BrendanC

Hi all, Thought I'd add this - an unusual target - 30 Cyg and 31 Cyg A & B. 30 Cyg, to the right of the image, is a white giant star with a blue tint. 31 Cyg A is a bright orange giant, with a smaller blue companion called 31 Cyg B (alternatively HD 192579). They are a binary system which orbits at a distance of a mere 11 astronomical units. As they are viewed side-on, every 10.32 years they are are in eclipse for 63 days. Image details: * 1:10 hours of integration at ISO800 from 70x60s subs * Bortle 4, Moon 100% phase, 47° height * 25 flats, 25 dark flats, 50 darks * Sky-Watcher 130PDS with primary baffle, NEQ6 with Rowan belt, EOS1000D minus IR filter, 0.9x coma corrector, APT, PHD2, DSS, StarTools, Topaz DeNoise AI Cheers, Brendan

OK, just bit the bullet - went out, checked everything, took the camera out, checked collimation (not easy in the dark, even with a torch), re-seated the camera, tweaked the vanes to make sure they were as straight as I could get them, re-focused... and the problem is gone. I think the camera may not have been quite properly seated. Anyway, problem solved, in the field! 🙂

Hi all, I'm currently imaging, hoovering up some clusters while the Moon's bright, and I've just noticed something oddddd about my stars. There's a strange spike sticking out at about 11 o'clock (330 degrees-ish). Focus is good, and I've checked that the camera's not tilted, but it's still there. Any ideas? Image is a zoomed-in screenshot quickly edited to show what I mean. This is from a 130PDS (Newtonian) and EOS1000D camera, on an NEQ6 mount. The scope has a primary baffle which I've checked and seems to be in place, and the camera is astro-modded and has a 0.9x coma corrector. The shots aren't guided, they're just 60 second exposures, tracking. Thanks, Brendan

@vlaiv Thanks! @tooth_dr Hmmm, according to Mr Astrobackyard it can be either as luminance or added to the red channel? See https://astrobackyard.com/dslr-ha-filter/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5KY9skll8&t=250s. This really is my very first tentative toe in the narrowband waters so I'm back to being a noobtard I'm afraid.

Hi all, I recently got me one of these: https://www.svbony.com/h-alpha-filter-7nm/#F9169A It's to use with my EOS1000D with the IR filter removed, so that I can get a nice luminance layer for my DSOs, emission nebulae in particular. However, the UK weather being what it is, I haven't had the chance to use it yet - but this coming Thursday, there's a chance I can do some work, HOWEVER, as is so often the case, the Moon will be bright and high. So, I'll be shooting to the conditions, and capturing a cluster or two instead. Which leads to my question: will I get any benefit from using the filter when shooting clusters? Part of me thinks yes, because it might cut through the moonlight, but I'm not sure. I know the real answer is 'try it and see' but given the scarcity of good nights recently, if anyone could just tell me and avoid me losing a night, that would be great. Thanks, Brendan

Thanks - and I've actually had a response from Ivo on the APT forum so one step forward (of around 14/15 microns, it would seem).

Does anyone here happen to use the HitecAstro DC Focus V2 with a Sky-Watcher 130PDS scope? Ideally running APT? I'm having some issues setting mine up ie I don't know what I'm doing. I've got it connected etc but the first run of the autofocus routine last night didn't work out. The chart started populating, but all the dots were to the right. I didn't expect it to work first time, with default settings, so I've been going through the help pages to do this. I've established that the CFZ for my Sky-Watcher 130PDS scope is 58 microns (focal length is actually 590mm because of 0.9x coma corrector, aperture is 130mm), and that the step size for my HitecAstro DC Focus V2 focuser (which doesn't have a step motor but can simulate this) is 6 microns after following these steps: https://astrophotography.app/usersguide/measure_the__microns_per_step_.htm So far so good, and my understanding is that I now specify 6 in the Focuser Move Step in the Auto Focus Aid settings. However, what I'm wondering is why, if I click 'Auto', it suggests 21, from a default value of 20? That seems quite a lot higher than 6, and makes me wonder if I'm doing the right thing here, especially given that the help page at https://astrophotography.app/usersguide/measure_the__microns_per_step_.htm establishes a value for that focuser of 3.1 microns, which is an even greater disparity. I should add that where I am in the UK the forecast is abysmal for the next five days so I'm unlikely to be able to test anything for a while. So, it would be wonderful if someone could just tell me what to put, and where (keep it clean), because I'm basically lazy. Thanks, Brendan

I've decided to stick with 3.2.0. The Low Light change just doesn't do it for me. It's been a bad software week: APT, StarTools and Topaz have all issued updates that don't work too well for me. Here are two examples... 3.2.0 - nice and smooth 3.3.2 - to my eye, a bit crunchy and grainy, and more noticeable when you zoom in, on the original image I should add that neither of these images are processed to look as good as possible - they're just processed using defaults in StarTools and 50% Sharpen/Denoise with CPU rendering in Topaz, so they're more easily directly compared. I mean, it could be a matter of choice, but I do prefer the 3.2.0. I also understand that Topaz isn't an astrophotography package (another irritation of 3.3.2 is that it automatically chooses 'the best' algorithm which is never Low Light, which I routinely use). But it's still annoying.

