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.



Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cuivenion

  1. Unfortunately I can't get any images at the moment due to constant cloud. To be honest I always thought the cap/cheshire did a good job, but centering/rounding the secondary is much easier in theory doing on a screen. If the cheshire is as far out of whack as the camera suggests I think my images would have been a lot worse.
  2. Hi Billy, unfortunately thats not the problem. The asi224 fits in the 2" holder snugly as does the GPCAM in the 1.25". Despite this the I'm getting the error in the picture above. That was taken using the GPCAM, but the asi224 wasn't right either. It wasn't movement in the holder that caused it, I loosened the screws and the movement wasn't that great. What I'm really wondering is do both the cams have a problem with the sensor being tilted or is it the lens.
  3. Would buying a better lens help? Or is it the camera sensor that is tilted and should I try and fix it with shims or a similer procedure.
  4. Yeah, I've used it to get the round shape, I was just hoping I could use it to center the secondary as well. I use a cap and a cheshire for aligning the primary mirror.
  5. I know what you're saying but everything looks fine under the cap/cheshire so it must the camera/lens thats the problem.
  6. I'm using a asi224 and a gpcam with a 12mm cs lens for collimation of the secondary mirror on my Skywatcher 130pds. The problem I'm having is that when centering the secondary under the focuser I'm getting different results when using a collimation cap/cheshire and a camera. When I center the mirror using the cap as best I can this is what I see with the camera: As you can see with the camera its way off and it is the camera that's wrong. The only possible explanation I've come across is that " The lens needs to be precisely parallel to the CCD and both need to be precisely parallel to the focuser shoulder", however I've got now idea how I would go about doing that, would it involve buying another lens? The problem is the same with both the asi224 and the GPCAM. I'd like to sort out a camera based way of centering and rotating the secondary, if possible so any help would be appreciated.
  7. I'll have a look for a different lens, I may be being picky but the distortion looks quite severe. Strange in your case that the cheshire is central but the camera isn't.
  8. Nah just checked, its a fish eye lens, pretty sure the walls of my living room aren't meant to curve like that.
  9. It's a fish eye lens though, so I imagine that would effect the accuracy.
  10. Can anyone reconmend a cheap C/CS or M12 lens for camera based telescope collimation? I'll be using it with a ZWO asi224.
  11. I'd personally go for being able to see Polaris and image North, West, and East.
  12. Cheers wim, I'll give it a go.
  13. That'll teach me to not check my subs, even if there are over 700 of them. Turns out one sub was completely purple and a number of others were elongated, I think because I had too short a dither recovery time. Here's a reprocess. The colour is a lot better after removing the purple sub.
  14. Imaged over two nights this week, this is the Sunflower Galaxy M63 , in Canes Venatici . Total integration time is 6 1/2 hours with 30 second subs. I used 100 x Flats, 100 x Flat Darks, and 60 x Darks per night. Imaging Equipment: Skywatcher 130PDS, Skywatcher HEQ5, ZWO ASI224 (Imaging camera), Altair GPCAM AR030C with Finderguider. Software Used: EQMOD and CDC, PHD2 for guiding, Sharpcap 3.2 for capture, DeepSkyStacker 4.2 for stacking and calibrating, Pixinsight for processing. Comments and criticisms welcome as ever.
  15. Apologies scarp15 I should have said using cameras for EAA rather than electronic aids. It's that and Goto that seem to draw the most criticism. I'm certainly not saying that EAA should or can replace eyepiece observing, but it is a viable way of observing in its own right with its own set of skills to learn. There just seems to be a vibe of EAA not being "proper astronomy" in certain posts and topics which has always annoyed me. That being said eyepiece observing is very enjoyable and definitely a skill learned over time.
  16. I gave up on visual observing from my backyard due to security lights. Moving to EAA allowed me to view objects I would never have seen through an eyepiece, and getting the right settings for the conditions to get the best image keep me immersed in the experience. I find it very much more entertaining than looking up images on the net. I fully understand the thrill of visual observing, but I've never quite understood the resistance to using electronic aids in amateur astronomy. Nasa and professional observatories all over the world use them after all. Telescopes and mounts are after all a type of technology that we use to explore the universe, but nobody suggests that we go back to just our eyeballs. I've noticed the same attitude towards Goto on occasion as well, which is really just a more advanced version of the setting circles on EQ mounts. All that being said I am going to have to arrange a look at M51 through a massive Dob sometime.
  17. To be fair it's got a built in battery that can be recharged via a usb power bank. That's something I like and often wonder why mount manufacturers don't include something like that.
  18. Depends what mount it fits to. Not sure how easy it would be to replace the reticle, you might be better off getting a new polar scope. Do a Google search for your mount and whatever company stocks it will probably stock a replacement polar scope.
  19. Cheers I'll give it a try.
  20. Is similar to how Metaguide works?
  21. Thanks wimvb. I did use deconvolution but I'm still getting my head round it. I made a PSF and applied it at the linear stage and that's the result. I may be better off using slight sharpening instead. There's not that many stars in the fov so maybe the PSF model isn't great.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.