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.

Buzzard75

Members
  • Content Count

    554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

692 Excellent

4 Followers

About Buzzard75

  • Rank
    Proto Star

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Bern, NC
  1. It works similar to an equatorial mount. If you were using a ball head for the camera and lens you'll have to replace it with the declination (DEC) mounting bracket. Install the bracket, which has a vixen mount on it and then you can mount your telescope in that. After that, you just loosen the RA clutch and the DEC screw and you can point it anywhere you want. Check the quickstart guide. It has instructions for a heavy DSLR. Instructions are identical for using a telescope.
  2. I would recommend a Rigel or a Telrad over an RDF any day. I think anyone who has used one would. I don't think you could go wrong with either a Rigel or a Telrad in that case. I personally have a Telrad. I would argue that the Telrad that runs off of two AA batteries is the better option for me because I always have spare AA batteries laying around. I don't always have a CR2032. A holder for AA batteries for the Rigel is available though, however it costs extra.
  3. If you find one, I'm interested too. I've been playing with an old Celestron 114mm Bird-Jones type scope. It's pretty terrible and the GoTo mount is in just as bad of shape. Was thinking of maybe replacing the spherical mirror with a parabolic one since I already have the tube.
  4. I don't know all the specifics for this image, like which mount was used, as the raw data was provided by a friend of mine. He called me up late one night and wanted some help with processing in Pixinsight. What started out as a quick tutorial on a couple processes just to get him started turned into a 3.5 hour processing session. After that, I left him on his own to fully reprocess the data. He still had issues, but his image turned out alright. It was something I would have been happy with for one of my first Pixinsight images. I asked him to send me the data just so I could spend a bit more time on it and process it myself. I'm glad he did because it has been quite a while since I've done any sort of decent imaging runs. The weather has just been terrible. In any case, I spent several hours processing on my own and went through a few versions of the image before I finally came up with this one. Tech specs that I know: ZWO ASI1600MM Explore Scientific ED127 150x180s Ha, 102x180s OIII, 54x180s SII 15.3 hours total integration
  5. Funny you should mention that. Not incorporated into the Unistellar software, but it is possible to do with the right skills and software. https://www.facebook.com/unistellaroptics/posts/1267211226971741
  6. I think that really is the objective, for people with OSC cameras to be able to produce HOO-like images. Doing the same with a mono camera requires the use of multiple filters and possibly other equipment like filter drawers or wheels that are added expense. For broadband targets, LPS filters already abound, but there was nothing for narrowband. It's a hole in the market that is now being filled. Don't get me wrong, I love my mono camera and I know an OSC with these multiband filters will never hold a candle to it. However, I was in the market for a new camera for the f/8 scope, but chose an OSC because I also wanted to be able to do EAA and show people DSO's (galaxies, planetary nebula, clusters, etc) in color. Most useful in that regard will obviously be an LPS filter of some sort intended for broadband, but if I ever wanted to try my hand at emission targets, I would need something like a multiband filter to get any detail at all. There are those that say OSC imaging is easier than mono. I would agree that the act of imaging is easier as there are less logistics involved with switching out filters, ensuring that exposures for each filter are correct, and having to set focuser positions for each filter. Much of that can be automated, but the act of automating can be difficult and daunting for some. The act of processing is a question though. Is it easier to process OSC data or filtered mono data? On one hand you have an image that is already integrated with all the colors so you don't have to deal with three or more sets of data, but on the other hand you can deal with the noise and other issues in each of your mono channels much easier and more precisely than you can with something that's already been integrated. Sure, you can break an OSC image down into its independent channels and process each channel individually, but I can guarantee the results will be different than someone who captured the independent channels with a mono camera. In the end, I think both mono and OSC cameras have their place. It's down to the person to determine what they want to do with them and what compromises they're willing to make. As for the filters, people with OSC cameras need filters just like the people with mono cameras. As I said, it's a hole that the manufacturers are more than happy to fill as long as there are people willing to pay for them.
