Demonperformer

What I do is have all the index files in one folder, but copy into a second folder the ones that are appropriate for my fov. This second folder is the one to which I direct the platesolving program, so it only uses those files. You can do it by moving rather than copying - this saves disk space, but I (more than once!) ended up deleting the files and had to download them again. Got fed up with playing that game.

Beats my best attempt.

Are you restricting the index files the solver uses? The one I use starts with the widest fov and works down to the narrowest, so if I had a very narrow fov and used all the index files it would waste an awful lot of time getting even into the ballpark.

In light of this, just to clarify my previous comments.

I do not hold with processing data that another has collected and posting it as your own. But I see this as different from buying time on a remote right,  making all the same decisions you would when imaging from home and using the subs you have chosen to take.

16 hours ago, Wasp said:

Can anyone remember the last clear sky?

the last what?

4 minutes ago, carastro said:

Not in the case of purchasing downloaded data from places like DSW, it's all done for you, you just process it.

OK, just had a look at their website and in the case of DSW I would agree with you. I believe you can do the same thing with some of the Hubble data. Possibly good for honing one's processing skills, but not for claiming the picture was yours.

7 minutes ago, carastro said:

If we simply downloaded data already captured with great equipment

But wouldn't I be making the same decisions? What am I going to capture? How am I going to frame it? How many subs of what length and using what (if any) filters am I going to take?

True, I may have fewer clear skies here and have to contend with a lot more light pollution (so are images taken at star parties cheating?) imaging from home. But are self-imposed difficulties for their own sake a contributing factor in the achievement. If I choose to manually guide my subs instead of using PHD2, does that make the result any more worthy of credit? I could equally argue that the result obtained by people who set their automated observatory going and then go to bed rather than standing out in the cold for hours on a winter's night is less worthy of credit.

Exactly my point, Olly.

All imagers are, to some extent, totally reliant upon what somebody else has done/is providing. I would guess that most people who insist on using all their own gear, set up and maintained by themselves (which I would agree is a totally valid option) probably neither write nor maintain the software they use to process the raw data. And, as more software packages become "pay every year" packages, the distinction between "paying to use software x for a year" and "paying to use telescope y for an hour" becomes ever fuzzier ...

Hi, Mike, and welcome to SGL.

Excelleng first images.

Enjoy the journey.

15 hours ago, Jkulin said:

If I went to Olly's (Which I would love to do, then I would take my own kit and use my own processing, but would listen and learn from Olly to make my own images better.

A response which nicely ignores the point of my question.

I note from your signature that there are a lot of scopes, mounts, cameras and accessories that you presumably consider to be "yours" because you have given money to the person who did the work of making them. You also presumably consider the results gained by using this equipment to be "yours" (despite having not manufactured the chip in the camera you are using?). Indeed, the question arises, did you write all the software that you are using to process "your" picture? If not, it isn't really "yours" ...

So where does one draw the line?

If I give money to someone who has done the work of setting up a scope to buy an amount of time on that scope, the time and the results gained (using my skill - such as it is - of selecting & framing my object, and selecting settings, including filter choice) are similarly "mine" as long as I do not claim to have done something I haven't.

I've posed this before, so I know what the response will be,  but it bears repeating. If you went to Olly's and used his equipment, but uncollimated and unPAd his perfectly collimated and PAd scope, just so you could say you had set it all up yourself, imagine his reaction.

Major ENVY of your drawing skills. Keep 'em coming.

Definitely worth the wait. Nice result.

Agree with what has been said. I use platesolving with Sharpcap which puts the sync points in EQMOD. I have a list of bright stars at (roughly) 2h intervals at 30-60N which I use as my starting point. That way, I don't have to worry too much about how the scope is positioned on the mount after PA and can still get it within the required max distance for Sharpcap to do its thing.

On 05/07/2013 at 11:21, Jiggy 67 said:

how to find the star in a more recognisable catalogue

Does the certificate have a position (RA & DEC)? If so, it should not be too difficult to track it down and tell you (one or more of) it's official designation(s).

Hi, Flood, and welcome to SGL.

Enjoy the journey.

I have considered it, if only to get some data that I know is good to practice my processing.

From previous discussions, remote imaging seems to polarise opinion on SGL. There are those who say the image is yours because you have selected the target, capture details and processed the resulting data. There are those who say because you have not set up the telescope yourself it is cheating. My opinion: as long as you don't pretend that the data you get from a remote telescope it the Atacama Desert was taken from your light-polluted garden, I don't see a problem.

And doesn't look like we shall have one this coming week either ...

I, too, quickly get bored with the CGI. I find the easiest way to "watch" things like this is to do something else at the same time and just listen to the commentary. Caught ep2 last night ... he did seem to be a bit obsessed with the idea of finding life, which I personally feel is a question that is never going to provide a satisfactory answer. This is because (1) I think there won't be any [science currently has no idea how organic molecules become "alive", so the argument that the universe is so big there must be life elsewhere carries very little weight with me], and (2) not finding it will not stop people saying "but maybe it is there anyway".

Just managed to catch up with the first episode yesterday - wasn't overly impressed, but will give the second episode a go (when time permits)

I think for that budget you are going to be limited.

It is possible to get quite good results on DSOs with a standard (unmodified) DSLR. For planetary, I thought the neximage was a bit overpriced. There used to be a lot of modified Toucams (Phillips) around that were good for planetary. I haven't seen many advertised lately, but it might be worth keeping an eye on various sale boards.

If you want to get a better camera for DSOs, I would recommend you wait until you can save up for one of the (for example) ZWOs.

Your unmodded canon is already blocking IR (and diminishing a lot of the red end of the spectrum as well!). If you have no intention of modding, then the extra IR blocking of the CCD version would just be duplicating what you already have. As such, I would make the decision based on cost ...

5 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

Well done.... challenge accepted....

 

I suspect it might be easier from Sydney, being a little bit higher ...

Some years ago, I tried to image this pair, but failed miserably. Maybe I'll give it another go.

Any indication of how much the "interchangeable" filters would be for the 80mm model?

Thanks.