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_beauty_night_skies.thumb.jpg.2711ade15e31d01524e7dc52d15c4217.jpg

alphatripleplus

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About alphatripleplus

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Jersey
  1. Martin, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on whether utilizing NINA as the capture engine for Jocular would be a possibility. As NINA is open source and they support a lot of cameras, I thought this could have some potential benefits perhaps. However, I believe it is Windows only.
  2. Very nice, Martin. I looked at a couple of the informative youtube videos and the helpful userguide you put together. Great. Can't wait until you have incorporated scripting to run Nebulosity or some other software for capture - I will definitely try it out with my mono Lodestar X2 at that point! In the meantime, I may try seeing if I can get Nebulosity to manually control my LX2 for captures and use that to populate the capture folder. However, even that may have to wait for me, as I have all my astro equipment packed up at the moment.
  3. Very nice, Don. I always like to see your H-alpha pics.
  4. Hi Rob, Thanks for the info. I don't have a 2" to SCT adapter, but now I remember thinking about a similar item a while ago. I'll have to see what I can find!
  5. Very nice Rob. I've often wondered about how to cobble my f/6.3 focal reducer to my refractors ( I use the f/6.3 with my C6 and C8, so the Lodestar to reducer connection I have taken care of). Any tips on exactly how you attached the f/6.3 reducer to your refractor? Thanks.
  6. Very nice, Martin. Wild's Triplet is one that has been on my list for a while, but I haven't captured it yet. Thanks for the view, and all the best with your software efforts. Errol
  7. I have to agree with Don about the benefits of EAA or Video or whatever we call it as an outreach tool. I want to add one other thought - lots of us are challenged to get any kind of a decent view through a telescope visually. It could be failing eye sight because of age or disability, or it could be just that you live somewhere with awful light pollution. For anyone challenged in these ways, Video/EAA is a real godsend. I had pretty much given up amateur astronomy until about two years ago when I saw what Don and other were doing with their Lodestars and Ultrastars in this forum and on the CN EAA Forum. From then on I was hooked. As for the rules for what constitutes EAA, I would not worry too much. Things change quickly, and there is definitely an ongoing convergence between EAA techniques and AP imaging. Errol
  8. To get f/4.0, I have a distance of 63mm from the sensor to the back of a T-adapter that is screwed into the back of the rear of the two f/6.3 reducers. I haven't measured the thickness of the T-adapter, but I think it adds perhaps 15mm. So a total of about 78mm from sensor to the rearmost reducer to get f/4. As Jim mentions, the two reducers are screwed into each other.
  9. Jim, Nice to see you trying this. I've been using twin stacked Meade f/6.3 reducers with my C8 for a while, and it works pretty well at f/4 down to about f/3.3 with more aberrations the faster you go. I ran out of focus travel before I could get to f/3.0. From my testing I think that if you decrease the sensor to reducer distance by 10-11mm from your current spacing, you will probably go from f/3.4 to f/4. Look forward to seeing more of your results with the C6 and twin reducers!
  10. I'm wondering if anyone has been able to successfully use saved darkframes from a previous session in vsn 3.3? I know some people have had this difficulty and it has been mentioned previously - I'm not sure if Paul has been able to reproduce the dark subtraction issue. For me, if I create a dark frame, I can use it during the current session, but if I start a new session or attempt to restore a previously saved dark frame in the current session, I find the Display Processing sliders do not work and I pretty much have to take a fresh dark. For most viewing, I will just forgo darks and use the defective pixel removal tool, which works very well (Thanks Paul). However, for H-alpha captures I find that darks are very worthwhile, and it would be great if I could use saved darks from previous sessions. I don't see the darkframe issue listed on Paul's Bitbucket site, so I am assuming that we may still face this issue in vs 3.4?
  11. Don, As I mentioned on CN, I am very grateful to see you doing the Hyperstar vs Freestar comparisons, as this exercise has been a real eye opener for me. It's great that you enjoy the testing and are game to try and objectively test different people's suggestions with regard to the Freestar. I'm sure we are alll learning something useful from the exercise, and I'm hoping that in the future when others do camera comparisons, for example, they are just as objective as you are in this evaluation. Looking forward to seeing more results. Errol
  12. Hi Paul, Thanks very much for considering this idea! One complication that may arise is that if the image suffers from significant aberrations, e.g. due to aggressive focal reduction, then the star shapes in the outer parts of the field of view will exhibit some eccentricity (comet or egg shapes) and would probably skew the overall value of your metric of mean roundness across the field. Maybe just concentrating on stars in the central part of the FOV would get around this potential issue. Anyway, I think it's fantastic that you are open to looking into these sorts of suggestions. Makes me very excited to be a user of the software.
  13. Hi Paul, Thanks again for implementing the FWHM filter in v3.2. I have been using it for a while now and it is a big help with automating the process of rejecting low quality subs. One interesting observation I have made is that occasionally a sub in which the stars are definitely oval shaped will pass the filter and not be rejected, even if I tighten up my FWHM threshold. This tends to happen when I hit a bad part of my worm cycle. If I tighten the threshold even further to eliminate such subs, I end up rejecting a lot of perfectly good subs as well. I'm sure the filter is working as advertised, but I wonder if there is some way to refine the FWHM filter so that it additionally looks at the ratio of FWHM in the directions of an elliptical/oval shaped star's principal axes for perhaps the two or three brightest stars in the FOV, and then rejects a sub for stacking if the major/minor axis FWHM ratio is significantly above 1.0? For perfectly round stars, the major/minor axis FWHM ratio would be 1.0. I have no idea how hard it would be to implement something like this, but I suspect that the computational overhead could be managed if it was only applied to the 2 or 3 brightest stars. Just a thought for your consideration .
  14. Thanks, Brandon. This wide-field EAA stuff is fun, but I do like your narrow-field planetary nebulae EAA captures!
  15. Thanks very much, Peter and Jim. I'm beginning to appreciate the wide field of small refractors and telephoto lenses on the large emission nebulae. As soon as my tripod mount adapter (suggested by Dom) arrives, I will give the full IC1318 region near Sadr a shot with a 135mm telephoto. Should be fun.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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