Jump to content


Kaptain Klevtsov

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kaptain Klevtsov

  1. Wow, it'll look a lot better with a 200mm lens. Love it when the target overlaps the edges. Seriously, with more processing there is a lot more of the galaxy in there. If you do a major bump with curves, you'll see what I mean. In Photoshop open the image. New adjustment layer - curves. Click the middle of the line and move the line up (a lot - too much). See how the galaxy fills most of the frame that you have here. I'm assuming that this is full non-cropped size BTW. With the D90, you can bump the ISO a lot more than previous Nikons BTW. D90 @ 1600 = D70 @ 400
  2. The older, non-updateable handsets only allow one park position, weights down - scope up pointing at NCP. The newer versions allow the user to choose a park position. HTH Kaptain Klevtsov
  3. Metal Supermarket if you get no joy with recycled stuff. Usually cheaper than B&Q. Kaptain Klevtsov
  4. I'm surprised, even a Dob. can snap the moon WH, stay away from the darkside.... Kaptain Klevtsov
  5. Where the field stop is on the eyepiece, more or less, ish. So outside the tube. If a DSLR will focus on a Newt., then the focal plane of the mirror must be where you oput the focal plane of the camera. If that works for commercial designs, it must be a close starting point to work from? Kaptain Klevtsov Kaptain Klevtsov
  6. Au contraire, it just needs a quick coat of Photoshop to make it work properly. Automatic 'phone cameras are set up to take pictures of yoofs acting the fool primarily, so you either need to take it off automatic or play later in Photoshop. Careful playing with the levels will bring out all kinds of detail in the bit that looks overexposed. Its not just 'phone cameras that struggle with the dynamic range of moon snaps, they all do. Great picture, well done. Kaptain klevtsov
  7. Just the job those, get one with some spare power if you intend to run dew strips, cameras etc off it as well. Kaptain Klevtsov
  8. The better focus that you saw was caused by a good bit of "seeing" where the atmosphere was temporarily steady, rather than a good focus. It happens, but not often enough. Kaptain Klevtsov
  9. Wild guess here now then, do you have onboard video as well as a video card? Try the cable in the other hole if you have. It could be the video card died a bit, or the card drivers are wonky. Kaptain Klevtsov
  10. You can do either or both. The usual way round this is to set the black point during processing so that the red disappears. In Photoshop go into levels (Cntrl + L) and select each channel individually. Slide the left slider up to the edge of the hump in the histogram for the red, green and blue and the colour cast should go away. Alternately you can use a light pollution filter such as a Baader neodymium or similar. The CLS filter is quite good for longer exposures of several minutes, but up to a minute the Baader one is good. The Baader is cheaper too. Kaptain klevtsov
  11. My 120mm one did that. Just carefully unscrew the lens retaining ring and clean it. I used two small drill bits in the holes and a steel rule to unscrew the retainer. I would gues that the 150mm design is similar. Kaptain Klevtsov
  12. The magnification is the key for visual stuff. If the magnification is the same you'll probably not be able to tell the two apart, but using the same eyepiece, you get different magnifications. The higher magnification makes things look dimmer (the light is more spread out as in the CCD example). I wonder what a dark sky would look like at a magnification of 1X through an 8" 'scope? Kaptain Klevtsov
  13. Thats probably it, wait until the power station thing if fully charged, they can take a couple of days to fill up all the way but 10 hours or so should be enough. If it still fails to beep, check the cable as the supplied ones are sometimes dodgy. Let us know what happens after that. Kaptain Klevtsov
  14. Booting into safe mode may be an option. ISTR that the screen resolution is set low in that mode, then maybe you can put it back?
  15. What a cracker mate, I'm sure there's more in the data. Kaptain Klevtsov
