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_lunar.thumb.jpg.ef4882eb5fb3610f8a68e5e6913de0e3.jpg

The-MathMog

Advanced Members
  • Content count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

94 Excellent

About The-MathMog

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Denmark
  1. The Cocoon Nebula - A Very Short Glance

    Definitely spend much time of processing too, as doing pretty much any stretching would leave a horrible mess. As long as you don't zoom in too much the horrendous noise-floor is hidden enough. And then knowing that I won't be able to add to it for probably several more weeks.. Lovely.. Cropped the image a bit too, as there are some weird star shapes. Can't quite figure out if it is still a small amount of coma, or some other optical aberration caused by tilt, mirror pinch or something else entirely.
  2. This is an image created from data I took almost a month ago. I didn't really intend to do anything with the data, as I was just testing the mount and different exposure lengths contra ISO settings. But a very long period of clouds, (I've literally not been out with the scope for a month) made me go back through some old files to see if there was anything I could fiddle with to fill the time. I found these and merged them together. 3 subs with a total integration time of 16 minutes (what an astounding amount of data!). One sub of 120 secs with ISO 6400. One sub of 360 secs ISO 1600 and one with 480 secs ISO 1600. No darks, bias or flats either. Just pure, raw, noisy data! But I am honestly pleased with what I could make of it, as I first off didn't even expect to get anything out of doing those images, and not knowing how easy pulling our details on this object was either. The Cocoon Nebula (IC 5146) 3 Subs (2 Min, 6 Min, 8 Min) Iso 6400 and 1600 16 Minute Integration Time Skywatcher 150pds Celestron Advanced VX Mount Nikon d5200 Explore Scientific Coma Corrector Baader Neodymium Filter Stacked and Processed in Photoshop CS2
  3. The-MathMog's Images

    Just some of my images in general.
  4. M33 as a First

    When I just got my first telescope back in December, the Triangulum galaxy was one of the first objects I was trying to find. But with my lack of knowledge of the sky, and the brightness of certain objects, I never succeeded, and before long it wasn't in the sky at night anyway. I had a clear night a few days ago, and my initial target (Bode's Galaxy) went behind a tree, and some clouds obscured the western sky. Checked stellarium to see what else would be of interest to capture, and coincidentally M33 had just risen above the roof of my house. Wasn't sure well it would show up in images, as I seem to remember it being a galaxy that really shines when imaging Ha. But even in short exposure test shots, I could see the core and line it up, so I gave it a go! I had a few technical difficulties during the night, with my laptop not recognizing the port that my mount was connected to, so guiding wasn't a possibility. At least not without restarting the mount/pc, which I didn't quite feel like, so I went with 2 minute unguided shots, with which I accumulated 55 usable ones (Like 6 of them had satellites go through them, but I used them anyway. And if you look closely they are still barely visible). I was able to pull more out of it than I expected, and this is definitely one I will revisit as my experience and capabilities grow! Skywatcher 150P-DS Celestron AVX Mount Nikon D5200 2 Minute Exposures 55 Subs 1 Hour 50 Minutes Integration Time ISO 3200 Manually Stacked and Processed in Photoshop CS2 (My relationship with DSS isn't that good) https://stargazerslounge.com/gallery/image/33013-triangulum-galaxy-m33/ Any advice or question is veeery welcome, as this hobby is still in its infancy for me! //Mathias
  5. Quick Andromeda Galaxy

    I got a new telescope a few weeks ago, a Skywatcher 150P-DS, and I've just had it out yesterday, as the danish summer has been absolutely horrendous.. But it's only just now, that the astro-dark nights are returning again anyway. And what better easy target to test it out on, than the Andromeda Galaxy? But there were only like a total of 2-3 cloudless hours yesterday, so I only managed to get 26.5 minutes of 30 second subs, as I was also observing and getting used to the new scope. The focus is a slight bit off, as I've still to make a bahtinov mask that fits this one, and I can see that I really do need to get my hands on a coma-corrector. I am currently looking at the Explore Scientific HR Coma Corrector. People have recommended the Baader Mark-III MPCC, but some have also complained about it introducing spherical aberration? Other than those issues, I am very pleased with the quality of this scope and how easy it was to produce these images. Just the fact that the DSLR can actually reach prime-focus, without the use of a barlow-lens or something similar, is just a big plus compared to what I've had to deal with! I'll give it some longer tests when the next dark, cloudless nights hits, which might be a while! The field of view of the 150P-DS is a bit too small for something like M32, so I might make a 2-pane mosaic sometime. Skywatcher 150P-DS Celestron AVX Nikon D5200 Integration Time - 26.5 minutes 53 subs - 30 seconds each Manually Stacked and Processed in Photoshop CS2
  6. Clamping Adapter For Camera

