Jump to content

Narrowband

AstroAdam

Members
  • Posts

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AstroAdam

  1. Okay, so been a while since the last post, but wanted to say thanks so much for this. Made making an M42 and M48 1.25" filter holder an absolute breeze 😁.
  2. I’d say there’s a lot of subjective taste-based decisions when it comes to colour on Jupiter especially. I prefer the hues slightly warmer I must admit. Possibly somewhere in between the two above…
  3. This is all marvellous stuff from a theoretical point of view @vlaiv, but for me it really robs the process of some of its subjective discovery and wonder. I’d prefer to be guided by theory at the high level, but sometimes love it when I or others try what we want to try and be surprised by the results, even if they don’t match up to that theory. I don’t have an infinite amount of time to be analysing what I get if it doesn’t correspond to what’s expected, if it’s a decent result (I.e. can’t be bother there too ask “Why is it so good?? It shouldn’t be better than the frac???”). Especially in my case, there are so many variables involved, and I’m not working with a kit setup where it’s easy to replicate a setup night after night (no observatory etc). If I find a method that works, I’ll use it, be glad my stars are round 😂, and enjoy the incoming subs (yes I still get that buzz when the subs download), and enjoy the results. Agonising over whether I’ve taken the path of least theoretical resistance is not something that really floats my boat so to speak. If the ACF has produced a better set of data than the smaller aperture Frac, and keeps on doing so then great, even if the theory says it shouldn’t be the case. I’m happy to get any decent data myself. Life’s too short for in-depth analysis of why something was unexpectedly better… I’m absolutely not criticising you here by the way - you obviously enjoy it, and are very knowledgable, so fill your boots . In the meantime, I’ll carry on getting pretty pictures with my limited setup and enjoying the hell out of it in the process. Cheers Lee for giving the ACF a run for its money. And no you can’t have it. Unless you have a nice camera you may be willing to trade?? 😙😋😆 Thanks all!
  4. Oi! It’s my ACF - if I knew it’d cause this much trouble I’d have kept it away from you 😂😂😂🤪. Seriously though, it’s been great to see what results you’ve got from it, whatever the reason for it in the long run. I’d agree that no matter what the theory says, the real-world testing in the end has produced some interesting output! I’ll definitely be spending a bit more time with it myself in the near future… my bigger pixels will probably help to diffuse the matter somewhat 😉.
  5. Sounds like you tuned out some of the row previously anyway then. Also, mine was an older HEQ5, even when I got it, so was probably louder due to wear by the time I modded it...
  6. Mine was far quieter following modding, but to be fair it's not about that, it's about the accuracy and guiding performance anyway. Both of those were also much improved. Who cares if it still sounds like an old coffee grinder, as long as it's guiding like a champ .
  7. Borrowed a pair of revelation 20x100s (I think?) for a bit - fantastic bins when they were working well - some amazing views through them, but went out of collimation virtually every time they got moved around! I'd love another pair of big bins though...
  8. No - you're right. The TAL does show more than the 120ED, but a lot less than I was expecting. The F/10 of the TAL is great for planetary viewing though, and like I said, the CA is below the threshold where it begins to bother me. Cheers, Adam
  9. I bought one of Stu's TALs last week, and have to say I'm really impressed. I'm really enjoying it the pin sharp views and am glad I grabbed it when I did going by the availability forecast! I also have a Starwave 102ED, which is excellent but only f/7. The f/10 of the TAL really makes a big difference, and I can't say the CA is an issue at all for me. Not noticeable in most situations. Maybe I'm just not very sensitive to it...!
  10. Yup - Generally it would be assembled so that the EP is sticking out of the side.... Mine is actually modified so that the focuser is at 45 degrees - much easier when you get down loooow....
  11. I may aswell contribute my Dob in the light of all the other marvellous examples on show here 305mm Explore Scientific Ultralight Dob. Lovely bit of kit. Very portablr, and packs down small (ish), which is what I need! Seem some incredible views through it!
  12. Heh - there's 'black and green' and then there's THE Black and Green Seriously though, MVs are great EPs. I've stopped at 28mm as the exit pupil starts to become too big with my main setup at 34mm. Nice to finally have some decent EPs though, and it's only recently I've discovered the joys of OIII and UHC filtration
  13. I only used the stock Skywatcher 25mm and 10mm for years after I bought my Skyliner 200p .
  14. Thought I'd finally chime in to this thread. Been building up the Maxvisions in the last few months. Can't justify the Green and Black, but the MVs come a close second. Apart from that, it's a mish mash of what I've found to be good for what I do .
  15. My first decent scope (and the first I paid for) was an 8" Dob. It arrived collimated amazingly, and I did't actually collimate it for the first 8 years of owning it! Gave me spectacular views throughout that time, and with stock 10mm and 25mm EPs only :) I'm fairly lucky by the sounds of things ;)
  16. AstroAdam

    IMG 0273

    From the album: Bits and Bobs

  17. AstroAdam

    Bits and Bobs

    Generally stuff I uploaded to place in posts.
  18. Remember that capturing debayered video takes three times as much hdd space as undebayered. Therefore capturing undebayered video takes less resources as is not being processed to colour by the cpu on the fly, and the hdd only needs to write at a third of the rate. Most stacking programs will debayer as part of the processing, so you still end up with a colour end result.
  19. I think it basically gets as many frames as it can down the wire per second. The Max fps shows the potential maximum, and the difference between that and the actual fps are the dropped frames. You don't as a such have to worry about dropped frames, as long as your actual fps is sufficient. Dropped frames are a normal part of capture using a camera such as this. That's the difference between using a dedicated planetary cam and a webcam. A webcam will try and maintain a particular frame rate by compressing the video. A dedicated cam just sends as many frames as possible uncompressed, so some will get dropped. The frames you do get however are the best quality possible, even if there are fewer of them. In this case, ROI is your friend. When you set the ROI, it actually stops the camera sending the stuff outside that area, so you don't get the wasted space clogging up your USB bandwidth, and so FPS goes up.
  20. I much prefer Firecapture. I've always found it much more stable, and have got far better results than I ever did with Sharpcap.
  21. I've always ended up coming back to 80% USB, and I'm running on a measly 1.6Ghz Atom netbook. It's an HP/Compaq mini 311, with 2Gb of Ram, running Windows 7, so it must have agenrally good USB subsystem, as it never really seems to give me any issues. I get 19fps at full resolution, and if I drop down to a smaller ROI, then depending on the size of that, I get between 35 and 90fps generally using fire capture. Oh, and I capture undebayered and let Autostakkert do the debayering afterwards...
  22. AstroAdam

    Scope

    From the album: Bits and Bobs

×
×
  • 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.