  16. It seems Stan also fails to overlook the fact that the two sample images can't possibly be at the same scale, or have the same processing and so aren't comparable in any useful way. As NBPaul has shown above, the 'scope collects light shining at us at a (relatively) constant rate in photons per arc second square of sky. This light lands in the 'scope or misses, so a bigger 'scope catches more. The bigger the area at the front of the 'scope, the more photons go in it. That bit seems obvious to me at least. Then what the 'scope does, is focus these photons onto the CCD sensor at an image scale related to the focal length of the 'scope. A longer focal length 'scope will spread the photons more thinly so that the CCD might get the light from one, several, or several hundred of those square arcseconds of sky. If the focal length is long, only a small amount of sky corresponds to the area of the CCD sensor, what we call the field of view, so only those photons coming from that bit of sky hit the CCD, the bits at the sides miss the sensor altogether. Now if we use instead a short focal length 'scope, of the same aperture as before, the CCD represents a bigger area of sky. More sky = more sources of photons, so the CCD gets more photons altogether. The photons that hit all the CCD in the long FL 'scope example are crowded into the centre of the CCD and new extra ones hit the edges. The two systems collect the same amount of light, by having the same aperture, but the long FL system has more "spillage" where some of the light misses the CCD. Hope that makes sense? Kaptain klevtsov
  17. I would Billy, but I've not had a night without cloud for months now. Last time I was out imaging they hadn't been invented. Currently thinking of flogging all the kit as its doing nothing. Hoping it gets better soon or its bargain time for someone! Kaptain Klevtsov
  18. Had a quick play (well, a couple of hours really) with the posted subs and tried some stuff. A Lucy Richardson deconvolution sorted out the individual stars with limited effect, but totally messed up the core. I managed to DC three subs only, the rest crashed the 'puter. Stacking the three deconvoluted subs wasn't much better than a single raw sub as posted wrt the core section. It looks like the focus was out just enough to mess this up, but at such long focal lengths its a right royal pain to get the focus bang on. The giveaway to the focus is the donut looking stars. If you ever get the focus cracked, let me know how you did it, its my biggest nightmare with DSLR imaging. Kaptain Klevtsov
  19. Sorry for being late here, but you need to make sure that the VR is off or it will do wierd thngs. The AF Nikon lenses are a bit rubbish for manual focusing, the blue tack will help as it will allow a little fine tuning. If you can get the focus done on a bright star that will help. Zoom in on the playback as much as you can using the biggest format you can (it gets slightly better joom in-ness on the playback) for focus, then switch to JPG+RAW for shooting. The JPG with RAW option only goes to medium size JPG files so that you get a little less zoom making focus assessment more difficult. Kaptain Klevtsov
  20. From the posted image, the dirt is on the sensor, not on the lens. You need to get the sensor cleaned professionally or buy some cleaning kit. There are wipes available (from FLO I think) or a little fan doodah called an Arctic Butterfly. Kaptain Klevtsov
  21. Yours (with the red filter) is the newer version. The glue or grease is thread locking compound and meant to prevent the unscrewing. If you put it back together it should be OK as I did this (intentionally) and it still worked afterwards. The newer version doesn't have a bit you can take away to use without the Barlow lens as you would be taking away the red filter as well which would not be good. Kaptain Klevtsov
  22. Go on then you've got me interested, where do you start the 'scope from and why? Kaptain Klevtsov
  23. The simple way is to use the picture in the polar 'scope to set the RA angle for Polaris. Looking through the polar 'scope you should see a diagram of the Plough and the big W at the other side. Turn the RA until these are in the same sort of position as the real stars in the sky, then adjust the mount until Polaris is in the little circle at the edge of the big circle. Job done on alignment of the mount. Next, before trying the 3 star align, put the mount back in the park position, which is as everybody says is weights down, 'scope up. The electronics wizardry has no way of checking the start position, it just assumes that the 'scope is in the park position. If its not parked, the electronics gets well messed up and gets really annoying very quickly. HTH BTW I only ever do a one star align, its plenty close enough and I can't remember where all the other stars are. Kaptain Klevtsov
  24. You could check this out if you have Photoshop Coco. http://stargazerslounge.com/showthread.php?t=59157 Kaptain Klevtsov
  25. Build one with sections. Honestly! If you use a 12" Newt. you need a low pier or you can't reach the top of the 'scope. If you use a refractor you need a tall pier or you end up crawling on the floor. The long and short of it is (pun intended BTW) it depends on your 'scope as well as if you prefer standing or sitting down viewing. Kaptain klevtsov
  • 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.