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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss.thumb.jpg.5b348d6a5e7f27bdcb79e9356b7fc03b.jpg

conspicuity

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About conspicuity

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Interests
    Life, the Universe, and Everything.
  • Location
    Surrey, UK
  1. Thanks for the comments - and the advice, Matt. I will try again. John
  2. I can't offer any technical advice, but I must say it's a stunning image .
  3. I didn't understand all technicalities discussed here, but I recognized the frustration in the original account only too well - made me feel better. Thanks! I hope you reach a satisfactory solution soon. I'll be sticking with PHD1, too.
  4. Nice to have a few clear nights for a change! I finally managed to include some darks and flats . These are different versions of a set of 4 X 256s sub-frames. I think I prefer the less processed one (a) - the stars are less bloated. Any critique/advice welcomed! Borg 55FL f/3.6; Atik 490 EX colour
  5. TS80APOQ and Atik490Ex. Thanks for your comments.
  6. Finally a clear night and no moon! I was beginning to despair. And, for once, I got all the kit assembled in reasonable time and got a result. No darks or flats, but I will develop the necessary patience, given time. Anyway, something to share at last.
  7. Yes, I do mean the standalone guide camera. (can I put that one down to age?). It seemed like a sensible option.... Best guess: I need to be less impatient and persevere... but last time it took an age to get close to beginning an imaging session and then it clouded over . Thanks for your interest. JC
  8. Sven, Thanks for the reply. Sorry I did not make myself clear. Yes, I am using one camera to capture the image and the Synscan for guiding (and, to be absolutely clear, two scopes linked by a tangent mount, the whole on an equatorial mount that I have taken some trouble to polar align). I just find the Synscan rather flaky: difficult to get the focus right; the hand controller buttons are either unresponsive or over-sensitive; and the results are variable - it may stay locked on for 20 minutes and then become unstable. Setting up the imaging camera is a doddle by comparison, hence the idea that a second camera + PC for guiding might prove more viable. I don't like to solve problems by throwing money at them, but this might be an exception. John C
  9. Making slow progress (when the weather allows) but I still find getting the Synscan set up and guiding reliably a bit of a hassle and a lottery. It crosses my mind that using a second camera + laptop might have advantages. Does anyone have a view based on experience? Thanks...
  10. Impressive! Only today, as I was clearing junk, I came across the 36" f/4 photo-reconnaissance lens I rescued twenty years ago in the fond hope that, when I retired, I would somehow develop the skills to mount it and modify it for astrophotography. Of course, the convenience of off-the-shelf modern technology (and the impatience that comes with old age) has made this very unlikely. Glad to see that someone has successfully trodden the path. Congratulations!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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