Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Icesheet

Members
  • Posts

    603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Icesheet

  1. First light for my Askar 400. Had been looking for something at this FL and couldn’t pass up an open box offer. It seems very well corrected for my 2600MC on first outing and love the simplicity of not fussing with spacing etc. This is just over 3.5hrs on an area of Cygnus covering the Tulip Nebula and WR134. Had to throw away about 30% of subs due to dew I hadn’t noticed. Still, pretty happy with what I pulled out. May look to add more in the future. Askar FRA400 & ZWO ASI2600MC 44*300s with L-extreme Processed in PixInsight.
  2. He’s always came across as one of the more open and honest YouTuber’s out there (unless it’s something that competes with NINA). Curious as to what kind of comments he deleted if you’re willing to share.
  3. Cuiv has just given a first look. Looks impressive! Can’t wait to get mine now.
  4. Thanks again @vlaiv. Thinking of it as standard deviation helps me visualise it and understand it better (even if it’s not exactly the case). This is also useful as the scope I’m looking at looks particularly bloated in blue. Someone before mentioned it, but using one of these fringe killer filters might really help tighten things up. Interesting stuff!
  5. Sorry to keep banging the spot diagram drum here but looking at these is confusing me further! To keep it consistent (if that’s possible) here’s the diagram for the 0.6x and 0.8x reducers. First of all, the wavelengths are the opposite way round. I’ll assume that’s a printing error somehow. I’ll also assume the colour key does not relate to the wavelength since the green spot isn’t actually in the green wavelength. Then, actually looking at the spot diagram itself. The centre spot for the 0.6x has a size of ~20um, according to the scale. However the RMS radius for the centre shows 6um which would be 12um spot size presumably. Or am I interpreting this wrong? Is it the spot from the GEO radius they are representing on the diagram? Then finally, the RMS and GEO radius. Are they representative of all wavelengths or just one? Btw, the error in my initial post was I thought the box size was 20um so miscalculated spot size.
  6. Thanks for the explanation. I think I may still have some gaps that I need to fill in but from what I can see the FRA400 is probably not diffraction limited at any wavelength, while the FRA300 seems to be at least in the centre. Now I'm questioning my purchase. I have a TSA120 and Tak states that spots are 10microns across a 35mm sensor with the flattener which is about diffraction limited across the field. So maybe I'm expecting too much from cheaper optics. This is just theoretical of course and maybe seeing/ guiding etc negates much of this but to me it's still surprising. Edit: Also with processing techniques it’s now easier to reduce stars and recover detail so maybe this also negates it. Plus it’s easier to fix bloated stars, rather than misshapen stars and at least they seem fairly uniform across the files on the Askars.
  7. I’m interested in learning more about spot sizes and how to translate that into imaging potential. Can you direct me to a good source? For example, I just ordered a FRA400, but now I’m looking closer at spot diagrams the FRA300 looks better. How is the aperture and FL affecting this and how can we make objective comparisons?
  8. Thanks for the quick response. Yeah, it seems like it’s a good deal for the money and I haven’t really seen many negative reviews or comments on this in particular. Wasn’t sure between this and the FRA300.
  9. Nice review @Lee_P! I’ve just picked up an ex demo FRA400. Seems to tick a lot of boxes for me. Just a question on the star image at the corner you posted. It looks like CA, which the spot diagrams show may be present but it’s also very consistent with CA I’ve seen introduced with the L-extreme filter. Did you see this when not using the L-extreme also?
  10. The Sigma's are top for well corrected, fast wide angle lenses. I have the 28mm and 40mm. Maybe this needs to be added to the collection!
  11. Thanks 😊 I’m not convinced the Polaris is worth the money, especially if deep sky is your target. I picked it up on a deal with wide automated panoramas in mind. I haven’t really had the chance to test that but I’ve seen some stunning examples from others. Yeah, it surprised and continues to frustrate me. As you say, it’s a byproduct of the geographical location and nature of the terrain. However, I still think a lot of it is unnecessary. The electricity prices are not so cheap anymore, maybe that will have a positive effect, at least from my own selfish viewpoint!
