Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Beardy Bob

Members
  • Posts

    315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Beardy Bob

  1. Thanks Mike. Unfortunately there were no EPOCH coordinates and the database images aren't centred on the star I want, so I wouldn't know where it was. I really like the idea of an image made by meaningfully pointed at her star anyway. If only I still had all my kit! Thankfully Starlight1 is on it for me with his nice, newly refurbished camera! That 2.5m telescope produces some nice images though doesn't it!
  2. Whoops! I remember making that kind of mistake!
  3. Hiya. You're quite right, that's not the right place. I see what's happened though. That image is from RA 9 hours, and the star you're looking for is at RA 9 minutes! Nice image though, really crisp. You're camera is clearly behaving itself again! It's in Andromeda, quite close to the great Andromeda galaxy with the naked eye.
  4. Have you had any luck with getting some images?
  5. I've just noticed you're in Norfolk, Starlight1. Same here. You must be suffering from the same weather as me!
  6. Yes, that sounds great. It'll largely be a star field with a small galaxy (or two) in it, so Ha, Lum at 1x1 sounds good for tight stars. I'm guessing standard RGB colour will be the quickest way to add some colour, but as long as there's some variation in star colour to pull out I don't mind between RGB/narrowband. Also, I don't insist on processing it myself. I'm capable of doing so, but didn't realise how large the frames would be! So I'm more than happy for you to do it if it's easier than sending all the subs, as long as it's full res.
  7. Yeah, definite risky going to Betelgeuse on holiday! Thanks Starlight1, that would be awesome. I don't mind which format it's in. I think it's going to be mostly stars - not much in the way of nebulae. So narrowband probably isn't necessary, but if you've got it set up that way and its easier then that's all good!
  8. I genuinely don't know, but if they're all just random stars within galaxies I reckon they can just make it up! I'm not telling my daughter that though. She's very pleased and a photo will hopefully fuel her interest.
  9. Here's the other one with the location.
  10. Hi Craig. Apparently so! It would seem that it's just a random one from somewhere within ngc11 so it's not as if they've renamed Betelgeuse!
  11. Here's one of the pictures of the location. The second doesn't seem to want to upload!
  12. Hi folks. Until recently I was an avid deep sky imager, but a recent move has meant I've sold all my gear (well, most of it, keep an eye out in the classifieds for the last few bits!). Anyway, would you believe that as soon as I sell my deep sky gear off a relative buys a star for my daughter! So I was hoping that with the relevant info (below and attached) that someone could take a nice pic (or at least some decent subs for me to process) of the area centred around ngc11 (which is where her star is), so that she has a nice, sparkly, colourful picture of it. It's just away from M31 in andromeda - RA 0h 09m 32.92s, Dec 37°31' 27.90". Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Bob
  13. Well, I checked it again last night and the same result, so I plugged in an eyepiece and it was the same throught that. Firstly it's good news in that it's not a camera problem. It's also very unlikely to be a scope problem as I can't think of anything that would cause such movement in the target. The diffusion pattern was also perfectly symmetrical when I adjusted the focus off, so the collimation is fine too. For me that just leaves the seeing or thermals, which I find really odd because it's happened two days in a row and never before to anything like this extent in the last six or seven years of stargazing! The rig hasn't moved in all that time, there have been no major developments/changes in the local area that might cause increased thermals and anyway it's happening to targets in all directions. Very strange. Hopefully it'll just correct itself. Thanks for all the ideas.
  14. It certainly didn't seem logical for it to be a camera error to me either, but it's reassuring to hear someone else say it! If I'm not too tired from being up late last night trying to figure it out I'll have another shot at it tonight and investigate further.
  15. Well, it could certainly be explained by any one of, or a mixture of, any of those suggestions, but I've checked everything pretty thoroughly. Firstly, it's definitely weird and it's definitely Saturn! -I haven't checked the collimation, but the scope is permanently set up in an obsy and I haven't moved it from the mount since I bought it about a year ago and I've been imaging Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and the moon with it, so it would be very weird if the collimation is suddenly off whack. It also doesn't explain the image not being still. -The seeing was the best I've seen in a very long time and the scope had been cooled for half an hour, which may not be enough for it to completely cool, but I've never seen anything like that before even straight after removing the lens cap after a hot day! I've never had any noticeable problems with thermals either. But obviously I can't rule out a freak set of circumstances. -As for the focus, it was exactly where I left it from last time I imaged Saturn a couple of weeks ago and I checked it with a Bahtinov and shifted it up and down a bit and saw the "Bahtinov crosshairs" move in and out of alignment, so I can say with certainty that the focus was spot on. What I will do next time I have the chance is check it with an eyepiece. That would at least eliminate a problem with the camera. Bizarre thermals or falling out of collimation I can live with, but as much as anything I'm hoping someone has seen something similar and can reassure me that the camera isn't broken! It is by far the most vexing thing that has happened to me in my many years of imaging.
