ollypenrice

Guiding is the life blood of astrophotography. Olly

That was a good move but I'd still be inclined to lower the saturation, maybe just in the reds. In this red-dominated kind of target I think it also helps to increase the colour intensity in the blue stars. It provides a contrast. Olly

I agree with the others. I think the intensity of the reds rather flattens them. But the system certainly works. Olly

Yes, I'm sure it's a great system for your purposes. I've never tried real time photographic observing. Olly

An absurd situation. I hope you get it sorted. Olly

I think you're using some quite loaded terms, there, like 'astro artist.' Rather than react by guessing what you mean, maybe you'd like to clarify? Let's remind ourselves that the OP declared an interest in 'Deep Sky Astrophotography' and said nothing whatever about 'seeing stuff "near live."' Olly

Have you tried David Hinds directly? Olly

No, and this is important, it isn't. Aperture is great for gathering light. To give an extreme example, you have a tiny telescope with 10mm of aperture - but it's F2. Is it great at gathering light? Clearly not. Aperture, and only aperture, gathers light. The focal length behind the aperture has precisely no effect whatever on how much light is gathered. Olly

To go back to the beginning, the 10 inch is going to give you 1.11 arcsecs per pixel. Is your guide RMS consistently no more than half that, so 0.55 arcseconds or so? If not, there is no point in going for a longer FL. The 12 inch would take you to 0.93"PP. In the real world will you see much difference? I have both image scales, more or less, side by side on a dual rig and, to be honest, the difference is scarcely visible because, most of the time, the seeing isn't allowing the higher res to show an advantage. The mount, a Mesu 200, delivers around 0.33 arcsecs RMS so it is not the limiting factor. Of far, far greater importance would be tuning out the errors of a very fast system. The tiniest bit of tilt at F4 would make a mockery of the difference between 1.1 and 0.9 "PP. It would be very nice to have 10 inches of aperture at 1000 mm FL but keep your eye on the ball: you have to make it work. Olly

Remember that it is the wedge which you are trying to point at the NCP. Initially just set the scope tube parallel with the upward slope of the wedge and parallel with the the wedge's upward sloping sides. That way the scope points where the wedge points and you can point the wedge at Polaris using the scope to guide you. Don't let the scope move from its alignment with the upward slope of the wedge as you do this. Now the wedge is very roughly aimed at the NCP and, as Michael says, you can refine the wedge alignment by using the drift method or the DARV variant thereof. This will involve pointing the scope south and then either east of west. https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/darv-drift-alignment-by-robert-vice-r2760 When it comes to aligning the scope's onboard planetarium with the stars (once the wedge is aligned) remember that Polaris provides only very low grade information in RA because the star describes only a tiny circle during the sidereal day. A star on the celestial eauator describes the largest circle and, therefore, provides the most accurate information. Be warned that most wedges are extremely frustrating to polar align because, when you move one bit, all the other bits move as well! But it can be done. Olly

No, the camera isn't mine but maybe I'll ask its owner about this! Thanks. Olly

Most of them bonkers. 🤣lly

This is what I want to do: Frame. Focus using FWHM. Set up a sequence: filter/ exposure time/binning/number of captures. Name those files. (Hello, that means I want to name them with no help from the software.) Run. But no, that is far too simple for the likes of SGP who know far more about what I want to do than I do. What the hell is wrong with these people? Olly

I can understand this. If I could get the Moravian drivers to work I'd get the hell out of SGP and into AstroArt in a trice. Olly

With my Atik cameras I just use good old Artemis Capture. I am utterly at a loss to know why I would want to use anything else. It does not try to second guess my every move. It lets me focus, it lets me choose where I put each capture, it lets me, as in ME, choose what I call each capture. SGP, which I have to use with a Moravian camera, drives me frantic with its constant interfering. I don't want to read a ruddy manual in order to find out how to file this capture in that directory. Sorry, I'm a dinosaur, but anyone writing a capture program should look at Artemis Capture and shut up. Rant over. Olly

Yup, you're getting the upturned end on the left. Very good and more than very good for the exposure time. Olly

Very helpful. Olly

M66 is a bit of a corker... Olly

Yes, mine was a 2 panel with a full frame CCD at 530mm FL. I was intrigued by the size of M31 as shown on the sky charts because it was larger than any image I'd ever taken at that point. I'd also seen an image with the upturned outer glow on the left of our images. (I've never managed to find that image again.) I had lots of data in 15 minute subs but when I went to 30 minutes I got it. I think these calculations are difficult. To my mind the key question is, 'How much area of aperture do you have per area of pixel?' (And then, of course, pixel sensitivity comes into it as well.) Olly

Yes, I agree with Tom. This is a dramatic image. Olly

Nice! I absolutely adore this galaxy. It might be my favourite of all. Olly

And on here... I don't want to sidetrack this thread but I've posted lots of OSC images on here and elsewhere... It was on the basis of this experience that I developed a preference for mono. The modern CMOS cameras seem to be in a different league to the two OSC CCD cameras I've owned. Olly

The image is very good but it doesn't include all of M31. If you went deeper you'd find distinct structure running out of your present frame on the left hand side. I guess I'd better prove that! 😁 However, with a scope like this I'm sure you could catch the lot and possibly go deeper than mine. The key thing is that it's giving you not just the speed but nice small, tight stars. Few Hypersatar broadband images do this. There are certainly some good Hyperstar narrowband images around. My real beef with Starizona is their mendacious advertising in which they talk about images with and without the Hyperstar as if they were in some way the same images. They are, of course, most certainly not the same images. I think your scope-camera combination has done a great job and I'm very impressed. Olly

I'm surprised and wish I could say the same for my Moonlite. Olly

That is simply glorious dust. Lovely to see the denser and more tenuous dusty objects next to each other as well. The three dimensionality of the image is also one of its strong points and the blue stars show that the full colour range has been captured. Regarding sweets, did you know that The Lounge on SGL has an annual obsession with growing hot chillies? Oh yes!! The perfect antidote to chocolate... Olly