  12. A two row vertical panorama of the Milkyway, looking out over Fusafjord to the town of Eikelandsosen in western Norway 🇳🇴 I took the opportunity of a new moon to test the Benro Polaris with a modded EOS R near my home. Really wanted to get the fish farms in the image but had to crop parts out due to a barge with ridiculously strong lighting (see second image) Happy to see the extra Ha response around Cygnus from the mod. I haven’t really made my mind up on the Polaris but if I can get it to automate panorama’s it will be a winner. Hoping to take it on holiday this year! EXIF: Canon EOS R (astromod) Sigma 28mm ART Sky: 20x30sec f2.8 ISO1600 Foreground 8x30sec and 8x4sec @f2 ISO100
  13. Hi, I did get sub arc sec guiding in the end but I’m afraid I can’t remember what I did now. Also, I no longer have that mount. I recommend going onto the PHD2 group. The people there were very helpful and responsive. https://groups.google.com/g/open-phd-guiding If you’re guiding at 0.6” RMS I wouldn’t worry too much! Just get the shutter sorted and you’re good to go 👍
  14. I’ve ordered the Seestar. I’m too curious to find out how this is. A 50mm f5 triplet astrophotography package for $399? I must be missing something here.
  15. Thanks for the kind words all! I’m kind of glad I was forced into the wide field version. It does give you another perspective on the area.
  16. The light nights are closing in here and for what would probably be my last time imaging before the summer, I really wanted it to be with my Tak TSA-120 for the first time. Of course, Tak adapter hell hit and I was unable to get my imaging train together. So, I decided to try imaging M81 and M82 in wide field, particularly trying to bring out some IFN. I checked framing and found I could also fit in Coddington’s Nebula IC 2574, which is actually a spiral galaxy. I went for 5min exposures under a 65% moon and after tossing subs due to clouds I had 5hr 40mm of data. I wasn’t entirely confident of getting a final product I was happy with. Sure enough I had issues processing with the high dynamic range but managed to finally come up with something I’m happy with. Even if I’m not exactly sure how now! Processed in PixInsight. Hope you like it and happy to get some feedback! Tak FS-60 with 0.72x reducer Zwo ASI2600MC Lights 68x300s 10x darks and flats
  17. Thanks! I haven’t tried the Gain script or HDRMultiScaleTransform so I’ll give them a go. I managed to get something a bit more like what I was hoping for by really pushing the IFN in one layer and lightly stretching the galaxies in another layer in Photoshop then set the top IFN layer at 60% opacity. A bit too much colour mottling for my like though. Edit to add: I just had a look at your fantastic version @Fegato. So much detail in the IFN and galaxies very well controlled. I would delighted with that!
  18. I'm wondering if there is a way of doing a form of HDR processing without data of different exposure lengths? I captured some widefield M81/ 82 data with 5min exposures to bring out the IFN. I've managed to do this, however, no matter what I do I can't bring out the IFN without completely blowing the galaxies out. I've tried everything from masking to layers but can't achieve anything with any detail in the galaxies without artifacts around them. Can anyone point me to a good tutorial? I mainly use PixInsight but have Photoshop too. Happy to make the data available if anyone wants it too. Forgive the corner stars though!
  19. I'm sure there are a few threads around. The general consensus is that it is a good binocular for astronomy, particularly if you handheld is your only option. I hve them but have only tried a couple of times but the stabilisation certainly makes a difference.
  20. Here’s the comet picture from the 30s stack. Quite happy with that.
  21. I picked one up that was being offered on a deal, still expensive but not the price it’s currently retailing at. I got it primarily to automate widefield milkyway panoramas but haven’t had the chance to use it for that yet, although a brief test showed promise. I actually used it recently with an Askar FMA180 to capture the comet and I’m currently trying to process that. I took 60 30s subs and virtually all were keepers and also took 10 60s sub and 7 or 8 of them look good. Having said that I really don’t think this is suited to much beyond 100mm focal length based on what I’ve seen and the general user experience I’ve found online. It’s very well built though and if the software is improved it has the potential to be great for widefield work and particularly automating panoramas or timelapses, which I think the manufacturer is pitching it for. Not sure it’s worth the price though. If deep sky it’s your aim there definitely better offerings at a lower price point.
  22. Here’s my addition to the M45 entries. Really struggled with processing this. From gradients to dust, I never expected how challenging it would be, but I’ve learned a lot from it. Nothing beats integration time and this really needs more but happy with what I have for 3hrs here. Shot with a Tak FS60 (0.72x reducer) and ASI2600 MC. 60x180s Processed in PixInsight and Photoshop.
  23. I managed to get rid of mine with carefully selected DBE points. The dust in the area around M45 complicated it for me. Not sure if that would be the case here 🤔
×
×
  • 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.