  16. The conditions were perfect last night. Still skies, no moon, no cloud, no shimmering. So I powered up the rig at 11-30pm and tried to get a quick video of Saturn. But all I got was a crazy unresolvable shifting image. I spent ages double and triple checking everything, but the Bahtinov mask showed the focus was spot on and there were no clouds or trees obscuring the view. At first I thought I thought it was caused by extreme turbulence from warm air in the OTA (8 inch dob), but after 30min or more of waiting and checking everything it didn't change one little bit. I moved the mount around to a bright star right near the zenith and got exactly the same type of image with that (so Saturn isn't about to supernova!). I checked down the tube as well to make sure there weren't any major obstructions. I haven't got brilliant planetary images of saturn before, but they've at least been recognisable! And this was definitely Saturn (not that a star should be showing up like this anyway!). The whole thing is in an obsy as well so it hasn't been knocked or taken apart since the last time I got some images. Now I'm just worried that there's something wrong with the sensor. Has anyone else seen anything like this? I've attached the movie file from the camera (Canon 600d). Hope someone can help, I'm at my wits end with this! Edit: Forgot to say, this video was taken with a 3x barlow at 10x digital zoom. MVI_0255.MOV
  17. That's really cool. Is the first image the full frame (ie uncropped)?
  18. That looks good. It looks like some of the stars are slightly off-round, especially up the left hand side, but I guess that's due to the correction. It's definitely better closer to the edges that a non-corrected C80, and miles better than the usual 'warp' effect! Was it the plain flattener you got or was it a reducer too? This one? http://www.scsastro.co.uk/catalogue/orion-field-flattener-for-short-refractors.htm
  19. Yeah, maybe the size. But it looks really colourful and intricate in your pic so I'd have thought that people with really sensitive, small sensor CCDs would have been all over it!
  20. Thanks xlacer. A lot of people have referenced that website before so I'd already read that article before I asked the question on here. I don't think he mentions AA filters at all, but seeing as there's little need to remove the second filter in most astro-mods (which is the one that seems to be acting as the AA filter too - thanks Merlin!) I guess that's why no-one has a real comparison to show what difference it makes to astro photos.
  21. I haven't seen that before. Very interesting little nebula. Thanks for sharing.
  22. Thanks, yes, that clears up what the two filters do. I was thinking exactly the same about planetary imaging too. It should certainly help capture all those small details when cropped right in running at 24fps in the newer models with video capture. I'd love to see what difference it makes, but unfortunately I don't have the nerve to buy a new model DSLR and mod it, or the cash to buy one modded and one not to compare!
  23. Thanks Merlin. Sounds like you'll be benefiting from not having an AA filter, but like you say, if you've never used the camera BEFORE removing the AA filter then it's difficult to say what difference, if any, it's making. Also, I'm a little confused as to which filter does what in the more modern Canon DSLRs. Old Canon DSLRs (like the 350d) needed a replacement (Baader) filter to stop star bloating from IR once the original filter had been removed, but from what I understand the newer ones (like the 1100d-not sure about the 1000d) only need one of the filters removing and don't need a replacement to cut out IR/UV as long as you leave the second filter in place. It would seem that it is this second filter that is acting as the AA filter as well as a UV and/or IR cut. Can anyone who knows their way around the insides of these things enlighten me? Interestingly, Nikon have released a special camera with the AA filter removed (seemingly at a large mark-up of course!) and the results look brilliant: http://www.lifepixel.com/blog/anti-aliasing-low-pass-filter-removal ..and quite a few Canon owners seem to have latched onto the idea. Here's one example that I quickly googled. Again, the results make you wonder why the filter is there in the first place! : http://www.canonwatch.com/eos-5d-mark-iii-hacked-anti-aliasing-filter-removed-more-sharpness/ I was hoping someone on here could share some real astro shots from before and after AA filter removal (and of course what exactly the AA filter is!).
  24. I have read some good things about increases in image sharpness in modern DSLRs gained by removing the anti-aliasing filter (and replacing with a standard Baader filter to cut UV/IR). The theory looks sound to me, but as with anything the proof is in the pudding! Has anyone used a DSLR with the anti-aliasing filter removed?
  25. The QHY8L is definitely a step up from an un-modded (or an old modded one like mine!) DSLR, but what about a modern modded one? The difference in price between these is still a good few hundred pounds and newer DSLRs are very good when it comes to noise and signal strength. For me the real test of whether a ccd is worth it over a DSLR is the Spaghetti Nebula. With a modded 350d I've only got noise with a 20min exposure, but the same thing using a mono 460EX CCD gets you some good data (not print quality, but you can see what it is!). Has anyone tried with a more expensive DSLR or a QHY8L? .
×
×
  • 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.