    The one that I use right now is one solid piece, that connects to the T-ring. Like then inserting a 1.25 eye piece. Same with the 2 inch I believe. Haven't had that out in a while.
  7. Clamping Adapter For Camera

    Thanks again. I've ordered one, together with some other small "quality-of-life" improving equipment, then we'll see how it fairs. Even if it turns out to only be a slight improvement, then I'll still be happy. Together with a new scope that, that'll be something to look forward to! I am looking to buy a Coma Corrector too. Is that something you have experience with? It seems that the Baarder Mark-III MPCC, is a common choice for people, although some also complain about it making the start more "bloated"?
  8. Clamping Adapter For Camera

    Thank you vern, that might exactly be what I am after! Yes I've been doing that too, and might still do so after I've gotten the adapter. If it lost grip, it would just still swing around, which isn't a too pleasant thought! Might work as a fail-safe at least, though I don't expect the clamp to give away that easily. It states that it also fits celestron telescopes, I don't see where that would fit then though. I guess the Skywatcher has a thread that the celestrons don't have for the 2-inch adapter. Mine is just inserted and secured with screws. Only the 1.25'' is threaded on
  9. Hey guys, the dark nights are soon returning here in Denmark! (The major downside of living at 57 latitude) And I am going to be buy a small upgrade, the Skywatcher 150PDS Newtonian. I am going to use it both visually and for astrophotography, hence this version. I do already have the T-ring for my Nikon and a T-adapter, BUT, I wanna know if there is an adapter that provides a better grip on the t-adapter, that is low-profile and fits the Skywatcher? Something like the Baader click-lock? I've always been scared of the telescope dropping my DSLR, when it hangs in weird positions, and would rather eliminate that fear. The different adapter sizes and threads confuse the hell out of me though, so I'd rather ask here on what you'd think I need. I have both a 2-inch and a 1.25inch t-adapter, but as I've heard, using the 2-inch should solve vignetting issues, so I might go for a 2-inch locking adapter. (So far I've been using the 1.25-inch, as I needed a barlow to gain focus with my current 130mm celestron newtonian. //Mathias
  10. A rarely imaged galaxy - best one so far?

    Sorry if I missed it, but what galaxy is it exactly? Quite a beautiful one with its almost flower-like structure.
  11. Just a note. The mains power supply you posted, says that it delivers 1.5 amps. From the manual, the AVX mount states that it requires 3.5 amps. This could lead to tracking or alignment issues. I've heard about quite a bit of guys, who had issues with their mounts, which turned out to be insufficient power. Also to ensure that the power don't drop below that during cold weather, 5 amp adapters is often recommended.
  12. First proper image - Whirlpool galaxy M51

