Jump to content

stargazine_ep39_banner.thumb.jpg.b87bddaa2aded94d2a3456c0589a82b9.jpg

Spaced Out

Members
  • Content Count

    512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

317 Excellent

About Spaced Out

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Location
    Northumberland, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm far from expert at this but I do stretch Ha data in photoshop no problem. I always do small stretches tho and repeat, if I do a large stretch it starts to look quite blocky/blotchy straight away. Same with adjusting the levels, so I use small steps. No idea why this happens tho ?
  2. Great image, the star adventurer does it again ! You can see the flame and horsehead coming through there too. I hope you don't mind, I chucked your image through Lightroom to try and remove the purple halos a bit, it's not perfect but there is less purple.
  3. Hmmmm........ No responses yet, so I'm guessing no-one knows the answer to this one ?
  4. Hi all Last night I learned how to create a mosaic in CDC using finder circles then import that list of finder circles from CDC to APT to image a mosaic area. I had to use go to++ to plate solve each panel, then manually start a simple imaging plan for each panel. For me this was an achievement ! I am wondering if there is a way to create an imaging plan that could automate the whole process ? It would rely on PHD2 selecting a new guide star when the mount moved to a new panel, then start guiding again too. Is this possible ? Thanks
  5. I use a Lacerta Flatfield box, it's not the cheapest but I think the build quality is good, it's dimmable and it has worked OK for me so far ! https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/info/p8241_Lacerta-LED-Flatfield-Box-with-240-mm-usable-Diameter.html
  6. That's great thanks, I'll get in touch with him
  7. Thanks. I am an ecologist. I am just trying to get the local nature reserve recognised for its dark sky quality, so I'll be flagging up the many ecological benefits (alongside others) of protecting the area from LP. Plenty of research/evidence showing negative ecological impact caused by LP, yet, as you say, the LP creep is just relentless. Luckily I live in a small rural community, I'm hopeful that if we can get the community engaged with this we might be able to make a difference at a local level and encourage neighbouring parish councils to do the same.
  8. Do you have any sort of reference for this statement, it would be really helpful if possible. I'm trying to convince the parish council that our 21.2 skies are dark enough to really push awareness and protection within the local community. Pretty much the same approach I am asking our parish council and hopefully neighbouring parish councils to adopt.
  9. Thanks for the reply. I think there may be a little more LP down here on the coast compared to some of those inland/upland sites. I have been doing an average of 4 readings between midnight - 1ish. I suspect that with perfect conditions 21.40 will be as good as it gets here. This did happen just once on a very clear calm night a little while back. The other 3 nights I've taken measurements they've generally always been between 21.18 and 21.25, so this has made me question whether the 21.40 was accurate or not, sounds like readings might vary a little bit due to conditions tho. Yep
  10. Thanks, that's good to know that readings can vary that much, most of my readings are around 21.2 but I have had 21.4 once. In the field the LP to the south is a pain, it is from Newcastle upon Tyne and surrounding towns (maybe 25-30 miles away), it washes out everything low in the southern sky. To the east is straight out over the North Sea, no obvious artificial light sources in that direction, it is the darkest horizon here but I see airglow that way fairly regularly. To the north is a small dome of LP from a couple of small(ish) villages (about 5 miles away), and to the nort
  11. Thanks vlaiv, I've seen these pages before. Using the Bortle Scale I have assessed as Bortle 4 but not far off 3 tbh, 3.5+ if there was such a thing ! I don't really like the Bortle scale, I can see how it may be useful but to me it seems subjective and perhaps broad in places. I prefer the SQM-L it is more objective and there’s less risk of user bias creeping in. Not sure how the websites calculate things but 21.6 does seem quite a bit higher than my usual 21.2 readings (I did get a high of 21.4 once). I'm guessing they are estimates. The wiki page suggests the sky here is bor
  12. Hi all Is there an official scale/text showing the lowest SQM-L reading that might be considered a ‘dark sky’ ? I am writing a short report for our Parish Council to highlight our rural sky quality and the impact of local light pollution in some places. I consider the skies here reasonably dark (not dark sky park quality tho). A light pollution website suggest local readings should be around 21.6 but my readings hover around 21.2. Thanks Gary
  13. Here is my first ever image created using data from multiple nights. I imaged over 3 nights to get as much as I could on this target but some high thin cloud saw me ditching a lot of subs in the end. Found it a bit complicated stacking 3 different filters from different nights with accompanying calibration frames in DSS. In the end I just did one night at a time then stacked the resulting images together for each filter. Tadpole Nebula IC410 71x 300s Ha 47x 300s Oiii 50x 300s Sii + 50x Darks, 20x Flats and 20x Dark Flats for each filter.
  14. Tbh I'd have prolly snapped this up for £975 a year ago when I was looking for one, there were none around then (I looked for a couple of months) so I ended buying a new one for £1275.
×
×
  • 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.