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.


Max N

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Max N

  • Rank
  1. I’d like to buy this please Rob. I’ll pm you Max
  2. Oops, the B270 curve disappeared, let's see if this works
  3. Just reviving this topic as I have managed to save up the funds to get the camera converted, but I need a bit of advice before I proceed. I have found several places in the UK which offer to convert the A7s, but they all specialise in infrared photography rather than astro. They generally offer a choice of full spectrum modification with the sony UV/IR filter removed and not replaced, or the fitting of a replacement filter. So what I need to know is, what are the pros & cons of leaving the sensor 'naked' (vs fitting a replacement filter)? Will the sensor be more vulnerable to scratching etc? Will I have issues focussing at infinity with camera lenses? If I go for a replacement filer, what glass is recommended, and where can the glass be sourced? One of the companies offers B270 glass as a replacement. B270 has a nice linear transmittance curve with a bit of UV cut, so looks a good choice, except that its broadband transmittance is about 92%, so I'll be 'losing' 8% of the photons, which seems a shame. Is there a better alternative? Here is the curve for B270... Here is a link to a global list of such companies in case it is useful to anybody... https://robertreiser.photography/infrared-camera-conversion-service/
  4. Yes, I think this misunderstanding has been holding me back for a while. A few years ago I started out with a modded Canon 600D and Nebulosity, and although there was quite a learning curve I did get some results I was happy with. But Nebulosity doesn't have native support for the Sony, and I couldn't find any import settings that gave good results. I was floundering a bit, between using various raw converters and then taking Tiff files into Nebulosity, and trying to get to grips with PI. Anyway, I have a good direction now thanks to you. I will start working through some of the data I've collected with the Sony over the last couple of years.
  5. Thanks Mark, that's exactly what I needed to know. I had a feeling I was losing information in the conversion, but the name 'raw converter' had me fooled into thinking I still had the raw data, just in a different file format. OK, I will buy a copy of PI soon when funds are available - I have already used up the trial period. I will also read your ACR article for background. BTW, thanks for making the arcsinhstretch available! I have LR but not Photoshop, I will probably spring for the Photography CC subscription. Thanks again Max
  6. Hi Mark I have been using a Sony A7s for a few years, but I have never settled on a totally satisfactory workflow. I have seen the amazing results you have achieved, and I don't think I am getting the best out of the camera. In a few months I will be able to in a position to spend a little bit of money on this hobby, but I want to make sure I am spending wisely. I'd be really grateful if you could give me a bit of guidance, and maybe a brief outline of your workflow? I know you use PI, but do you use it for everything? Do you import the ARW files straight into PI or convert them first? All the Sony software for converting the ARW to TIFF or whatever seems to insist on doing some form of manipulation, even if just color balance..... The camera is un-modified, but I am going to get it modded (probably the H-alpha mod by Life Pixel) I usually take 30s subs at 2000-4000 iso Scope is a Celestron Edge HD. Planning to get a shorter F/L refractor as well, around 450 to 500 F/L At the moment I'm quite happy going for 'easy' targets like Andromeda, Whirlpool, Bodes. Will try for more extended targets when I have the other scope and modded camera. My SQM is around 20.8 near zenith. Any advice would be welcome.
  7. I'm using a Celestron Edge HD 8" with full-frame sensor. There is some vignetting, and I have recently realised a lot of this is not due to the scope itself, but is caused by the adapters between the visual back and the camera. I've taken a series of flats with various adapters, and I'd like to quantify the differences between the different setups so I can recommend to other users of this scope what the best setup is. I can't afford CCD Inspector (and I can't justify the cost for this simple task - maybe in the future). Is there another piece of software (or method) which will analyse the images and allow me to quantify and compare the vignetting objectively? Or if I post the images, can someone analyse them and post the results? If so, what's the best format to post the images? Cheers Max
  8. I have been having a play in Sktechup using some of the ideas suggested in this thread. I haven't designed the roof section yet. The high walls face north. The scope is shown in two positions, pointing to Polaris and pointing low to the south. I have pretty good views south but there is a hedge and a hill so I'm not losing anything with the walls where they are shown. I have room to roll the roof far enough away so that it will not be in the way (I think). I must remember to put a door in......
  9. Hi Goran. That is a great looking obsy, thanks for posting the pictures, it has given me a few good ideas. cheers
  10. Thanks Olly, I think I can arrange it that way. Once I have made progress with some plans I will start a thread.
  11. Thanks Olly, food for thought. Like all simple ideas, it is simple when someone shows you..... I do want to leave the automation route open, so I will follow your advice and eliminate any chance of collision. I think realistically, the only targets I might want to image that are low would be planets. I need to do some research to figure out which directions would benefit from fold-down walls, and which (if any) I don't need to worry about Cheers
  12. Just realised that predictive text has changed obsy to obey in the topic title......
  13. Thanks Adam, I'll have a read of your thread
  14. I'm in a bit of a valley, so I can't image at really low angles anyway. Plus imaging higher up seems to give better results where I am, so I usually go for higher targets.... My current thinking is about 2.4m x 2.4m.... I'll try and measure what angle the surrounding hills etc restrict me to, that might answer my question for me!
  15. OK, so there are some intrinsic advantages to higher walls, apart from just clearing the scope in any position. I do have a little local light pollution so this is something to factor in, thanks
  • Create New...

Important Information

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