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_terminator_challenge.thumb.jpg.b7f10f594317507d0f40662231b0d9a8.jpg

AKB

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

885 Excellent

About AKB

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oxford, UK
  1. I used small plastic trunking for my RGBW LED strips in the observatory (and only wired up the red and the white!)
  2. I did just what the OP suggest, having drilled the tops with a central hole. I say “tops” because I used two (read somewhere that this was recommended.) You might consider slackening off all the adjustment screws and then tightening up the centre one to accommodate the extra thickness which otherwise moves the secondary a bit closer to the primary. However you do it, you will need to re-collimate afterwards, anyway, and check the centering of the secondary under the focuser.
  3. Quite so! For further galaxy boggling take a look at today’s APOD: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap190319.html
  4. AFAIK, the calculation is simply for the centroid which is very robust and low computational cost, not curve-fitting?
  5. My favourite comment on this in relation to guiding comes from @ollypenrice
  6. I extracted the luminance part of the image, and applied it to the whole image to increase the saturation in the brighter parts of the image, and reduce it in the darker parts to get a nice neutral background without clipping the black levels. I happen to use PixInsight as a processing tool, but PaintShop or any number of others can do this.
  7. Well, here is my not very good attempt (I am no expert) but it does show that some improvement (?) is possible. I ignore the flat – partly because I didn't know which way up to use it, but also because it's rather hard to back out the effects of a poorly applied flat (the flat itself, when stretched, looks fine to me.) Also, it would perhaps be better to post a non-JPEG version of the stacked image (to ensure that we have full depth) without the flat applied. All I have done is a little stretching, some luminance masking, and saturation adjustments. I'm sure others can come along with much better efforts.
  8. AKB

    A Bonus M101

    Looks as good as today’s APOD!! https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap190315.html _________________ Edit: ...actually, even better!!!
  9. Great images. I always like to consider FOV in units of 'width in light years' at the distance of the main objects imaged. What would that be in these cases?
  10. This is certainly the case. However, you may want to try the rather simple and effective “milk bottle top” modification, which helps enormously...
  11. This really isn't as bad as it sounds. 8.5cm diameter (57 cm^2 area) with 20.0 cm diameter (314 cm^2 area) gives an unobstructed area of 257 cm^2, which is what you would get from a 18.1 cm unobstructed diameter. Of course, there are other optical factors at play other than simply light-gathering area.
  12. Absolutely! I feel the same about EAA images. I'm not talented enough to sketch, and my astigmatism makes observing difficult, so it's great that there's room for everyone here.
  13. That’s really interesting. I’ve recently got an ASI294 Pro. One of my early attempts, including this target (27 minutes worth) is here: I’m struck by the differences. What scope did you use? Fully agree that this is a different beast from a CCD (I also have a mono 460EX.) Tony
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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