Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paulus

  1. You could look at the strip-down & rebuild by Astrobaby (search topics on this SGL). It is first class & well worth doing. Paul
  2. Had another play with data from M31 7 frame staked image A bit better I think but still a long way to go. More data needed at same ISO level
  3. Thank you TJ, I'll give it a go when I get some more data to work with as there is woefully little there at the moment. Lets hope for a few clear nights soon! Cheers, Paul
  4. I've signed & asked friends on Facebook to as well Paul
  5. If you have an image with a resolution of 240 pixels / inch and wanted to crop and enlarge an area in the image. Would increasing the number of pixels / inch in Photoshop to say 960/inch prior to cropping give a better enlarged image? (I am referring to this http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-image-processing-help-techniques/118023-1st-attempt-m57.html) At the moment when I zoom in the ring is lost as there are too few pixels. Its probably a silly question, when I think about it my first instincts are you can't get something from what is not there. Assuming that is the case what is the best way to get the ring larger on the image, Barlow lens? Any help much appreciated Paul
  6. what a great image , pushing it a bit further works on my screen. so much for the images I've posted in the past few days Yet more reading to do Congratulations on another great image, Paul
  7. Mike, That looks very nice, far more detail than I got in my M57 We'll get there one day Paul
  8. Thank you DLP, didn't think of saving for web use! I'm not sure what happened in stacking either, was hoping someone might have a view. Very kind of you Mike, I was pleased to see the colour but I'm not happy with much else, especially the size. I hoped I could make it look bigger but the camera is only Meg so I suppose there are not enough pixels to get blown up detail. Paul
  9. Hi Mike & anyone else, I would if I could, I've no idea how to change the format, as I said in original posting. It's very frustrating & I apologise for my incompetence Paul
  10. Hi Atharh, For some reason the files were not stored when down loaded, They are now Paul
  11. Hi David, It is much better than my 1st attempts, you can make out the beginnings of the dust lanes in the arms. I believe that a lot more Data is required than you have taken, (and me for that matter) with longer exposure times and where possible lower ISO number, from what I've been reading over the past few days. I'm sure there will be a much better and more informed answer from one of the masters of this dark art soon. I bet you get there before me, seldom get clear skies when I'm able to use the scope Regards, Paul
  12. Below is my first attempt at the ring nebular (un-guided), the DSO that started my foray into the dark arts of astrophotography. I know now that there is not enough data by a long way, but there are dark flats, & flat files, only a couple of the latter! Having read Dennis Isaacs's article 'Astro Image Data Reduction (Calibration). A Primer' www.dens-astropics.org.uk I have a much better grasp on some of the whys and wherefores There are a couple of things I don't quite get at the moment, the second image is one of the un-processed files and it looks to have a lot more colour than the stacked one (first one) which I would have expected to be the other way around. The second thing is how do I get a closer image of small DSO's, do I use a 2" Barlow or something else? Stacked picture of Ring Nebular, taken with EOS 300D modded with Baader DSLR-AFC: Dark flats @ ISO 800 x5 30",37",59",60"& 90": Flats @ ISO 800 x2 2" & 10": Light frames @ ISO 800 x6 47",21",17",24",23" & 51" (last 2 with UHC filter) M57 stacked 2mb.tif Single light frame @ ISO 800 47" CRW_5041 2mb.tif Thanks for looking, Paul I've just tried to convert the .TIF files to .jpg in Photoshop cs2 and the option doesn't come up, have I missed something again? Paul
  13. OK, just tried to look at pics on here and nothing, what am I doing wrong please Still not getting anywhere, have down loaded attachments and assumed they would show in picture form How do I get around this problem? Think I've worked this out, it's not a .jpg file ? Thanks, Paul
  14. Further to my input here: http://stargazerslounge.com/beginners-help-advice/117607-cant.html As requested by Daz, here are some of the photo's I've taken that were close to being in focus, lacked excessive star trails or scope shake. I know there are very poor & it's a steep learning curve, there is a hell of a lot more to this than I originally thought last Autumn. My original intention was to record what I'd seen, M57 in particular, to show the Grey smoke-ring that I'd spent half an hour looking at. Then looking at the DSO imaging here, I thought this looks like fun So here goes, all are without darks, flats, etc, hadn't read enough then, assumed that was for the specialist CCD users : 1 is M31 taken with EOS 20D @ ISO 800 1x 29sec & 1 x 50sec M31 2 image stack 2mb.tif 2 is M45 with the 20D @ ISO 200 2 x 60 sec M45 2mb.tif 3 is M31 taken with a modded EOS 350D @ ISO 400 1 x 25 sec, ISO 800 2 x 30 sec & ISO 1600 4 x 30sec M31 7 frame stack 2mb.tif
  15. I've just downloaded the deepskystacker & Manual, OMG I knew there was some processing to do, once you get a set of subs. I assumed that it was Photoshop processing that took time then the stacker stacked them for you once you pointed out a few reference points! A lot more reading to do!!! And yes Daz, I will post my attempts, once I've worked out how to get them from huge RAW picture format to a size that will fit here, without loosing what little data I have. More reading Paul
