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_lunar.thumb.jpg.ef4882eb5fb3610f8a68e5e6913de0e3.jpg

Moonhawk

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About Moonhawk

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cheshire
  1. Reprocessing old data

    I have been using registax for quite a while - but recently came across autostakkert. I looked at some comparisons and it seemed to do a better job of stacking than Registax (although Registax's wavelet filters are great). I decided to reprocess some old Jupiter videos using a combination of the two (plus photoshop for combining the RGB). Seeing wasnt all that great. I stacked the RGB videos in Autostakkert using 1.5x drizzle and a 50:50 sharpening mix. I then took these individual images - ran them through registax's wavelet filters, then stacked in Photoshop, before returning to registax to do RGB colour balance tweaks. I think the level of detail achieved is much better than when I have processed using Registax alone.
  2. Doh - didn't read the rules properly. I captured this image in 2009 - so that disqualifies me. Sorry
  3. Canon 5D Mk2, ISO-6400, 200mm lens at ~170mm f/4 - piggybacked on an alt-az mounted Meade LX90. Stack of 15 x 30 second exposures - registered and stacked in Deep Sky Stacker, colour corrected and sharpened in Photoshop.
  4. Stick with PST or....

    Would placing a 2x barlow between the main tube and the PST back box work?
  5. Stick with PST or....

    I guess another option I hadn't considered is a PST mod. Given I already have a PST and a OpticStar AR90S - what else would I need (front ERF?)
  6. Stick with PST or....

    Thanks for all the replies - Sorry when I was talking about an ERF - I was talking about one of those full aperture silvered glass or film types (like the thousand oaks). I guess ERF is the wrong terminology for such a filter.
  7. Stick with PST or....

    You don't - but the Astronomy Now review states: "telescopes of less than 120mm aperture, Daystar suggest using an ultraviolet and infrared cut-off filter (not supplied) screwed on in front of the diagonal, which reflects these invisible wavelengths back up the telescope to prevent the focal area from getting too hot. " I figured a front ERF would still work - and it would also allow me the option of white light observing too.
  8. Stick with PST or....

    Hmm - searching around the quality of the filter does seem variable. I might have to do a bit more reading.
  9. I have had a Coronado PST for a number of years - but yearn for something with a bit more power - but I can't really stretch to a Solarmax 60 at the moment. I also have an Optic Star AR90S Gold refractor (90mm F5.5) and have recently found out about the the Quark Chromosphere Ha eyepiece. So the question is - do I stick with the PST, or would it be worth letting it go and upgrading my AR90S with a Quark Chromosphere + Front energy rejection filter? Anyone used a configuration like this? Is the AR90S up to the job given it's quite a fast scope? edit: I also have a 10" SCT (F10 but with an F6.3 with a reducer too). Can the Quark be used with this scope assuming I also use a suitable full or partial aperture filter?
  10. Celestron Astromaster 130EQ - mount only

    I guess I don't need an EQ mount - but I do prefer them. I find the slow motion controls much more intuitive (I have used an EQ mounted newt since I was a kid). Something about a telescope on an alt-az mount just feels wrong.
  11. I have been looking around for a fairly inexpensive mount for my Opticstar AR90S. I usually piggyback it on my LX90 - but there are times when I just wasn't to take it out alone and have a reasonable degree of control. I quite like the look of the mount on the Astomaster 130EQ - especially since it seems to come with a dovetail plate adapter - however it appears that Celestron don't actually sell this mount as a standalone item (they do have other mounts but they don't seem nearly as good). Can anyone suggest an alternative - or where I may get such a mount of they are indeed available as a standalone item?
  12. Multiple galaxy images would be difficult to find though because of the timescales involved. If the light took 1 billion years to do a circuit - a galaxy could would look very different each time you see it because you are effectively looking back in time. You won't see your galaxy as it appears now - you will see it as it appeared 1 billion, 2 billion etc years ago. When you also consider that the galaxies are moving and that light can be bent via gravitational lensing too - that only complicates the issue as each image of our galaxy could appear in a different location too.
  13. I was thinking about the size of the universe the other night and the "surface of an expanding balloon" analogy. If we use that analogy - it follows that if we travel in a straight line for long enough - we'll end up back where we started. The same is true of light etc. If the universe were small enough and light could have travelled right across the universe and ended up back where it started (perhaps multiple times) - then it follows that if we looked out into space - we would actually see multiple versions of our own galaxy from earlier and earlier periods in it's history. So my question is - is there anything in the theories of cosmology that rule this out. Are the galaxies we see in the hubble deep field actually unique galaxies or are they in fact earlier versions of the galaxies in local galaxy clusters and are we actually seeing an infinity mirror type effect.
  14. I have done this mod on my old Toucam Pro and it still works under Windows 8 64-bit.
×