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.

  • Announcements

    sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_nb_dso.jpg.eb6cd158659331fd13e71470af6da381.jpg

Adam J

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

410 Excellent

2 Followers

About Adam J

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lincoln, UK
  1. Astrokev's ROR - The Build

    It looks great, it makes me shudder though as I know how long it took me to do mine (3.5months) and its easily half that size.
  2. Julian Shaw's sombrero - with a surprise!

    I agree, was going to ask how long the integration was, but then read further down the page. A bigger aperture Newtonian at the same focal length, hence faster F-ratio would have required a much shorter total integration time. Beyond the F-ratio arguments its a great image!
  3. I have never heard anyone say to go short with a bigger weight due to vibration so that is a new one for me. My complaint was people saying the opposite under the incorrect assumption that a smaller counter wright further from the pivot point is superior. Glad you agree that the moment of inertia and hence stress on the mount is identical though.
  4. Astrokev's ROR - The Build

    In the UK the frost will be unlikely to get deeper than 10cm ever mate. Rain / water course is a different matter.
  5. I have been thinking.. I have read left right and centre that if you can get away with a single light counter weight on a longer rod then you are better off than using a heavy weight / multiple weights on a shorter rod. In my personal opinion this is a load a rubbish as surely when the mount is balanced the factor effecting guide accuracy / maximum load is moment of inertia / torque driven and nothing to do with total counter weight mass. As such the torque required / moment of inertia increases as a fixed weight is moved out from the pivot point, but you get exactly the same torque / moment of inertia with a higher mass on a shorter arm as you do when you place a smaller mass on a longer arm so long as its balanced with the scope. The end point here is that the motors in you mount have to work just as hard in either case and so the only way of making them work less hard is to balance better or to reduce the weight of the scope so that you can move the counter weight inwards. Someone please correct me if I am missing something, but I have seen someone saying this so many times its starting to bug me. Adam
  6. M 8 ZWO ASI 071

    1) Its very worth while trying OIII and H-a with this camera, I have seen others do it to great effect. I have got experiance with both OIII and h-a on my cooled 550D and it works great. 2) That is a very good image mono or OSC aside. I am loving what you are doing with this camera. Are you using a focal reducer?? What is your light pollution like?
  7. Hi, am interested in the Baader Click lock clamp if you decided to split Am also interested in the Auto-focuser and DC focus controller if the previous poster does not want them.
  8. Well dibs aside I am interested in the UHC.
  9. The Lesser Spotted Question Mark Nebula

    Like the ink blob test there is probably some deep seated physiological reason for this.
  10. m16

    Its more the background level that would mess it up. Depends allot on the stacking method your using too, Average would not react well to having some bad data in comparison to Kappa Sigma Clipping. In any case you should make sure that you ditch the worst frames across both nights. Personally I think it looks like you may just have processed it to bring the dim stuff out better in the first one. would help to see them in the same post and orientation.
  11. Veil Nebula H-alpha 20 hrs exposure

    Out of interest which Coma Corrector are you using to get such good corner stars at F3.8? Although it is not quite an APS-C sensor so that makes it a little easier...
  12. m16

    Huum what does the quality score look like on DSS for the two sets of subs? Also it could just be something in the processing.
  13. If you are really wanting to spend that amount then get a canon 6D you will not regret it. I have seen many great images from that camera. The only thing that I would note is that for that kind of money you are nearly into dedicated astro camera territory.
  14. Ideal DSLR for Nexstar 6SE

    If I had that scope without a EQ mount then I would be looking at one of the newer CMOS based astro-cameras for short exposures not a DSLR. Maybe something with large pixels given the focal length?? 174 based perhaps? Of course budget is a factor also. But then again if you really wanted to spend that kind of money you would be much better off buying a second hand HEQ5 and a different scope when it comes to imaging. In terms of DSLR - either something every modern with super low read noise like a D800 or something older with larger pixels...so probably a 1000D or a 450D. Overall though I dont recomend trying to image DSO with a 8SE.
×