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.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Willi1972

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
  1. Hi all, I have installed Astrotortilla, and thus Astrometry on my new laptop. I had it installed on my old laptop, and it worked flawlessly. Now, though, the program seems to work until you look at the results. The results are clearly wrong, and there is a message in the logfile: "0[main}bash2956find_fast_cwd:WARNING:couldn't compute FAST_CWD pointer" I have attached a copy of the log file. The laptop is running 64 bit Windows 10 and Astrotortilla is version 0.7 Any thoughts on this would be fantastic, as I have a week off, and clear nights are forecast for the next 4 days. Regards Richard AT log.docx
  2. Hi all, I have had a Skywatcher 120ST since September, and have managed to accumulate enough experience to know that this scope just ain't up to it any more. It has a lot of CA and is not easy to persuade to stay in focus. Another issue is that it is a little too short on focal length for working with a DSLR on DSOs and the moon. However, it was a great learning tool. Now I'm looking for an upgrade path. Originally, I had thought about an ED80, as everyone raves about them, but that would give me even less focal length, less diameter, and be a large financial outlay. (I had thought about a 150 apo, looked at the prices, and then soiled myself!) I then thought about going Newtonian with a 200PDS. This seems to fit the bill apart from being very large. I have an EQ5 mount, which I have seen many people get good results from with a 200PDS, but probably not such a good match at this point in my learning curve. My next thought was going down in size to a 150PDS, which also has good reviews. This would probably be more of a better introduction to the world of reflectors. At the moment, this is my favourite, as it is a reasonable price, good performance, an increase in light gathering power and a good match for the mount. I would appreciate thoughts on these choices and any other alternatives that people can throw into the pot. Kind regards RIchard
  3. I think the key thing is whether it is a 64 bit os or not. My win 7 with 4GB copes quite happily with D7100 RAWs despite being a 5 year old i3. IIRC, win 7 home is only 32 bit and so, as you say, will spend a lot of time with the page file.
  4. Another thought on this is that there are settings that can be applied to RAW file settings on the D7100. My RAWs work in DSS and my settings are as follows : Shooting menu, NEF (RAW) recording, type - lossless compressed, NEF bit depth = 14 bit. If these settings are the same with your images, I can see no reason why dss did not work with them. Feel free to send me a few NEFs, and I'll see if they work on my laptop.
  5. Sorry it took so long. I have just checked, and I use the following settings: DSS Version 3.3.2 Register stars to give around 50 stars Standard mode No drizzle Median stacking of light frames Automatic alignment Create TIFF files Detect and clean remaining hot and cold pixels For some reason, this has always worked perfectly,
  6. I can't check my sons at the moment, but I definitely don't crop. Straight from the camera into dss
  7. Hi Jake, Just for info I also use the 7100, and dss had no problem stacking 70 or so files on a 5 year old i3 with 4GB RAM. Be careful when converting to TIFF as there can be various processing algorithms applied. Better to use RAW output from dss as a FIT file, and then convert to a 16 bit TIFF in PS (or whatever) This is just what works for me.
  8. I have a Tokina 12 to 24. It's pretty old now, but it's a great, sharp lens. Should be easily within your budget.
  9. Can anyone advise on a suitable webcam which could be adapted for use? I appreciate that something like a QHY5 would be much better, but I'd rather not pay that sort of money. I understand that i will need an adapter and possibly a long exposure mod. WHat does modding involve - is it a software or hardware mod? Regards Richard
  10. I now have a new version of this where I have adopted my new workflow of opening the DSS 32bit TIFF file in CS. Then change mode to 16 bit, with the setting "equalise histogram". This gives me data that are much more stretchable. The result is more subtle and pastel. I spent a long time playing with the different layers, and found that by making the curve for a particular colour a bulge rather than a single curve, I could affect a specific portion of the nebula. By careful manipulation of the colours of certain layers, I could get more of a 3D effect. I still kept my colours in layers rather than channels, as I could have a fine degree of control that I don't think is available in channels. For example, the red layer could be made into an orange layer. I played around with shorter subs for the blown out region, but I decided that the image looked more complete and "active" with the intense brightness there. Not to everyone's taste, I realise. This is getting far from a faithful representation of real life, but it still looks nice. Regards
  11. Hi all, I have an ST120 and am really getting the imaging bug, despite the lack of clear skies recently. The next step for me would be to add guiding. As I understand it, things are simplified as I have a 600mm FL scope. This should have at least 1 bright star, no matter what t's pointing at, so I won't need a hugely sensitive (and costly) camera. What kind of focal length guide scope would I need, given that my imaging scope is 600mmFL? Is there a rough formula for it? What are the preferred models? Given that I won't need a very sensitive camera, what would be suitable? I quite fancy the idea of butchering a webcam and getting that to work. Any suggestions as to suitable model? Regards Richard
  12. Hi all, I am relatively new at imaging, and I have always been disappointed with stretches that I am able to get from DSS images. I could stretch very little before it started looking posterised. My old workflow was as follows: 1. Stack in DSS 2. Save as a 16 bit TIFF from DSS 3. Open in PS and apply stretch 4. Bang head against brick wall However, I tried something new tonight: 1. Stack in DSS 2. Save as a 32 bit TIFF from DSS 3. Open in PS and convert to 16 bit 4. Apply HDR settings as appropriate 5. Stretch 6. Smile Is my new workflow how other people do it? Regards Richard
  • Create New...

Important Information

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