Jump to content

Narrowband

Davesellars

Members
  • Posts

    1,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Davesellars

  1. Don't forget to add the finder shoe if you're going with the Starfield 102ED. The Starfield is an excellent scope and very capable for DSOs (obviously can't expect it to beat an 8"+ reflector though). If you get the EQ5 mount (I use mine on this and much prefer it to the AZ4 as I find it better (imho) when switching eyepieces, but both mounts are very steady. The EQ5 is rock solid with this scope and you've got the option of adding motors or even GOTO though... I'd recommend looking at adding a visual finder though if you're interested in DSOs... lots to choose from - I use the 30mm Right Angled Skywatcher as I think that's sufficient with this scope if the sky is dark enough although the 50mm will obviously show more depth at the expense of FOV. Once aligned, with the 30mm finder as long as the scope is roughly pointing in the correct direction of the initial star to start, I always have it in my FOV of the finder. I reserve a pointer (like the Rigel) for use with my dob where I have a much smaller FOV while using a 60mm finder so these then work very well together. Good luck with the search... it would probably seem never ending but try not to end in parallysis analysis!
  2. Fascinating group of galaxies! Indeed, there's a great variety of type there in the view. According to SkySafari... IC 5145 is 383 Mly distance receeding at 7363 km/s UGC 11845 is 348 MIy distance receeding at 7234 km/s IC 5144 is 418 Mly distance receeding at 8686 km/s PGC 1473533 (CGCG 427-39) is 440 Mly distance receeding at 9063 km/s PGC 1474263 is 430 Mly distance receeding at 8939 km/s So... my guess is that the group would be made up of IC5144, PGC 1473533 and PGC 1474263 as these have very similar distance and receeding velocity?
  3. Looks like a good start! I'm just starting down the EAA route myself although it's not replacing visual... it's more like a different tool to use. I'm still learning and don't have the luxury of a goto mount at the moment but from my previous AP experience, platesolving will solve all your issues and it's dead easy to setup and connect through SharpCap (I installed ASTAP).
  4. Lots of cloud but using the 102ED and binoviewers got to see Jupiter and Mars. Seeing seemed exceptionally steady. Mars a reasonably sized disc now and lots of surface detail really standing out.
  5. Got to see this pretty much at the peak with my family using the 80ED. Was fortunate with the clouds!
  6. Personally, I wouldn't choose anything other than an EQ mount - it gives you more options for start to do AP as well as shorter exposure EAA which even this is restricted in only alt/az. If you're going to be using relatively lightweight refractors, perhaps the EQ5 goto would be a good choice, although it's not that much more for the HEQ5... I have found my 80ED quite capable so far - I'm yet to test my 102ED on the EQ5 mount for EAA - it should be fine though. I'm not sure I'd want to be using much less aperture than 80mm as it would be quite restrictive in the objects you could realistically view well. A 4" ED refractor would be great for both EAA and visual observing. Like you say... there are many options!
  7. So the problem doesn't appear to be the camera nor the offset which I originally suspected. Using ASIStudio capture I don't see any issue and also with SharpCap taking an individual capture rather than LiveStack also I can't see an issue - one I've stretched it using StarTools. Using Livestack though in SharpCap, the problem appears immediately.
  8. Many thanks! That's interesting about the cooling. The first couple of nights I used it was particularly cold and I think the camera was reporting 10 degrees and I didn't see the issue quite so much. A couple of nights ago the temp was around 14 - 15 degrees. I've tried both with the supplied USB3 cable and also a good quality USB3 cable I've been using outside and there's no real difference. Would lack of cooling cause quite so much of issue of banding?
  9. OK, so just testing out (it's cloudy tonight!) in Sharpcap and having just taken dark frames for 8 second subs @ 200 gain the banding still really shows up actually even more significantly...
  10. I've been using this camera (mono version) for about 10 days and have had quite a few opportunities to use it (see my EAA Reports thread) and seem to be experiencing banding on the camera that to me ruins some of the images. I've used flats most of the time using Sharpcap to generate them which also creates the bias and darks (not all the time, depending on what i'm capturing or have changes my settings and just testing... Anyone else with experience of this camera state their view of the banding I'm seeing. is this normal or is the 178 just particularly bad in this case (which is shame as the camera is really sensitive and capturing nice images). EAA captures
  11. Nice captures, Mike! NGC 147 is quite diffuse without a bright core which can make it difficult visually. I see I haven't logged this one as observed yet. NGC 185 has come out really well with a touch of structure appearing and those two small dark areas. Well done!
  12. Hi Paul! Many thanks! This was using Sharpcap live stacking with the 120ST (thus bloated stars!!!) - It was approx 40 subs x 15 seconds using the ASI 178MM camera. Actually the first few subs showed really clearly but then conditions were terrible through haze and cloud so I let it run for a while to improve the Signal to Noise ratio only. Dave.
  13. Hi Mike, That's a really nice image of the Bubble! It's considerably cleaner and sharper than the first and while you say, there's not a huge difference in detail it looks quite abit fuller (I assume because of the extra resolution of the 15"). Well done!
  14. Ok, just a quick one... Have the 120ST out tonight but conditions are pretty dire. I've managed to capture C/2022 E3 (ZTF) though even through the murk!
  15. Well done on spotting it! I'd give it a go with the dob tonight but the transparency is awful... I have the 120ST capturing it at the moment instead...
  16. Many thanks Mike! That's a great result on the Bubble from before for such a short amount of time. I assume that was without the use of a filter? I think my main restriction for getting bright objects quicker is obviously the aperture of the scope here so it will be interesting to see what difference there would be using the 120ST instead of the 80ED. So far, the sky is looking good so I may give it a go later to compare if it stays clear. I would be nice to get results faster but I've found pretty much the same that after a certain amount of frames there is very little real increase in detail apart from the image getting cleaner and perhaps a bit more fuller.
