newbie alert

A few people have re- contacted the etalon with success

Oh yes of course.. Correct sampling is the relationship between pixels and FL using Nyquist, which maybe more accurate than fr

No it's the bobs knobs is the reason... They're easier to collimate but you will have to collimate more often.. don't think they hold the secondary tight enough

So the op is using a F10 SCT, so in theory he should be using a pixel size no smaller than 3.333333 to image at its native FL and any larger he should be using a focal reducer? Doesn't seem to stack up between theory and practice to me

Powermates are telecentric . The op is using a SCT.. thought we comment on what's on the thread rather than going off on tangents and insulting people's equipment...

Yes I understand how a Barlow works, but in real life terms to get to f15 on a c8 would require a 1.5x Barlow, the same for the 9.25 and 11 but a x1.365 Barlow for a C14.. can't see how it be the same Barlow strength for anything under the c14.. most use powermates which start at x2 .. so f20 or f22 depending on scope.. so not near the f11.6 or f14.6 mentioned earlier on the first page

What is it 7/10 or 9/10? I've seen better images from him in 7/10 conditions and he has frequent 9/10 seeing.. but they have a rainy season, winds from unfavorable directions etc etc.. Think this has diverted from what I originally said , gone off in all sorts of tangents...none of which is applicable to what's been said here.. just to remind you So if he had a C14 would that calculation still ring true? Christopher go uses a 290 with a pixel size of 2.9 so should he be using his at f11.6 or f14.6... so that calculation is abit vague and not really relevant I used Chris as and example to highlight that he uses a 2.9 um camera on a C14 and most of the time uses a x2 Barlow, so he's imaging at f22, so if he's not doing it correctly then he's been doing it wrong for a good number of years, my point is for the same pixel size camera then the same formula should be applicable for a c9.25, or a c8 to get to the same f ratio as stated... We all know that a bigger scope, with longer reach can resolve finer details, so how can the same formula be applicable to all sizes based on all sizes of scopes... Surely the example images that you have shown wouldn't all be big aperture/ long focal length scopes if the same applies to all?

Or could be just the weather, which if it isn't in your favour there's not much you can do about it

You're going to have to explain that as has no linked relevance in my brain to what I said

He's using a x2 Barlow, so he's nowhere near f11.6 or f14.6

First time I've heard or read someone to use it in you second explaination.. And reference to the de-rotated 3 min video, windupos is done after stacking,with the video not long enough to show much,if any movement what's being derotated?

I'm not qualified to suggest anything other than what I've read as I've never used the program but... The idea is to do a run of stacks, put them through windupos and de-rotate.. on a u tube video Christopher go does a run of 6 stacks when seeing is good, more when seeing is bad and then de-rotates... His comments are that it's like stacking on steroids and helps with smoothing out the noise... If you de-rotate a 3 min video then of course there wouldn't be any difference...same as you wouldn't do a 10 min video and de-rotate, you would do a few stacks and then de-rotate That's how I understand it anyway

So if he had a C14 would that calculation still ring true? Christopher go uses a 290 with a pixel size of 2.9 so should he be using his at f11.6 or f14.6... so that calculation is abit vague and not really relevant And the calculation of 30 secs is out also..you don't de-rotate to correct smeared data, you de rotate to get sharper images across the disc.. that's why you do a series of captures

The avx is a great mount but you need to tell it where it is as in time date and location... With that info the mount will slew to where the star should be and the point of star alignment is to fine tune this so your Goto's are accurate.. if your out then it's not the mount it's your info and the accuracy of your star alignment Polar aligning isn't point it at Polaris as that's 40 arc mins off from the north Celestron pole, Polaris isn't the center point of earth rotation, the NCP is.... The more accurate that you star align the better your target Goto's will be , I'd recommend a cross haired illuminated reticle for this... Not knowing what you're using the 9.25 for but assume it's for planets, or observing then you may find the ASPA sid good enough for your needs.. it's in the handset If you use the park and hibernate options in the handset then there's no need to redo your star alignment every session as it will save it, may need a slight sync and you're good to go...this is also in the handset.. enjoy, it's a great mount

No point using a oag on a 70 mm scope.. Just put something to counterbalance on the other side

Can't see your issue as it saves as you type using my phone..

A C14 will take more than a few hours to come to thermal equilibrium if you store it in the house..and warm thermals will cause the issues you describe...

Sorry

Various ways to do it, you can press park, or incorporate it in a sequence.. as for position I'm sure you can have it in the home position ot horizontal, or in your own custom park..

Both look incredible with or without for me, not fussed, both are amazing.. well done Lee

Agreed, why do the star alignment first as it surely won't be accurate after you've polar aligned, also there's a question why you're star aligning, plate solving will be far more accurate anyway Not so sure why you want to use the CPWI and Nina both together, Nina is quite capable of running it on its own, why use 2 tools to do the same job

What oag are you using?

That's pretty decent for any attempt, awesome for a first one, what camera is it please?

I've not used the hocus focus as yet but looking at your curves there's a few things that could be worth checking.. first I'd check for slippage, check the grubscrews are on the flat( presumably there's a flat?) Next I'd check your backlash and step count is high enough... Other thing could be passing cloud causing outliners that look like backlash Mr patriot astro does some fantastic videos for all things Nina...

I'm pretty sure on the flats, do a stack without them and the edges where they show now as light will be dark So for me that means your flats are over correcting its a 16 bit camera so what's the adu that you're aiming for?