Uranium235
-
Posts
7,253 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
25
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Everything posted by Uranium235
-
Yep definitely a corrector required, and taking flats isnt so bad - all you need to do it point it at a PC monitor that is displaying notepad. However, one tip is to diffuse the light coming from it with a sheet of A4 or A3 copier paper - which also dims the light so you can use a longer exposure time (flats with too quick a shutter time dont come out very well).
- 4,176 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
Guiding tonite!! :)
-
Getting really bored of clouds now... im gonna go bake a cake.
-
U235 does the victory dance :) Yesss! The new Star71 is a good un!
-
-
I would just like to say a massive thanks to the FLO team for sorting out my replacement Star71 Ive set it up, made no adjustments or fiddling - and ..... kerpow!! Round stars in all four corners - this is one happy bunny!!
-
Thanks But I'd say they're within reach of everybody, given a bit of practice, patience and tinkering (same as any newtonian really).... oh, and a half decent mount & camera after all, the optics are only 3rd on the list of considerations when it comes to narrowband AP (#1 being the mount, and #2 being the camera).
- 4,176 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
The majority of mosaics I do with the 130 are with the CCD in 2x2bin mode (binned), this has the effect of summing a group of 4pixels into one big pixel (eg: instead of pixel size of 5microns, it is now 10) - that summing of pixels improves the signal/noise ratio (giving cleaner images, quicker). However, because I have effectively doubled the size of my pixels, it cuts the resolution and image scale in half (a bit like using a 325mm FL telescope - instead of 650mm). The resolution of binned 130/383L is 3.4" p/p (image dimensions 1677x1264) - unbinned, that improves to 1.7" p/p (3354x2529). So basically I went 1x1 for more detail and a much larger image but, 1x1 takes more exposure to get over the noise.
- 4,176 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
Pelican unbinned: 3.5hr 2x panes, 1x1bin (1.7" p/p), taken earlier this week Fullsize: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5713/21762453009_5419866149_o.jpg
- 4,176 replies
-
- 8
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
The exposure time might be enough becuase theyre only point sources, but both are going to appear pretty small on your chip. I guess you could crop the image dimensions so it diplays at pixel scale (ie:100%).
- 4,176 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
Cheers Mark & Chris, the 130 will probably ride again tonight - another clear night so I might have a very belated stab at the Veil. Still not yet worth doing any OIII as I will barely get an hour before Mr Moon comes along to spoil the party.
- 4,176 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
The 130 lives on
- 4,176 replies
-
- 10
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
130pds to the rescue!
-
The WO Star 71 @ work, albeit under a dodgy moonlit sky!
-
Here is the latest image from the 130.... might be the last for a little bit as the WO71 gets a good run: I'll find a way to incorporate both telescopes into the setup, but im trying to avoid guidescope rings on the frac... maybe some sort of adjustable saddle is in order, would prefer to make it because buying one is pretty expensive. Actually... just thought, I do have some other data to process from the 130... totally forgot I had that! (got an M45 kicking around somewhere)
- 4,176 replies
-
- 11
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
Corners look good (very good in fact!)... all thats needed now is some calibration frames and perhaps for you to try and get into photoshop so you can make the most of your data.
-
Guiding tonite! (hopefully!)
-
First light... bit of a dodgy sky though.
-
Hang on to your pants.... WO Star 71 incoming!
-
Are you autoguiding? Its much better that unguided. Also, did you use the coma corrector for the above image? If so, then your spacing is still to short.
-
But was that using the GSO corrector? If so, why not switch and see if it improves? If you want to stick with the MPCC, try a longer spacing - something like 57mm, it may balance the field a bit more.
-
Depends on how hard youre trying to push it mate. My old CG5 would throw up the odd perfect session (ie: 600s-900s subs all night), but that was the exception rather than the rule. Eventually however, DEC backlash was the killer most of the time - so I settled on a more sensible sub lengh of 450s in order to get the hit rate up. I took this on a CG5 four years ago, so it can certainly do the business on a good night:
- 4,176 replies
-
- 4
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
And youve not touched that wonky focuser since you took those photos? Errrmm... I think we have found your problem then! You have no choice, bite the bullet and square the focuser - only then can you be sure. One item you must have to do that job is the digital calipers, worth their weight in gold. Even if you find that your focuser is already squared enough (unlikely), at least youve checked. Something to remember, then measuring the inner diameter of the tube - you must take into account the seam along the inner edge, its raised by roughly 1.5mm so it has the potential to throw your measurement out in one direction by up to 3mm (which is a lot).
-
An EQ5 or CG5 may be good enough if youre wllling to work at it, but their hit rate is quite low (60% useable subs on avarage), but if you want reliability (ie: 100% hit rate, all night, every night) then the HEQ5 is the one to go for if you can grab one 2nd hand. You might end up spending a bit more than £500, especially when you factor in guiding, adaptors and a coma corrector (the CC can wait, but adaptors are mandatory items). If you get a good mount in place right from the start it will save you a lot of bother. If you have no spare $$ left after buying the mount, just mount your DSLR + lens on the HEQ5 and it should take some smashing widefield photos until youve saved enough for the telescope + other bits. The mount is the heart of it all... I just need to add: It took me about 6 months of constant tinkering to get mine sorted out, so be prepared. I think I collimated mine about 120 times (yes) before I got to the stage where I was happy with it. Post-squaring of the focuser, collimation got a lot better.
- 4,176 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
Meanwhile.... the 130 kicks out another image:
- 4,176 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- skywatcher
- 130
- (and 1 more)
-
If youre talking about the ones under each side of the focuser controls, and the one at the top. Those are for adjusting the tilt of the whole focuser, you shouldnt mess with those unless you are in the process of squaring the focuser (ie: with secondary removed + spider). Watch this, its for a quattro - but the principle is exactly the same:
