just upgraded to an AZ-EQ6 GT but thats because my needs have outgrown the EQ3. Glyn
  2. Ordered a Skywatcher EQ AZ 6 GT mount and a power supply from FLO at 11:00 on Tuesday. By 15:00 the PSU was in the hands of FedEx. By 17:00 the mount was in the hands of FedEx. At 14:00 on Wednesday FedEx placed all 3 boxes in my hands. Brilliant service! Well done FLO & OVL and thank you very much. Glyn Thomas
  3. So many professional and amature astronomers were introduced to the subject by Sir Patrick. Sadly missed.
  4. Well I've always used the local tree tops for testing purposes before and never had to add extension. Ah well Glyn
  5. Well against all reason and forecast it is actually clear tonight and I can confirm that I need 50mm of extension to focus with both eyepiece and camera. I guess I can live with that, Just seen my best ever M31 through an eyepiece Glyn
  6. So you're saying that when focussing on Jupiter say, the extensions will not be needed? Glyn
  7. I've just bought a Televue Powermate 2" x 4 and have been trying it on both a 750mm and 800mm focal length Netwonian in daylight. Very impressive performance obviously. However, I had to use between 50mm and 90mm of extension on both a 25mm eyepiece and a Canon 450D in order to get any semblence of focus at distances of 400 to 800 yards. Given that the Powermate itself is between 75mm and 150mm in length this seems to be a heck of a lot of extension! Am I misunderstanding something here? Is this normal with Powermates? Any comments most welcome. Cheers Glyn
  8. Hi Melsky, I've seen lens flare before in some of my images using a particluar filter, but I wasn't using a filter last night and it's shape is not what I would normally expect to see. The only glass in the optical path was the CC. However, I'll admit that a straight line through the 'handle' of the anomoly does point straight at the uCephi so I guess you are right. Well you sure live and learn in this game
  9. Doing some experiments last night and took a few subs of part of IC1396. Processed them this morning and spotted this very wierd item in the bottom left corner (shown in the enlarged crop). I have googled lots of images of IC1396 and can't see anything like it on any of them. At the same time it is definately there in the data and not a problem in the optics (none of the other targets from last night show any anomolies). Anyone any idea what it is?
  10. I find that at f2.8 I get some vignetting in the corners, but that can be corrected with Canon Photo Professional. At f3.5 or f4 I don't need to do that extra step plus, to be honest, I rather like the diffraction pattern on the brighter stars
  11. Thanks for your help Mark
  12. Very nice! I've also just started using that lens with a modded camera, it is a stunning lens. Something like NGC7000 you can just sit and look at the image on screen and constantly find new detail. Thinks...... that area of the sky is pretty crowded right now judging by the number of people imaging around cygnus right now
  13. Well after playing with various masks and transforms and on-line tutorials I think this is a lot better.
  14. Thank you Mark. I am fairly new to PixInsight and so was not familiar with those two functions. I've had a bit a play with them but with only limited success so far. I guess I need to do some more research and practice.
  15. Thanks for that Steve, I've tried star masks and, following Gina's idea, also some really bizarre curves but all to no avail. The problem is that the many small stars are at a signal level that is in the middle of the range covered by the nebula. Normally the problem is the other way around with the nebula far lower.
×
×
  • 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.