alacant

1 hour ago, AstroRookie said:

with this adapter it is screwed

Not enough information (a photo perhaps?) to say for certain, but something to try...

Lose that adapter. It is taking the sensor too far away from the tube. Instead, push the camera-extension-cc  assembly into the focuser and secure using the  thumb screws 

The Baader cc needs 58mm from the shoulder of the m48 thread. We don't recommend using the Baader supplied M42 adapter. Use a -say 5mm- shorter extension and a proper 5mm M48 to m42 adapter at the camera end.

HTH

On 08/01/2024 at 17:00, david_taurus83 said:

Just a set of Bias frames for a master bias

Modern sensor? Even cleaner: lose the in-camera bias and simply subtract the offset.
Cheers

**EDIT; apologies to OP. Whilst you may still use the synthetic offset, the 183 must be calibrated with light-matched dark frames.

53 minutes ago, aleixandrus said:

I'm not ready yet to perform that surgery

Ah, ok.

Luis at str-astrum will do it for you:

https://www.str-astrum.com/

You need send only the mount head and the handbox.

Cheers

15 hours ago, Mr Green said:

this is the result

Lovely image. Even in the jpg, there's loadsa detail. Without the green...

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

the 533 strikes me as a bit small

+1.

I've never understood the logic in paying €large for telescopes which produce a nice big flat field. Then discarding most of it by using just a small bit in the centre.

11 hours ago, aleixandrus said:

If I can learn and fix things now, I prefer doing it before I'm having more problems

Hi

In that case, perhaps the best fix would be to be able to take the mount completely for granted, otherwise you're constantly fighting the unknown: The 6r is easy to dissassemble and upgrade. Details here.

Only then can you realistically expect the niceties of software and cables to have any effect.

Cheers, feliz año y ¡ánimo! 

13 hours ago, Albir phil said:

not gone into it much

They all have an associated wavelength plot:
ir > ~700nm
uv < ~400nm

Compare that with your 533:

8 minutes ago, Albir phil said:

Antila make

Which?

Here's one of theirs. Not 'built in':

19 hours ago, aleixandrus said:

any ideas

Hi

Loosen the circular nut which pre-loads the cone bearing at the base of DEC.

Make certain the bearing is clean and well lubricated. Use the white grease available at cycle repair outlets.

HTH

**EDIT: just seen the graphs on a bigger screen. It looks like RA would benefit from the same treatment.
In fact most SW mounts need pulling apart, cleaning, lubricating and adjusting, with new mounts being no exception. For guiding to be effective, the mechanics have to be better than perfect. Fortunately with a short lens, it doesn't matter so much.

3 hours ago, Albir phil said:

triband filters have ir/uv built in

Hi
We can't tell because we don't know to which filter you refer. Here's one of the cheap ones which has uv/ir cut 'built in'...
Cheers, feliz año and HTH

HTH

On 31/12/2023 at 23:04, Mr Green said:

you only really need flats & darks.

27 minutes ago, Xilman said:

move some of this thread

Yes. Of course. If the content is unsuitable, please move or delete it.
Please accept my apologies.

Cheers and clear skies.

On 10/12/2023 at 22:47, Spaced Out said:

Will the base fit the 130PDS tube ?

It is the focuser which is substituted. The base remains in place.
HTH

11 minutes ago, Xilman said:

What sort of error do you get?

python3 fabadaCMD.py -out smooth.fits r_pp_cyg-1_Light_stacked.fits  100
Starting smoothing with fabada in r_pp_cyg-1_Light_stacked.fits image...
Warning: Size of array not supported
Warning: Size of array not supported
---

Any ideas?

 

12 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I never really understand

LOL. It's called experimentation!

Much of what we do both on this forum and on the ground is answer the what if or what should I do type of questions. On the rare occasions where I get a telescope to myself, I like to try and answer some of those questions. If the experiment produces a worthwhile image, that's simply a bonus. It may be irrelevant to the many, but if I can give back just a tiny piece of what this forum has given to me, then surely it is worth sharing.

9 hours ago, happy-kat said:

short exposures are the natural way to less stars

Could be. I didn't add or remove any stars though. I left them as they were after the first StarTools OptiDev. I'm not usually this lucky with refractors as usually the stars punch unsightly dark holes in the nebulosity. Maybe another advantage of short exposures? Dunno.

8 hours ago, Elp said:

normally stick to 60s

That may indeed be the sweet spot, especially with modern cameras. The only reason I went to 120s for this was that I had only a small aperture. My 60s trial was with a larger reflector. 

9 hours ago, Xilman said:

FABADA

Thanks. Downloaded and installed. I'm by no means a Python expert but promise to feed back my findings. I had an error with the noise switch. Could you give me an example cli for a fits file?

Hi everyone

As part of the is-lots-of-short-frames-better series, this time a dim refractor, so I thought double the frame length to 2 minutes. 

Pushed to just after the noise begins to appear in the dusty bits- Probably too far but after a 1/2 hour struggle, I'd had enough.
Detail and stars courtesy of Ivo's latest Spatially Variant what's-there-stays-there Deconvolution.

Am slowly reaching the conclusion that loadsa short frames are not that much different to fewer longer frames. It would be nice one day to lose the guiding entirely.

Thanks for looking and clear skies.

72x2min.siril 3.0.0a, st1.9.561beta ubuntu 22.04 

1 hour ago, Richard Wesson said:

does not appear anywhere

Hi

Discussed, with links to retail outlets, here.
HTH

**edit:

JTOL, I wonder though. Once you have factored the extra cost for the focuser upgrade, coma corrector and the 130ds itself, it would probably be more economical to go for the Quattro 150 in the first place as it carries said as standard, is faster and has a wider field of view.

1 hour ago, Carbon Brush said:

or a local club

+1

50 minutes ago, Cyc said:

Any suggestions are welcomed.

Hi

It's very difficult -if not impossible?- to advise or suggest anything on a forum unless you're already familiar with and have witnessed first hand the possibilities which are available to you.

Perhaps the best suggestion is to go along to an astro club. That will enable you to see all manner of telescopes actually being used; size, weight and even more importantly, the ability to take a look through or an image uising each of them. The guys there will be only too pleased to help. Just remember though that each member will tell you that their telescope is the best. Indeed, each will possess several telescopes and each one of those will also be the best!

But seriously, make a shortlist from hands on and purchase something you know will be suitable.

Cheers and HTH

On 05/12/2023 at 20:52, woldsman said:

TS Optics monorai

Hi

Why not the SW Quattro monorail? No need to adapt anything then.

3 hours ago, Mandy D said:

there is mention of Newtonian bases

Be careful... They're for the TS branded GSO Newtonians.

If you search, I believe there are bases to adapt GSO to SW but by the time you've added the individual costs, not to mention hassle involved in then matching the tube radius and making it light proof...

2 hours ago, Backyardscope said:

The stock quattro focuser

Hi everyone 

To avoid confusion...

Please see the OP. This thread concerns shipments of the SkyWatcher Quattro 150p with the inferior two speed focuser. 

I think the question raised afterwards was what would be a good choice to substitute the same inferior focuser but on a different telescope.

Cheers 

34 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

TS also sell their own version of the Sky-Watcher Quatro focuser.

That's the GSO focuser. It doesn't fit SW reflectors.

1 hour ago, Elp said:

C6+HS

Sorry, me being thick. I drew blank on Google.  Could you spell it out? TIA