    Depending on how your camera actually handles ISO, I personally would actually increase the ISO quite a bit, and then either decrease the sub length (to allow more subs in a night), or increase the sub length if your mount allows it, to gather more light. I've found with my nikon D5200, that increasing the ISO helps me collect a lot more data, and bringing it out without having to stretch it as much, which also brings the noise level up. As long as you have enough subs to basically neutralise the noise, it should be fine. I mostly do ISO 6400, and then do as many subs as I can. At least 30. Also try with and without darks, that can again be camera dependant. For me personally, I pretty much HAVE to use darks, if I want a good image
  13. I am looking into getting a coma corrector at some point. It might be after I get a new OTA, as that one will likely have more coma, and that coma isn't the biggest of issues right now. BUT, I've been surfing around, trying to figure out how coma correctors actually work and what other effects they might have, and it has been a bit confusing to me, especially concerning focus. I've read several places that some CC's will either require in-focus or even out-focus, even out-focus in such a case where prime-focus, which wasn't possible before, actually can become possible. I'll quote what I read, but I'd like people to give some comments on how that would work out: "I've found that the GSO requires about 10mm of focuser in-travel when using the supplied eyepiece holder and an additional 25mm of spacing between that holder and the optics unit. For every additional 4mm of spacing, you save about 1mm of in-travel required. So I guess if you put 110mm of spacing in there, you wouldn't change the focus point at all. Of course, the correction would be awful. If you screw the same 70-75mm of spacing onto the back of your 2"-1.25" adapter, you'll need about 1.5 inches of out-travel to reach focus. Since my focuser won't go that far, I just pull the whole assembly up and out of the focuser about and inch or so. Thus, you'll always be able to reach focus with 1.25" eyepieces and possibly even with cameras setup for prime focus photography via the T-mount adapter that wouldn't be able to reach focus otherwise." Louis D - This was interesting to me, as I am actually not able to achieve prime-focus as of right now with my current OTA (Celestron 130SLT), and was wondering if acquiring a CC now instead of later, would be able to fix this for me? And if so, does the focal-length attributes of the CC determine this? Like some CC's acting as a 0.9x reducer or a 1.15x. And what CC's would you recommend that I eventually get? My current plan for the new OTA, is a Skywatcher 8'' Quattro CF, so I'll want a CC for it eventually, but if the CC can also "fix" focus issues with my current OTA, that would kill two birds with one stone as I currently have to use a barlow to focus my Nikon D5200. So any insight into this or general advice would be very welcome! -Mathias M. M.
  14. Did you ASPA RIGHT after you did the first one? Not refreshing all the star-aligns first? If so, then it would always miss, if you adjusted the PA. Or by unsync do you mean doing the star-aligns again? Just asking to clear up any confusion for me And how long can your mount keep a star centered during an exposure? Hmm. A few last questions too, before running conclusions. Simple of course, but important nonetheless. Have you tightened the bolt underneath the mount head into the stand properly? Tightening it up a bit after doing the last Az adjustments can help a bit too. It should be tight enough for the mount not to easily move, but loose enough for those last Az-adjustments. Also, you should be able to tighten both Az bolts properly. It takes a bit of practise to do that properly, as you mentioned, it can move a bit in the last adjustment, but by that point, you should predict what the final movement would be, so that it ends up centered and also tight. Sure it can't stay completely centered if you bump into it, but it shouldn't move a lot either. You are not by any chance on soft ground either? If it still doesn't work out for you, then the best you can do is simply to contact the place you bought the mount and get a replacement (or even refund if that is what you want) while you still can. Errors do happen from time to time, either under development or during rough shipping (though it would have to be veeery rough, for a mount to be faulty). But do check those last things beforehand. Everything should be tightened down firmly for the mount to work at its optimum
  15. Moon Before Deepsky 02-05-2017

    Thank you. For these I tried stacking them manually. Doesn't take long, and I feel that I am in a bit more control of the process. At least until I figure out the programs. I've tried using registax, and I've never gotten good results from that. At least not with the moon. A few frames was always misaligned, and couldn't figure out why. Tried several different options, with more or less align points. Different stacking settings etc. Haven't tried out AS2, but will give it a go. I've also downloaded PIPP, which a lot of people seem to prefer for the alignment of frames, but again haven't had the time to play with it, as I am spending most of my time shooting galaxies lately But honestly even with Deep Sky Stacker, I don't get very pleasing results either, when shooting deep sky. I've at least gotten a lot better results by manually creating dark-frames, subtracting them from my lights and then aligning my galaxy frames in photoshop. Either DSS might not like my frames, which doesn't have pinpoint stars because of barlow-induced-coma, or it is likely a case of "Error 40" though as we say here (where the error lies 40 cm from the screen), but I've wasted enough time without a breakthrough, that I've just put in on the shelf for now. Until my patience returns
×