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_globular_clusters_winners.thumb.jpg.13b743f39f721323cb5d76f07724c489.jpg

Galaxyfaraway

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    242
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

5 Followers

About Galaxyfaraway

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Greater London
  1. I would like to save time and install a pier but don't think I have space for a shed /dome installation around it. Does anybody use piers on their own (with the mount) and does it help / save you time setting up each night? Also what would be a good recommendation for the actual pier? There is the Altair Skyshed 8" and the Primaluce Lab C82 I came across that may fit my AZ-EQ6 mount. (I know it's not important but I would prefer a white pier as it will be less obvious/blend in better). There seem to be different installation options as well: https://www.altairastro.com/public/pier/Altair_Astro_8_Adjustable_Steel_Pier_Installation_Instructions_2014.pdf Which is the better / more secure? I currently have builders in and they can pretty much do anything. I can't find info on exact specifications for concrete (70x70x70 was mentioned).
  2. Ah, I missed that section. Can this be moved there, or should I repost? Do you use it inside a shed?
  3. PS: Does anybody just use / have a pier (with the mount) without the shed? I don't think I have space to also build a shed but I would like to somehow save time (polar alignment / some set up etc) and just use some kind of weatherproof cover etc.
  4. Hi, I would like to get a pier built for my AZ-EQ6 Mount and add a shed around it, with a roll-off roof. How do I find the required specifications (for the base) and also perhaps any recommendations for the actual pier to hold the mount? Thanks!
  5. Many thanks. Bayer mask: is that not something to do with colour CCDs? Mine is mono. I will read up on bayer masks!
  6. Thanks, any idea how to get a clearer image (with correct colour etc)? this is the link to the video (i think this was the green filter file): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8LKFdXGcrImZ1lRMUVueWdpOGM/view?usp=sharing wondered if this is considered bad or average seeing. I did see some thin clouds in places but not sure if they covered Jupiter as I was too busy figuring out how to work firecapture.
  7. I tried Jupiter for he first time last night (with EdgeHD8, no barlow*, ZWO ASI120mm mono). I took about 30 secs each RGB channel using firecapture, exposing at around 70-80% of the histogram, then used Registax, PS and a bit of Lightroom. Somehow the colours look weird; the rings are supposed to be orange and they look purple and dark (it looks a bit like it's gone off, and should have gone in the fridge...). I wondered if I got my filters mixed up (or didn't program it in correctly into firecapture: the filter menu is a bit odd) but I don't think so. The stacked image with the green filter looked clearest, blue was the worst and red was ok, a bit worse than the green. Hence why I thought I might have mixed up filters when putting the info into firecapture. It was difficult to align in PS because it's not very sharp/clear image to begin with. Plus I didn't use anything to address rotation. I think I took all the frames within about 2 minutes frame (at highspeed USB3 etc) and I am not sure what the cut off time is supposed to be, to address rotation. *I have a 2.5x barlow which I think is too strong. Or perhaps the seeing was no good. In any case, I wil try the barlow next time. it filled the whole screen when I tried it but was all fuzzy and too unclear so I thought I try without first. The 2nd image is a composite. I took it with a DSLR to get the moons and added the Jupiter just to see what it would look like. The scale should be about right. Comments appreciated.
  8. My worry is that the LP filter will kill a lot of the light from the galaxies but I will try. (will need an M48 to T2 adapter as my LP filter is 2"). Can I leave the IDAS LP filter in the imaging train for the RGB (and narrowband for that matter) so that I don't have to unscrew it all the time I wonder? thanks again. tricky...this stuff.
  9. Oh I see. I have the Idas D1 light LP filter but I am not yet certain how to incorporate it into the imaging train as it might mess up the distance (I don't have built in reducers). Is it not possible to get similar data for L from combining RGB? (at least in theory). I realise it will take quite a lot longer to shoot RGB.
  10. Thanks for the comments. So would you shoot luminance separately? (rather than extracting synthetically). People seem to have less trouble in LP areas, from what I read. I think the reason the 2nd image has an acceptable background is because I only shot RGB and the astrodons leave gaps between wavelengths, keeping LP under some sort of control.
  11. Been away for a while. Now back to earth. I tried the EdgeHD8 for the first time on a galaxy (M101) last night, to see how it compares to the WO GT81 refractor. I could only manage about 15 subs in each RGB channel and extracted the luminance from that (perhaps not a good way of doing it but I have bad LP), 5 mins each, binned 2x2. I used 0.7x reducer. It was also almost full moon. With WO GT81, i think it was also 5 mins in each sub (also used synthetic luminance; perhaps it's better to try using real luminance?). Only about 12 subs in each channel and I also binned it 2x2 which was stupid but perhaps better for the comparison. I think I prefer the second (WO) image as the lesser of the two evils. First image is too noisy for some reason. What do you think? I would like to get cleaner, less noisy images somehow but presumably I'd need dark(er) skies for galaxies. Anyway, next time I will try 10 mins subs and more of them. Or any other suggestions? One good thing: although I was told how difficult the SCTs are to use but I found it quite straight forward. It's the WO GT81 I am struggling with (still getting oval stars towards some corners, due to mild focuser tilt I think).
  12. Thanks! It wasn't meant as a criticism; I am trying to work out how far I can take the 'star shape paranoia' (is there a medical term for this condition? Do they specify how heavy the load can be on the focusers for various telescopes? This seems like an important metric which should be taken into account when purchasing a scope. I have my eyes either on a Televue or Takahashi sometime in the distant future...But it seems the latter is not without mixed reviews and the former might be a little slow for UK. Plus there probably aren't bad telescopes, only bad photographers I guess one good thing is that without the OAG, the load shall be (slightly) lighter. I shall try the new spacing at the earliest opportunity.
  13. Great picture but to my eyes (and maybe I have been staring too much at stars from my own images that is giving me astigmatism...) the top left and bottom right corner stars are slightly 'eggy' towards the centre. For some reason, this only happens to small to medium-sized stars. Here's a 100% crop from your image. It's probably much too mild (and certainly much better than my stars in the the corners) and might have to do with the fact that WO can't decide whether it should be 55 or 57mm.... Someone should adjust the 64.38mm figure. I will write to WO to clarify this. It's a shame I will have to ditch the OAG and get some sort of guiding scope. There will probably be flexure to contend with now, as the next pain in the behind...
  14. Oh wow. Ok. What is the reason to mention the 64.38mm at all? Is it referring to something else in the picture? I have been tearing my hair out over this...
  15. Do you use the reducer with the supplied adapter? (The Canon EOS adapter ring, which adds about 9.7mm and would explain the difference between 55mm and 64.38mm). I must be crazy but the drawing on the picture seems to say to me that the distance should be 64.38mm!! Or do you have an earlier version of the reducer?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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