Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_6_banner_jupiter_2021.jpg.eacb9f0c2f90fdaafda890646b3fc199.jpg

 

 

Adam J

Members
  • Posts

    3,851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Adam J

  1. So it should be So it should be 51.8mb per file or 50586KB so with some meta data the 50673 is going to be the correct figure. No idea why the other file is larger..
  2. Huum 50673 is closest to the mark but slightly smaller than I would have expected give the quoted number if pixels. In each. Case what's the size of the image in terms of pixels?
  3. It's just marketing. Basically CMOS sensors have higher surface reflectivity and so benefit more from better AR coatings (which are still better on AD and chroma anyway). Hence they have attempted to improve those. The naming is simply marketing to convince you that you need to upgrade, when if you are not suffering from reflections in the first place the benefits of the wider set at least will be marginal.
  4. No something would have to be more significantly wrong than just that as the low speed filters will still pass the centre of the light cone and so should do as well as the slower scope. Remember it's all to do with the angle of incidence on the filter and the light cone covers a range. Hence it would not be optimised but you would still expect to see something.
  5. Yes optically I expect so. Better to get the star 71 too as it's a pain adding autofocusers to helicals.
  6. Yes that is dust the size of the circle suggests on the filter.
  7. The 269c for me, bigger sensor bigger pixels. But honestly I would go with the ASI533mc pro over either of those choices.
  8. To me this says that the filter is leaking something through that's in the sky flats but not emitted by the panel. So UV or IR maybe.
  9. As discussed something seems wrong about this but I have no first hand experience with this camera or filter. I know that you can get blotchiness in the flats with this camera though. Someone must have experience of this combination.
  10. No question in my mind that if Ha is your thing and you want something that's going to last then mono is the way to go. On a tight budget the 183mm will serve you well.
  11. So a L3 in line with the B filter will clip it down to 430nm. I do this on my ASKAR FMA180 and it works really well, but the initial amount of blue bloat on the ASKAR FMA180 is quite a bit less than seen here on your lens. If you are thinking more about the new FMA230 then that is a unknown but it as a quad element reducer to the FMA180s tripled reducer, so my guess would be that the correction will be similar between the two. Personally if I had the cash I would be going with the Borg although even in this case and using fluorite at F3.6 i would say the correction still will not be perfect in the blue so a wide blue / lum filter would not be the best idea. look at page 2. Adam
  12. Lol yes 3/4 is not possible unless you guessed two of them as the same moon. Conversely if you guessed they are all Callisto then you are guaranteed to get at least 1/4 correct.
  13. As a scientist and statistician I would say that maybe its not possible and that you just got lucky in your guessing. Unless you can see a clear pattern over multiple observation sessions in which you average more than 2/4 correctly identified then it is just too easy to fluke 2 out of 4 (incidentally the rate of correct ID that you would expect on average through random chance alone is 2/4 correct).
  14. Very impressive in terms of signal from such a short exposure. The thing that has put me off a RASA though is the spot diagrams which show spots of 8um or more at the centre of the FOV, hence not too sharp for such a large aperture. Can you or Olly or Gorann maybe comment on sharpness in comparison to some of the optically slower alternatives? I do note that this is 2xbin though. Adam
  15. I would kill it with UV before removing it with the alcohol.
  16. Yes, I think that you are lucky really as with the modular design of the Borg you should be able to easily get to the rear lens surface with a isopropol on a pure cotton bud.
  17. Specifically a UVC bulb, lower energy UV will not sterilise the surface.
  18. Vale should be obvious as to which one you have.
  19. Any chance the filter itself is incorrectly labelled? I have heard it before shine a light through it. Does it look green?
  20. Just a little test image to get the bugs out of the new ASKAR FMA180 mounting system.
  21. I always thought that the 115mm fpl51 triplet from TS optics was a great price to performance.
  22. Yes good test. I would say you need to remove some backfocus maybe 1-2mm to get a flatter field. I think this is the issue as opposed to just focus as other have suggested.
  23. Not everyone else, I would go mono LRGB too and fast cycle the filters to ensure I get a full set. Requires and autofocuser though. Mono is just faster if slightly more work.
×
×
  • 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.