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.


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

64 Excellent

About de0s

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Timisoara, Romania
  1. Thank you @Carole: Good luck in the competition! I agree, there are a lot of well done images.
  2. This year I've submitted some of my astrophotographs in the competition organized by ATIK. Submission phase is now over and the public voting phase has started. Afterwards, the 25 most voted images will be judged by Atik's own judging panel. If you like my images you can vote for them using the following IDs: Tadpoles Nebula: 2016-2389 Eastern Veil Nebula: 2016-1767 Whirlpool Galaxy: 2016-1711 Voting is done at the following link by filling in the form at the bottom of the page: http://www.atik-cameras.com/competitions/2016-astrophotography-competition/ Thank you for your vote :-)
  3. Hello, I need the the help of you guys in analysing my mount's PE and maybe tuning my guiding performance. So far I've been using the PHD settings almost on default but I've now decided it's time to make the jump and learn if and how to fine tune them. My setup consists of a AZ-EQ6 GT used with EQMOD, the scope is a SW ED80 with a 0.8 focal reducer (so my imaging FL is 480mm), the imaging camera is an Atik 460ex mono. Im guiding through a TS 60mm f4 guidescope (240mm FL) with a QHY5 camera piggybacked on the ED80. So, I'm imaging at 1.95"/px for bin 1x1 and at 3.9"/px at bin 2x2 and my guiding resolution is 4.47"/px. The whole setup is a mobile one, so I set-up and take everything apart after each session. Last weekend I decided to give Periodical Error Correction a try and used the automatic tool included with the EQMOD. Just by visually analyzing the PHD guide log I see there's a slight improvement (see "guiding_session_overview.jpg" printscreen from PHD2 Log Viewer): to my eyes there's a change (in good) after second half of the graph). I loaded the PERecorder file into PECPrep for analysis and this is what I got ("PECPrep_overview.jpg"). I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding the numbers as I don't have what to compare against. Are those numbers good or does the mount require some tweeking? What is the PE of my mount (I'm curious to see how it compares to figures from other mounts)? Should I look at the RMS PE, or Peak PE? Zooming in on the PHD log I noticed that there's some "bounce" on both RA and DEC when making corrections (see "DEC_bounce_example.jpg" and "RA_bounce_example.jpg"). I belive the "official" term is that PHD is overcorrecting. From what I've read I should decrease the aggression and/or hysteresis parameters. Am I right or the "bounce" is not that bad? Should I also alter some other parameters? I've also attached the PHD guide log form that evening. My "target" is to try and reach the 30min subs mark. Thanks and clear skies, Andrei pecapture_07022016234934_EQMOD.txt PHD2_GuideLog_2016-07-02_221125.txt
  4. Here's my take on the Eastern Veil Nebula in HOO combination. It's a total of 8 hours of integration, shot through Baader 1.25" NB filters. The details and full resolution can be seen on AstroBin.
  5. This could be a late replay, but anyway... The stated output of your power supply (the 5A part) is the maximum current it can deliver. The mount can take whatever it needs within the 5A limit.
  6. I took a similar route like you're thinking of taking... I have a SW 80ED that I used to use with a DSLR and a TRF-2008 FF/FR. I upgraded to the Atik 460ex with EFW2 filter wheel. For the filters I went for 1.25" Baader, mainly because of budget restriction (I also shot from a light polluted area - orange zone). The way I have everything fitted together is like this: 2" IDAS LPS D1 => TRF-2008 FF/FR => VariLock 29 => adaptor => EFW2 => Atik 460ex I used the VariLock in order to achieve the backfocus distance required by the TRF.
  7. Thanks to Harry Potter for the "visual" aid... Using some props I realized I can completely adjust the RA axis (using only Alt/Az bolts) to match the Earth's rotation axis regardless of the tilt of the mount's base (of course if it's within the level of correction the bolts allow). Thanks Olly for that
  8. I definetly agree with Olly on one thing: you've got no guarantee that the spreder is paralel with the mount's top surface. As for the necessity of leveling an EQ mount, I agree I'm not so experienced, but I was under the impression that it's guite a big deal. At least part of it. I agree that if the mount is not leveled in the North-South direction this can easily be fixed with the Alt adjustment bolts during the drift alignment procedure. Whoever, if the mount is not leveled on the East-West direction, this cannot be fixed with the Az adjustments and you end up with a tilted RA axis. Am I mistaken?
  9. I also got my replacement filter today (would have gotten it two days ago if not for a mix up with the courier), so thumbs up for Baader.
  10. I tried integrating both sets of data as they were after calibration and compared the result to the integration of only the first set. So, on the image below I have: - on the left, the integration of 10 calibrated light frames taken at 0°C - on the right, the integration of 20 calibrated light frames (10 @ 0°C and 10 @ -20°C) As you can see, the histograms are positioned quite differently. If I leave the mosaic panel as is on the right, I think this will create some problems when I stitch it together with the other panels taken at 0°C. Right? What do you suggest would be the best way to proceed?
  11. Hello fellow stargazers, I have two sets of data for the same object (a panel of a mosaic I'm currently working on) taken on different nights. The first one is at 0°C, the second one at -20°C. For the first set I calibrated the lights with bias, darks and flats, for the second only with bias and flats. The thing I'm concerned and I don't know how to proceed with, is that after calibration if I stretch the two images with the same curve, the result is quite different (see attachment). Now I'm wondering if I should linear fit them before integration... Any thoughts? Thanks, Andrei
  12. To be a bit more accurate, these are the Bias and SuperBias stretched with the same curve:
  13. Thanks Sara for the answer. If you look closely also on the left side of the above pic (at the regular integrated bias) you would see the darker "lanes" separated by a lighter one (similar to what's seen on the SuperBias, but more faded). Is this "normal" or should the sensor show a more "uniform" image?
  14. Hello, I have an Aitk460ex mono camera and I was imaging at -20C over the weekend. I didn't do any calibration frames except for the flats and thought I'll do the Bias (and maybe also the Darks) at work as I have a temperature chamber that I can use to cool the camera. Anyway, I made 300 Bias frames @ -20C and integrated them in PI then applyed the SuperBias process. Below is what I got after boosted AutoStretch in PI. Doesn't that look strange?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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