Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by johankj

  1. Wow, that's better :-) I'll try to find a high pass filter in GIMP, see if I can replicate you magic ;-)
  2. Here a second stab at processing with DSS and GIMP. A little more colour in this one, a little less noise, but not so black background... Thanks for the tips :-)
  3. True that. I wont upgrade before I'm certain I've gotten everything out of the DSLR. Will probably be a long time. But if I decide to get a new DSLR, the filter in the old DSLR is soo gone. :-D
  4. Thanks :-) Will look into making/getting a focus mask for this scope. My DSLR is quite good when it comes to the battery, keeps going all night :-) Guiding is on the road map, one of the reasons I went for the synscan, since it has the guide-port. But I probably wont get one just yet.
  5. I did another stab at that, with those suggested settings, thanks :-) Posting image...
  6. Cheers :-) I'll probably give pixinsight a whirl at some point. But isn't that a PS plug-in? I don't own PS, only GIMP.
  7. Hurray, I'm well pleased. This is my first real DSO, appart from a Andromeda disaster, and some unsuccesfull Orions. Allots of firsts here: -First time using the new EQ3Pro synscan in the dark (upgrade from altaz) -First time using my new no-name ED 70mm/f6 -First time setting it up in the back yard (not the front) -First time taking flats So the polar scope semed pretty well aligned to the optical axis, but it was really dificult to align on Polaris as the clouds rolled in. I also printed polar 'sheets' inverted, which my scope wasn't. After a 1-star align and ignoring warnings of >45 degrees out of something, it still seemed to track and locate pretty well. Focus was a challenge, as always, specially since there were no stars nearby bright enough for the view-finder or the live-view. I opted for the simple shot-and-refocus method I snapped about 5 flats and darks, and 24 lights of all 60 secs at ISO1600. I retrospect I should have taken more darks, and eased off on the ISO. It's also a very quick job in DSS and GIMP, cuz I just couldn't wait There seems to be some lack of colour, I tried to bring it out, but I couldn't. Urgh, now it looks like I have to butcher my DSLR or upgrade to some insane single-colour-shot CCD and H-alpha filters and such niceties. Anyways, with a bit more practice and so on, I think I can end up with something I'm pleased with. Help, critisism, comments, etc are welcome. Good Night. It's cropped BTW
  8. Wow, very nice. Looks like the EQ3-Pro is quite capable. I'm getting this mount in three weeks time Just in time for summer
  9. I like them Any details on the capture?
  10. Planets could orbit either 'star', but it really depends on the two stars. Jupiter already have some very sizeable moons. I think there are some other stable orbits, if you look up something called Lagrange points. To us, it would look like two suns, and if we kept our current orbit, Jupiter would look like sun number two. So, when you see Jupiter, that would be Jupiter day. But because Jupiter would have to be more massive, the orbits we have today could not be the same I think. If Jupiter suddenly acuired more mass, by currernt theory, it could become a star. If by Jupiter behaving like a planet you mean that Jupiter would appear to orbit the sun, then yes. But even in out system, the orbits are not at the centre of the sun, but slighty shifted away from the larger body centre. If you look up the model for a two-body system, you can read more about that. Three or more body systems are very-very complex...
  11. I guess the limiting mass for thermonuclear fusion is the key here, unlike the minimum diameter for a planet, which is more arbitrary I'm glad we only have one (very stable) star. Having two, especially in such a close orbit as Jupiter, would have been devastating.
  12. Actually, if I remember correctly, Jupiter already emits more energy than it receives from the sun. Doesn't make it a star thought, and I'm not sure of what the definition of a brown dwarf is...
  13. Hehehe, how did you fix the black level? That's the thing though, its actually comparable to what I get from my 5" maksutov...
  14. I have an broken old Sigma 70-300mm (f5.6?) lense lying around, so I wanted to see what it could do (knowing already that it would be bad). I've used my Canon 1000D DSLR... I removed some eletronics from the lens and fixed it at 300mm and infinity. Quickly setting this ut on a goto altaz mount, not paying too much (roughly none) attention to focus and aligment. I've selected one 30 second shot (ISO800), I've only streched the histogram. There is distortion, vignetting, cromatic aberations from the lens, and tracking errors, vibrations, and shearing from the mount... Wow...
  15. Aye, and quite dynamic too, it dissolved in a minutes, a lucky shoot. Even my usually-not-so-interested wife and my sister who was visiting was impressed
  16. Thanks That ones shot with shot with a Canon D1000 and a Tamron 10-24mm, after 13mm it's a little sharper...
  17. Totally forgot to see if there were nothern lights last night, but I saw these this morning, so I snapped a few. I've increased the saturation on both, to bring out the colour... One is with a wide-angle lens, the other is with a 50mm prime.
  18. Thanks for the info guys. I've mailed Ian asking for the availability. Do I need an adapter for my DSLR? I have a T2. Do I also need an adapter to mount this on my SW AltAz goto?
  19. I been looking at an 70mm F6 ED, and it just got a whole more tempting. I've also tried to figure out if I could attach a focal-reducer to my current mak, but it seems a bit too 'magic', if you know what I mean. Also, I couldn't make heads or tails of which type or what kind of connection. So, it's probably going to be the refractor
  20. It was in the west, so I could probably have pushed it even further
  21. Here is a raw (canon) and a jpeg: Jpeg: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9547820/IMG_9465.JPG Raw: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9547820/IMG_9465.CR2 The metadata is as I set to, but maybe there is something else... I calculated my FOV here: Calculator for DSLR Astrophotography
  22. That is so cool, so bookmarked, and thank you very much. I think I need to change my setup for DSO. My mak is great for planets, but obviously not well suited for the faint stuff.
  23. I know it's actually from Telescope-service, but that's all. There is an unboxing video on YouTube.
  24. Yeah, it seems like the norm is 180s. I guess I need timer remote... And a shorter scope... Hmmm...
  • 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.