ollypenrice

Planetary and deep sky imaging are entirely different, any attempt to do both with the same setup being doomed to severe compromises. On top of that, planetary requires a long focal length and long focal length deep sky imaging is very difficult. I would choose between them and start from there. Next, decide on how difficult you want it to be. For deep sky imaging a short focal length, fast F ratio apochramatic (it must be apochromatic) refactor is easiest. It's the closest you'll get to 'plug and play.' Escpecially since dedicated CMOS cameras have appeared at reasonable prices, I would ditch the idea of using a consumer camera. Mine is a minority opinion, here, but I absolutely do not subscribe to the view that a DSLR is a good place to start. Start with a tool made for the job. Olly

Steve Richards had me with that one about ten years ago! If Lucas Mesu made a friction drive focuser I'd buy it. Olly

Some of them aren't mine, I simply host them in our robotic observatory. I've had some struggles with them, for sure. The only one I use myself is a Moonlite, on my own 14 inch SCT which is used only for visual. It came with a scope I bought second hand and, although it didn't hold a heavy CCD reliably, it's OK with my eyepieces, the largest of which is a 26 Nagler. For a long time it sat in a drawer because, when the SCT was fork-mounted, it was too long to pass through the fork. The scope is now mounted on a GEM so I dusted off the Moonlite and it's OK. I don't think a focuser at that price should have any trouble with a CCD rig, though. I also have a Feathertouch on our TEC 140. Now that's a focuser. Olly

They are smooth, but some visual observers I know have had trouble with Crayfords being unable to support the weight of very heavy EPs. I think they're OK on Dobs, though, since they remain horizontal on an alt-az Newt. They just have a more abrasive strip on the drawtube which grips the drive roller more reliably. The diamond one is the best. The idea of driving a smooth anodized drawtube with a steel roller strikes me as nuts, plain and simple. Olly

The Steeltrack isn't an R and P, it's another Crayford. I dislike Crayfords, including Baader and Moonlite, both of which I have here. Olly

This is also my experience. I was stung very heavily by import duties between England and France. I'm sure UK retailers will be hit by a loss of EU customers, which is a great shame and no fault of their own. Olly

Certainly prioritze broadband. The Ha contributes mainly to the 'curtains' behind the head, allowing you to bring out the striations and the dappled structure of the nebulosity below the curtains. Depending on your optics and how well they control Alnitak, you might consider some very short subs to help you control that star. It can easily bloat in some refractors. Because the star is so bright, there is no need to shoot many subs. Just a few will do. NGC2023 is beautiful and broadband only. Olly

I totally agree, Adrian. The great thing about StarX, though, is that it can work wonders with processed images. Of the three Russ Croman packages it is, I think, the most important so we're lucky that we don't need access to original linear data to exploit it. Sometimes I have these data, sometimes I don't. I suspect others are in the same boat. Olly

This is dreadful news. John was accomplished and, more importantly than that, kind, civil and a man who set the tone in this pleasant community. Of course, I send my condolences to his family. What a shock this is. Olly

That's a mind-blowing improvement to the structures in the dust (which are, in your new version the best I've ever seen.) I think my StarX reprocess is going to need a starX + BlurX re-re-process now! Olly

The improvement is obvious and the result lovely. I guess you and I are both re-processing using StarX, in particular. There's a strong parallel between how my M45 changed with the new methods and the way yours did. Smaller stars, harder stretch of the faint stuff, etc. This is all really great fun. Nice one, anyway. Olly

In that case there is simply nothing to do other than find focus. The 106 is a Petzval, meaning the flattening lens is fixed in the rear of the main tube. The need to respect a precise distance between flattener lens and chip arises when the flattener lens is fitted into the moving draw tube. Unfortunately, Takahashi seem to be unable to produce well-collimated Q-series telescopes reliably. Mine was very good but I have seen several bad ones and had messages from a significant number of frustrated owners. One SGL member has been told that the instruments were not designed for use with modern small pixel sizes. If this is so, Takahashi should state it clearly. However, your elongation may be from tilt in the chip. This is very common. You can find a discussion of how to test and fix it here: I hope you get it sorted out. Olly

I do remember the earlier conversations, possibly because of the Preston connection. (I used to work there.) Another huge advance is a recent one. Star Xterminator transforms post processing by giving control over star size while still stretching very hard. This is a huge step forward in imaging. Olly

Can you confirm that you're using the reducer? If not there is nothing to do other than focus. Olly

Why would a man whose job takes him to the south Pacific in northern winter want to retire? lly

That's terrific. Regarding tilt, have you seen the tilt thread on here? Olly

What I've never seen before is the Ha signal made visible from a braodband dataset. Remarkable and very attractive. Personally, I don't think the way forward with this image would be to blend hard and soft stretches, I think the deep image and the classic one are different and equally valid. I'd keep both separately. I think there might be room for a tweak of the star layer before finally combining it with the starless. This is just a hunch but I've been working on dozens of StarX workovers recently! I don't know what software you use but, in Photoshop, I'd have the stars-only layer placed over the starless in blend mode screen. I'd control star size by using the mid point slider in levels but I'd try boosting the contrast in the star layer as well. This is a dead easy way of tightening them up and giving them more pop. My instinct would be to try that. They seem just a tad vague to my eye. For me the slightly magenta reds of the Ha layer are right. This is what we see when we look through an Ha filter in daylight. However, I agree with Wim that the blues are a bit high and maybe a bit cyan? That's the only thing I'd be inclined to tone down. I hope you don't think I'm interfering! It's just that you've posted a truly inspiring piece of work... Olly Edit: I meant to say 'Ha signal' rather than 'Ha layer.'

Extracting the most from the data and painting things in are absolutely unrelated activities. I agree, however, that it is better to leave a bit left unrevealed than to push beyond what the data have to give. Olly

Ooh yes, I like that one! It really captures the eerie spirit of deep space. Olly

Lots to admire in that one, Francis. Olly

Great. Very nice contrasts both in the brightnesses and the colours, particularly in the last one. I think you're flipped on the long axis, no? Olly

All information is good. Thanks! Olly

Nothing much, no, The best seeing is generally to be had at high altitudes on small islands and, although Debyshire is very hilly on small scales, it is never all that far above sea level. It is also ringed by hot cities. Realistically, to image below 1.5"PP, you are going to need very good seeing. My advice would be not to devote huge amounts of money or energy on chasing resolution. I'd chase signal instead. You can do a lot with that in post-processing. Olly

This is an interesting topic for all sorts of reasons. I think you could take your point still further by noting that, until quite recently, the best images of Jupiter ever taken from the earth were taken by an amateur with a C14. Take a bow, Damian Peach. Mr Peach now has access to larger telescopes but the point remains. This is remarkable. In the mid 1990s, when I discovered astronomy, I was in awe of the deep sky images made by David Malin using a large professional reflector. With the exception, perhaps, of certain very small targets requiring large-scope resolution, I and thousands of other amateurs can now take better ones using three inch refractors. Surely it's the existence of this astonishing technology which has triggered the present level of participation in astrophotography. People do it because they can. Far fewer people wanted to spend 40 minutes glued to a manual guidescope after hypersensitizing their roll of Tech Pan in order to end up with a monochromatic smudge. Cycling can only become popular once someone has invented the bicycle. Ditto astrophotography. Olly

Lovely. The California must look fluffy and yours does. Fluffy does not mean soft, by the way. The colour is fine by me but it's a half-second tweak with a slider to make it less intense. No cucumbers needed for my eyes in any case. Olly