Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by alacant

  1. Hi Lose both the hand controller and the mount to camera cable. Keep the usb camera to computer cable. Get the proper cable to connect the mount to the computer. That's it.
  2. Assuming you never change the orientation of the camera with respect to the telescope and no dust settles on the camera. So, in theory, yes. Realistically perhaps best refreshing flat frames regularly.
  3. Good attempt. This is with StarTools 1.8.512 A few ways to make processing easier: lose the dark frames take flat frames dither between frames clean the camera sensor cover the viewfinder use siril to stack stack using a clipping algorithm enter the correct bayer pattern of your camera Cheers and HTH.
  4. May be better to concentrate upon stars which are in focus. Coma correctors act in mysterious ways. Not sure to which telescope you refer. One is an 8.75" f7, the other either a vixen f4 or vixen f4.5. If the shot along your focuser was produced by collimating using a cross hair Cheshire, the offset looks just like our f3.9 and so with a good cc, you should have decent stars edge to edge. If it's around f4-ish. from Telia: myth: You have to square the focuser very accurately I'm not quite sure of even what "square" is supposed to mean - likely it means set perpendicular to the tube, or possibly to the optical axis - or both, always assuming you have made them coincide. There is nothing wrong with doing it, of course, but the secondary is optically flat, and the angle of reflection is not critical. Most secondaries are made to look circular when tilted 45 degrees (to reflect 90 degrees), but if the angle deviates from this by a few degrees, the only consequence is that the secondary will appear slightly elliptic - it won't affect the image.
  5. Hi If you use a Cheshire sight tube correctly -preferably one with cross hairs- it doesn't matter where the focuser aims. You've already had a look at Telia's collimation myths and Seronik's no nonsense guide so you're most of the way there! Cheers
  6. Either an eos450d or an eos700d No. that's the old version. The new version is better. Cheers
  7. It would involve quite a bit more work. The Bresser version is of superior build quality with a rigid, light alloy tube and proper 2" r-p focuser. Don't get too hung up on the theory, If we did, there'd be very few if any amateur images produced with long focal length telescopes north of Bilbao. On the nights when you don't have the seeing, bin or just image with a shorter telescope. Even better, have a go anyway. It's supposed to be fun! Cheers
  8. Hi We had a rc visit before the pandemic, but IIRC... ... sticking with the title of the post, we believe our (several) nt150l outclasses a 150rc, If only for the contrast and clarity of the former. The rc needs quite a bit longer to match it. That maybe because the Newtonian is f8 and the rc f9 but simply comparing the light path obstruction, you're left wondering how the rc gets any useful light at all! Remember also that at f8, the Newtonian needs no corrector, Here are our €200 Newtonian images. Cheers and HTH.
  9. Hi To get the soul nebula to show, best to remove the hot mirror from the camera. Cheers and HTH
  10. JTOL... One way to find out would be to try StarTools start to finish. Just go really easy on the second (and any subsequent) AutoDevs. If you really do want the old look, add a touch of FilmDev. Oh, and stick the red in NBAccent? I wonder...
  11. Hi We don't see many of these but IIRC (68mm), you need an extra 13mm between the FF and the sensor. HTH
  12. Here is a go with around 10 stars sampled, 6 iterations. Dunno... This is with the jpg. I'm sure you could pull more from linear. But yeah, as you say. Loads to absorb! Cheers
  13. Great shot. Love it. Did you get chance to run it through the new SVDecon module? Cheers
  14. Pinch until the stars elongate at 90° then back off until they're circular. HTH EDIT: IIRC there are other ways of using the Lens module. I'm certain @jager945 could explain far better than I.
  15. ... or using an app which obviates the need to have to do so.
  16. Hi Amazing detail for just an hour:) I'm with @powerlord; there's more to be had. But a few points: You've lost a lot of the galaxy. don't forget to allow for the fainter stuff. 200p so you're going to need a larger secondary to cover the 5d frame. A swap with someone with the 58mm secondary from a pds works well. Up to aps-c, they don't need the larger mirror. There's loadsa curvature and in so correcting, some of the frame is lost. A cc would help you take true advantage of full frame. There's banding in the red. It might be a good idea to correct that in Siril before registration. With light pollution your gonna need quite a bit more than an hour. Don't forget to dither between frames Cheers and HTH
  17. Hi It looks OK, but beyond that, it's difficult to say whether it's optimum for imaging e.g. we don't know the orientation of the image; where is the focuser? Another good ruthless test (which many fear!) is to take a guided shot of a star field. ATM, anywhere in Cygnus is good for this. Cheers
  18. Hi Greatly improved. There's loadsa detail. A touch of diagonal noise which could easily be eliminated by dither between frames. Cheers
  19. Ah, ok. Sorry. I used StarTools. No levels. No curves. No graphs... A good tagline would be 'Bringing astro-processing into the 2020s'! Cheers
  20. Ah, ok. Now I understand... It looks dark because you haven't processed it.
  21. Hi I found detail, colour and more galaxy. Even in 59 minutes, there's a lot there already, hence my recommendation of shooting another session. Modern astro apps give you the possibility of quickly visualising what's there. In so doing they save you time and help you decide whether it's worth continuing. Cheers and looking forward to seeing the final version.
  22. Hi Yeah. There's loads more to be had. The best m31 of the season so far i'd say. Here's my 5 minute demonstration. Add another 59 minutes and you'd have a winner on your hands:)
  23. Thanks for the confirmation. kstars didn't list it, so I assumed the name had been dropped. Google had the 399 number, but still no luck back on the map. Cheers
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.