  17. Nice! Glad to see you also took advantage (no time off for me unfortunately, but not doing too mad this morning... ) The transparency increased considerably during the morning (at the start it was pretty bad). By the time I got to Orion around 3am it was crystal clear and the stars in the sky were much brighter.
  18. 4th Session! 17th/18th Oct - Approx 9pm to 4am. The promise of a clear night according to ClearOutside actually came true (which was nice). Although it was evident early on that the transparency was far from good, I'd had the 12" dob for visual observing out as well as the 80ED on the EQ5 for some EAA. I'd been referring to the Caldwell catalogue for some inspiration of targets. 1st up was the face on galaxy IC342. This was very faint! I'd taken darks at 30s and 150 gain so stuck with this although later I felt that this needed 1-minute exposures - it needed 5 minutes to really develop properly and by the end (50 minutes) I think it turned into a half-decent image showing some good detail in the spirals. While it was doing its thing I setup the dob and went in for a cup of tea... Next up was a the relatively bright galaxy in Pegasus: NGC 7814. Conversely to the previous - this is a straight-on view of the galaxy. The galaxy showed immediately very well after the few couple of exposures (same settings) and then I let it develop for 67 minutes. While it was doing its thing I trundled about a few objects with the dob (including this galaxy) The transparency really wasn't very good though and while the galaxy was visible it was extremely faint and wouldn't take any magnification at all otherwise it was lost. Then a change... I popped switched the IR-block filter for the Ha 12nm and re-took darks. Exposure time was kept the same at 30 seconds but upped the gain to 300. Here, I'd like to demonstrate the difference between a short integration time (1st example is 4 minutes) with a longer one (second example is 35 minutes) Above is 4 minutes only - I was surprised at how much the nebula showed with just this time especially for Ha. OK, it's not that clean - but the majority of it is there... Compared to below: Ok, so quite a bit brighter, cleaner and some more detail on the periphery of the nebula and I think the main difference is that it started to gain quite a bit more depth to the image. Still, only 36 minutes of total time is small for a Ha target so I was really happy with this result! I think the banding seen is perhaps from the extra gain used (300) over the images taken at 150 gain for the previous galaxies. So next up had to be another nebula (being in the area already!) and chose the Bubble (NGC 7635). Again, I chose 30 second exposures with the same gain (300) but this time I switched to binning x2 and this nebula showed immediately to great effect. I let it run though for 58 minutes while I spent quite a bit of time with the dob viewing Jupiter (seeing so-so) and Mars. Now was time for a bit of testing to compare the above with a shorter integration time but longer exposures - to 1 minute (didn't bother with darks here so please excuse the amp-glow noise!). Below is only 6 minutes (12 frames) The stars still seemed reasonably round so i pushed my luck to 2 minutes exposures but dropped the gain to 250. Below is 8 frames (16 minutes total) Really, comparing this and the first I don't see that much difference in detail. Ok, I'm obviously pushing it with 2 minutes unguided on an EQ5... But, it's not too bad and the FWHM was confirming that it hadn't increased that much and so was acceptable (this is not a polished AP image after all). I think if I can really get my polar alignment dead on (it's very close!) and ensure very little flex there's no reason why I can't continue with 2 minute exposures for Ha targets. Orion was nicely positioned now so switching taking the Ha filter out for full spectrum again I went for M42 for very short exposures (4 seconds). Below is just 5 minutes integration time (it was getting very late!) I took some darks first as quick to do with only 4s exposures. The nebula is massive so does not quite fit the frame (majority is there though!) On quickly to the Flame nebula.... Only 4 minutes of 30 second exposures but starting to show really nicely.... I am assuming that the artifact around the bright star is the result of dew? I didn't have any issue earlier in the night with an equally bright star. Then quickly again to the Horsehead... 6 minutes of integration with 30s exposures. The reflection nebula is showing really well already and the Ha coming through defining the HH. That was it... I was thoroughly frozen... and it had turned 4am so it was time to call it a night with everything dripping wet. Hope you've enjoyed this "journal" log.... I am still learning!!!
  19. Just finished for the night - 7 hour session!
  20. Double session tonight in the end with the 12" dob and EAA with the 80ED. Transparency I thought was awful and the dob was soon very wet. Jupiter showed very well though although the seeing was so-so - in the moments of calm some really great belt detail using the 5mm Pentax XW. Mars was rather more fuzzy but at least it's starting to show a decent size disc now. A few galaxies observed but nothing very well because of the transparency - should have stuck to some open clusters instead! EAA went rather better though... Just on the last one now before packing up.
  21. Lovely and clear here this evening... Have stuck the 12" dob out!
  22. Hi Martin, Sent PM with the full log. This is the only failure I can see in the log (gets repeated a few times) 16Oct22 21:22:14.001 | ERROR | jocular.component | get | 34 | cannot import module Capture (DLL load failed while importing _cascade: The specified module could not be found.) Many thanks. David.
  23. Thanks Steve. I'll give that a go once I've got the computer back (kids have it... :p) I believe I was using 200 before and turned it up to 400 to try...
  24. Hi Steve! Many thanks. Yes, i've connected the camera selecting ASI Camera and then connected - the light then shows green to show connected fine. Nothing is showing in the Capture area at all after clicking the Camera button (camera button is lit)
×
×
  • 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.