  16. Hi DLP I'm in the same boat as you, (a bit further down the stream) although I don't have the guts to post any of my attempts at the moment . Daz's comments are spot on & there is a lot of reading to do to short cut some of the learning curve. But so far I've found that its a case of practise, practise, practise & a lot of patience . Good luck & clear skies Paul
  17. I've got one & it works fine, providing you set it up correctly, which is a bit of a handful with an EQ6. Aluminium its made of is quite sturdy, but would bend if stepped on There are a number of people who have posted that levelling the tripod is not necessary, once you've polar aligned. I still do it out of habit, but may give it a go one day! Paul
  18. These are the pictures of the focuser after application of PTFE tape. Looking at the pics I need to spray the inside with Matt black paint. Still no explination of what job the baffle does Paul
  19. Hi Keith, I'll put a couple of metres in the post to you Monday. I've taken some pics, but won't be able to sort them out until Tuesday I'm afraid. You will need to undo 3 screws holding the focuser on the OTA & take off. then remove the screws on the adjuster plate to remove adjuster & spring-plate, then clean off all the grease. Depending on how loose the focuser is will depend on putting on both surfaces, as I did. Don't put the tape over the grooves in the outer tube, (I did that at first & the tape just crimped up or cut). My inner tube has a metal foil on it that had come off in a number of places so I removed as much loose as I could. I removed the grease with water soluble paint remover (blue stuff from B&Q) then washed the tube with washing liquid, rinsed & dried. I placed tape on either side of rack overlapping on inside edge, which was folded into tube (this makes it a lot easier to put the tube back in without lifting the tape), stuck strips of tape with even spacing in the remaining gap, I think I made sure one was opposite the rack 1st then divide the rest, (I forget now, too many strong pain-killers make you memory somewhat erratic ) When you reassemble, use white Li grease on the rack & the focuser pinion, a touch of PTFE spray on the front edge helps insert the tube if you've taped both surfaces. So that is about it, the main thing was to make sure that the tape on the outer tube folded over the front of the tube & the opposite for the inner if you need to do it as well. Will sort out pics ASAP, I'll put a copy of this on the thread, as I still don't understand the reason for the baffle & so far no-one has commented on my plan, etc. Cheers, Paul
  20. Hi Moderators, I think I've put this in the wrong place? Would it be better in the DIY Astronomer section? My apologies, Paul
  21. Me too, 4th order arrived today. Must have more control Paul
  22. Hi all, I purchased a Meade 90mm x 800mm f/8.8 refractor very cheaply (£20) a few weeks ago. The focuser is 1¼" plastic rack & pinion, with a massive amount of movement in all directions. I've cut this down somewhat by putting 0.077mm x 25mm fibre glass PTFE tape along both surfaces, (if anyone wants any let me know, I had to buy 30m!). After some consideration I thought I might change the focuser for the single speed 2" Crayford I've taken off the 8" Helios newt. If I extend the OTA from the present 600mm to 750mm & mount the crayford at the end the 50mm travel will give the 800mm focal length. Now for the bits I'm not sure of (assuming my idea above is feasible), and would like your collective views on: Firstly, the existing focuser has a diameter of 17/8" with a 1¼" ep ring at the end. The length of travel is 190mm, part way up the inside of the focuser tube there is a baffle ring with an inside diameter of roughly 1¼" (can't measure it at the moment), is this important and if so would putting a 2" focuser not work? Secondly, as the focal length is 800mm why is the OTA only 620mm with a focuser with such a long travel, would it not be better to make the OTA 720 - 750mm long with a more stable focuser with less travel? Please understand that I am not used to refractors, I've a ST80 for use as a guide scope, but this 90mm gave outstanding views of Saturn last month when the seeing was the best I've seen in a long time & I would like to use it without the problem of the focuser moving the object when you touch it. My thanks for your indulgence and hopefully you advice, views, etc. Paul
  23. Thanks TopHouse, I think I'll do that, although I don't believe that there would be that much movement! Did you notice the glued joints after using cyanoacrylate? I find it can dry semi gloss on some surfaces Paul
  24. Re Chris's comments about cotton wool & checking with manufacturer: My point about using finger tips to gently wash the grim away, is that they are (for most people) very sensitive to the very smallest bits of grit, which cotton wool is not, so preventing possible scratching of the mirror surface. FWIW, my mirror when viewed with a lamp behind it has numerous tiny pinpricks of light showing through . (That is how it was when I first dismantled it not long after getting it second hand). Washing it has not made any difference to the numbers or size of these pinpricks, but I always take care and time and if I detect anything under my finger tips, I stop and rinse, then continue as before. One day I might look into getting it re mirrored, but it does not cause any problems that I can tell, so it can wait . Regards, Paul
  • 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.