OK, so Topaz support confirm that yes, there was a change in the Low Light algo. I'm going to play around with the new one and see what I can get out of it but I find it so very annoying when these things change and, imho, become worse.

No one here uses Topaz Denoise AI?

Hi all, I recently updated my 3.2.0 to 3.3.2 and I'm sure there's a difference in the rendering. I contacted Topaz and their response was that they haven't changed anything in the algo, but I'm sure there's a discernible difference. Is anyone else noticing this? I actually have some sample files if anyone fancies taking a look or playing around with them: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AqovBuVZMwj3kZMFpjjz4h19KrgYpA?e=Fgp2Ue (four TIFF files, about 1.4GB) They're all created using Low Light at 50% denoise and sharpen, CPU rendered. Two of them were using 3.2.0, one on my PC, one on my laptop, so I could compare across machines. They're identical, as expected. Then I upgraded to 3.3.2 on the PC, and there is a clear difference. It's grainier, not as soft - and, I think, not as effective. I've also included the original image, autosave.tiff I've also shared these with Topaz support, not heard anything back yet. Any thoughts? Thanks, Brendan

Thanks, I do have a desktop PC and I might look into upgrading rather than a new setup. And yes, you're right, it's an alpha release so fingers crossed.

I'm kind of stuck now. I don't want to have to shell out for a new rig just for this module. Only other choices are to skip HDR, move on from StarTools, or roll back to the previous version, which I've done but then obviously won't be able to take advantage of future developments. I guess we wait to see what Ivo decides to do between the alpha and final release.

I'd say it's fairly long - definitely disruptive for a workflow, in which you want to try different settings. If you read my thread at the StarTools forum, you'll see that, at the higher settings, it doesn't budge from the first progress bar. I'm really hoping this changes. I don't think my machines are terribly low-end.

So essentially that means people without a dedicated GPU can no longer use StarTools?

Hi all, I'm trying to get to grips with the new HDR module in StarTools latest alpha release. I know alpha releases change, and I'm really hoping this one does, because I'm finding it almost unusable it's so slow. Anyone else finding this? Any workarounds or settings that fix this? I've documented it here: https://forum.startools.org/viewtopic.php?t=2357 Thanks, Brendan

Interesting thread! Just to chime in regarding mosaic software, Affinity Photo has an excellent mosaic feature.

The Cocoon Nebula, IC 5146 * 5:27 hours of integration at ISO800 from 28x240s + 43x300s subs * Bortle 4 sky, Moon 1% phase, 45° height * Calibration: 25 flats, 25 dark flats, 50 darks * Hardware: Sky-Watcher 130PDS scope with primary mirror baffle, Sky-Watcher NEQ6 mount with Rowan belt, Canon EOS1000D DSLR camera minus IR filter, Sky-Watcher 0.9x coma corrector, Datyson T7C guide camera, Angel Eyes 50mm guide scope * Software: Polar alignment with SharpCap Pro, guiding with PHD2, capture with Astrophotography Tool (APT), stacking with Deep Sky Stacker (DSS), post-processing with StarTools and Topaz Denoise AI

Just messaged you.

Thanks! I thought it looked very much like an ADM saddle. Quick supplementary question though: if I do sell, would the puck be integral to this ie would I need to sell them both together, or could they in theory be sold separately? In which case, how much would the puck be worth as a separate item?

I tried this the other night with appalling results. So yes, I agree with everyone else - very tough object, very well done.

Hi all, When I bought a second-hand NEQ6 mount a while back, it came with this Losmandy saddle. However, I don't need it and never did, and probably never will. So, I'm thinking of selling it to raise funds for new astro kit. Thing is, I've searched the web high and low and cannot identify it. There's no branding or anything, so I can't really figure what a decent asking price would be. Can anyone help? Anyone have this, or know what make it is? Failing that, what would a fair price be? Thanks, Brendan

Interesting, never really thought it could be because of that, but it does make sense. I haven't chopped the focus tube, but I do know that's one of the fixes. I've got half a mind to invest in a TS optics non-reducing coma corrector which might help. Thanks for the suggestion!

Interesting - I've had twisted vanes before but was able to get ointment for it I thought I'd fixed it, so I'll check again. Still, I've decided it's not a real problem. Thanks anyway!

@happy-kat I know what you mean about that 130PDS thread, I was looking for it too yesterday. Anyway, I have actually fitted a primary mirror baffle and it has improved my stars. @vlaiv I'm fairly sure the vanes are the same length and thickness. I think that, at the end of the day, the 130PDS isn't the last word in quality so I've decided it's really not a problem and that I can live with it.