Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge 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.

  • Announcements

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_widefield.jpg.36065d79cb2625eb299137a5b4432c96.jpg

DanWebster

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About DanWebster

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sheffield
  1. refractor for imaging with DSLR

    I don't know how good your diy skills are, but if you fancy a challenge you could try and craft some curved spider vanes. That would probably be beyond me, but I thought I'd suggest it in case your the adventurous / crafty type. Perhaps some local company could make the m for you. This kind of thing.
  2. Flats Light Source

    I use a couple of sheets of plain white card over the top of the scope and point at a bright, well lit, wall or ceiling. One sheet looks to have a bit of a grain, but a second sheet seems to sort this out. This is with a DSLR, and it's fine for my needs / level. Perhaps with your setup it may not be enough, but card is pretty cheap. I've just remembered that I used to use photographic printer paper. That shiny card you stick in a regular printer to get photo like prints, as that didn't seem to have any grain in it at all.
  3. Flat Frames - White or Grey?

    What it means by grey and not white, is that the flats shouldn't be saturated. If you have an exposure that's too long, then every single pixel will be at maximum brightness and there'll be no variation across the image. Whereas you should be able to see any vignetting, finger prints, dust bunnies, etc. These will appear as slightly darker areas, but only if the image isn't saturated.
  4. I've yet to do it justice, but hopefully in a few weeks, when the earth moves my house out of the way, I'll get to have another go at imaging it myself.
  5. It doesn't matter if it's a popular target or not, it's still a great image.
  6. NGC 1097 in Fornax

    A great image, with an interesting story too. Thanks for sharing.
  7. NGC 7000 - North America Nebula

    Thanks. I did wonder if it might be some thing like that. I 'll have to experiment a little.
  8. NGC 7000 - North America Nebula

    On Sunday and Monday nights we had clear skies and a new(ish) moon, so I got to go out and have another crack at NGC 7000. I've ditched the old data that you see in the original post, which used 300s subs at ISO 1600 and I've gone with 120s subs, also at ISO 1600. The new image has 118 x 120s lights, 25 darks, 25 flats, 99 bias. I hope you like it. All comments are greatly appreciated, and if any one can suggest why the stars at the top of the image are not as round as those at the bottom, I'd be grateful. With regards to that, I do use a field flattener, but it's the top of the image that has been cropped. The bottom of the image is the left hand edge of the sensor and is fine, but the top of the image is about 1/4 of the way in from the right hand edge of the sensor, and has these issues. A large version can be found here where the issue can be seen more clearly. Thanks for looking Dan
  9. NGC7331 inspired by johnrt

    It's looking pretty good already, but I looking forward to seeing the final effort.
  10. M57 at 2m unguided - How bad can it be?

    Thanks. It was cold enough when I took those, gonna have to wrap up warmer, I don't want a cold. Thanks and good luck with the upgrades.
  11. M33 - 290 minutes of DSLR Data with 130P-DS

    I couldn't see what it is you're using to process your images, but I did a fairly aggressive noise reduction in paint.net, which has cleaned it up quite nicely I think.
  12. For a bit of fun I wanted to try and image M57 at 2m. This would mean using my SW200p with a 2x barlow for some F10 action, and would be tracked by an EQ5 Goto. In order to keep weight down, there would be no guiding. The camera would be a standard, uncooled Canon 1100D at ISO 1600. How bad could it be? I had to keep the subs down to 20 seconds for the stars to remain mostly round, but I managed to take 120 of them before it got too late. 30 darks, 30 flats and 99 bias round off the stacking paramters, but DSS would only let me keep 70 of the subs, and even less when I tried x2 or x3 drizzle. The best effort I managed was with no drizzle and using 70 x 20s subs. It was stretched in DSS, with a little extra work in Paint.net to improve colour, contrast and noise. I'm without pixinsight at the moment as the trial ran out, but I've been impressed with it so I'll definitely be picking it up when I've got some funds available. Any way here it is. It's not the sharpest of images, but given the difficulty of the setup, I'm reasonably pleased with it. So who else has decided to go against conventional wisdom and go for a target with a difficult setup? Dan
  13. A lovely image, and it got me wondering what the night sky would be like if we were to live there. Very bright is the answer apparently.
  14. Gulf of Mexico Nebula

    I've only recently found this object and had no idea that it was a dark nebula in the foreground giving it the appearance it does. I just assumed it was an odd shape. Good to know, thanks for sharing, and a great image too.
  15. Setting-up time?

    I have to lug everything in and out each time I setup, and I'd say it takes about 45 - 50 minutes if it goes well. I'm looking at tying all the cables together into a wiring loom, I need to get some cable ties or some fancy cable braid. I doubt it'll save much time, but every little bit helps, and will neaten everything up. And while it's not so heavy that I can't carry it all in one go, I now think that it's quicker when taken out as two separate parts (mount and scopes).
×