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.



Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

152 Excellent

About Datalord

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Datalord

    OAG and focuser size

    I've used it with a guidescope for well over a year, so that's not an issue. I only have a problem with the combination of OAG, M68 to M54 converter and the WO71 scope. I'm going back to guidescope for the time being.
  2. Datalord

    OAG and focuser size

    Ok, tested it. The adapter to M54 simply obstructed the OAG mirror. I have to use my good old guidescope instead in this setup. A bit of a bummer as I was hoping to test it out, but that must wait till the RC comes.
  3. Datalord

    OAG and focuser size

    Blunder, it is not a colour. I'll try the daylight version today to see if it is simply blocked off, which is my suspicion. I had to use a converter from T68 to T54 which suspiciously looked as if it sås going to block off the oag.
  4. I tried out my G3-16200 tonight and with a bit of starting hardship, it worked out. Except I couldn't get my OAG camera to get any stars at all. It's my first time using an OAG, so I might be asking a stupid quesion: Will this OAG simply not get any light from the WO71 2" focuser? Or is the ZWO-ASI120C just not sensitive enough to guide on this? I did make a BPM and darks, but actually getting a usable picture in PHD2 was beyond me.
  5. Datalord

    Counterweight woes

    I did as I said, it wasn't quite enough. I ziptied 2*1.25kg weights on front of the scope just for the evening, but I have an order from Amazon coming tomorrow with 2kg ankle weights I'll wrap around the tube. Will double as a dew shield. That camera is a monster, though. I got the enhanced cooling version with an external filter wheel, so the total weight is somewhere around 3.5 kg.
  6. Datalord

    Counterweight woes

    I must admit I feel like a complete daft idiot for not thinking about that one. Doesn't completely solve the problem, but definitely makes it a lot smaller. That thing you linked looks spot on perfect. Once I have seen the extent of the problem with the rotated focuser and moving the camera forwards, I will see what I need. I thought about this, but the fear of one coming loose and ramming the camera stopped me. Thanks all for the suggestions!
  7. I've mounted my new G3-16200 camera on my tiny little WO71 for testing this camera before my big RC arrives, but obviously this monstrosity comes with a weight problem. So, I need some way of counter balancing it on the front end, but I'm not sure what is the best way to go about it. Ideas are massively welcomed, especially if I can order something ready to use and not have to mess around with it too much. I can't move the scope any further forward because of the attachments of the focus motor.
  8. While I guess I agree with the scientific version, Vlaiv, I care more about practical application and experience. Obviously all of the above is done with my bortle 5 skies and all the flaws I have in my imaging train, but if it gives an indication of real world usage, I dare say it would be useful. To that end, it would be interesting if the developers of each of these software suites would take a given dataset, freedom to produce the best possible result and post the settings and results for comparison in one thread here. And that dataset should NOT be clean, it should be representative of an "average" user with all the dirt we put into it.
  9. It also means I have to redo my process to use the PI image instead of APP... doh
  10. Ah, no, I just nuked it and looked through it. Here's the output from the NoiseEvaluation script in PI, using roughly the same preview area in completely fresh linear: APP * Channel #0 σR = 8.073e-04, N = 2125832 (43.60%), J = 4 * Channel #1 σG = 7.039e-04, N = 2795901 (57.34%), J = 4 * Channel #2 σB = 9.019e-04, N = 1714804 (35.17%), J = 4 DSS * Channel #0 σR = 7.473e-05, N = 772918 (17.55%), J = 4 * Channel #1 σG = 8.078e-05, N = 1481187 (33.62%), J = 4 * Channel #2 σB = 1.112e-04, N = 986582 (22.40%), J = 4 PI * Channel #0 σR = 3.668e-05, N = 1109813 (27.27%), J = 4 * Channel #1 σG = 3.592e-05, N = 1458419 (35.84%), J = 4 * Channel #2 σB = 3.402e-05, N = 1839301 (45.20%), J = 4 I have no clue how to interpret this?
  11. Finally got some time to process this. I went with the APP version. I think the colours are better than I have had with previous versions and the detail is pretty good. Can't really figure out what a good crop is on this one.
  12. Yes, opened them and nuked them. Only STF. The scale is not the same, I couldn't hit the exact crop, so it is slightly off. To me it looks like the APP version has a bit more detail in the galaxy itself.
  13. ok, I got a trial of APP, got latest version and set it off to chew on it. 1h45m later it finished. Workflow wise, it was almost as simple as DSS. As others have pointed out, PI probably is too if I had used batch. I think APP is more smooth, but I can't tell whether it actually is in the final image after processing: Left: APP Right: PI
  14. I asked for yet another trial of APP. If I get it and I make it work, I'll post comparisons here.
  15. I tried that a while ago. Let's just say that the results were very suboptimal. I don't think it was suited well for RGB pictures.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.