  7. Theoretically, yes, but the resolution will be reduced compared to a mono camera due to the Bayer matrix (color filter that assigns each pixel a specific color) in a OSC camera. For example, if you put an Ha filter in front of an OSC camera, only 1 in 4 pixels will receive any signal. The two green and 1 blue pixel in that matrix will see nothing. The same would be true for any other narrowband filter you put in front of an OSC camera. Whereas with a mono camera, every single pixel will receive a signal because there is no filter matrix. Some people will use an Ha filter and stack it with their data to boost the red/pink color for certain targets like emission nebulae in our own galaxy or those in other galaxies.
  8. Looks like your secondary might have a bit of rotation relative to the focuser and that is what is most likely throwing off the position of the primary reflection. Also it appears to be a bit tilted to one side. I would start with this guide. Put something down the tube to block the reflection of the primary so you're not confused on what you're seeing when centering the secondary with the focuser. http://www.astro-baby.com/astrobaby/help/collimation-guide-newtonian-reflector/
  9. No, 7nm isn't bad at all, generally the narrower the better. Like I said, that's what I've been shooting with on my mono with good results. It's just hard to get an L-eXtreme at the moment. Most places are backordered by several weeks right now due to the popularity.
  10. The price is what's keeping me away from that one. I don't know that getting H-beta and SII are really worth the extra $700USD, especially when the peak transmission of H-alpha appears to be reduced compared to other dual-band filters. Most of the specs are available on the manufacturer websites if they aren't on the resellers. I just takes a lot of time to research all of them. The NBX data in particular is lacking since it is so new. Again, I had to look at their Facebook page (which is all in Japanese) to find the bandwidths. Thankful for the translation feature. One of our fellow forum members @Space Oddities put together a nice spreadsheet for several filters that has their bandwidths. Further down that thread he links to his updated spreadsheet which has the NBX data. It doesn't quite match their Facebook data though (10nm vs their quoted 11nm).
  11. @Davey-T, I did see that a few weeks ago. If I'm considering the IDAS NB2, then the L-enHance is definitely one to consider I suppose. It has a slightly narrower Ha pass than the NB2 (10nm vs 19nm) and already has an IR-cut which the NB2 does not. If I had to choose between the IDAS NBX and the L-enHance right now though, I would probably choose the IDAS NBX with its 11nm bandpasses (possibly narrower?) for both Ha and OIII where the L-enHance is 10nm and 21nm respectively. The narrower bandpasses (7nm for both Ha and OIII) for the L-eXtreme definitely balance out the Ha and OIII though, which is what I'm used to shooting with my mono and narrowband filters. If I could get my hands on an L-eXtreme though, I would probably choose that over the NBX, especially considering I haven't seen a single image from the NBX yet. EDIT: The IDAS Facebook page has a few charts and graphs for the NBX filter and quotes the bandpass widths as 11nm.
  12. I've been doing a lot of reading lately on the subject of filters and OSC cameras. I'm familiar with mono imaging and filters as that is what I've done extensively up to this point. I've taken little bits and pieces from several discussions, what I know from experience, and some information specifically about single narrowband filters. My head is honestly swimming right now looking at so many different filters, different bandpass widths, f/ratios and (OMG!!) the math. So to cut to it, I am delving into the realm of OSC cameras now as I recently acquired a QHY247C. I know I need/want a multiband filter for it, as well as a LPS filter of some sort, but I don't quite know which ones yet. I have two scopes the camera could be used with, one is an f/4.9 and the other is an f/8. My biggest concern is the multiband bandpass widths. Even though we're talking about multiband filters, you still have curve shifts to deal with. Knowing how the math works and that something with a 3nm width theoretically works well for systems up to f/5 (Thanks @vlaiv for the math), I don't think I could go wrong with any of the current filters on the market. What I don't quite understand is how manufacturers of these extremely narrow filters (3-4nm) can say they work for systems as fast as f/2 or f2.2 though. I guess it depends on where your on-axis transmission line for the filter is. If it shifts too much and doesn't fall directly on the transmission line you're interested in, you'd get some of that data, but not as much as you would with a wider band or a slower system, if I understood @vlaivcorrectly, and his analogy of the filter acting like an aperture stop in this regard. Every filter I've looked at has a slightly different transmission curve and different bandpasses. I'm trying to figure out how well they would perform with each of my systems and what the best single option would be that would work well with both and not break the bank. For multiband filters (2") my top contenders right now are: Optolong L-Extreme, IDAS NB2 (w/ additional IR cut filter) or the new IDAS NBX. The L-Extreme has one of the narrowest bandpasses, but is currently backordered by several weeks because everyone wants one. The IDAS NB2 requires an additional IR cut filter, but I have a filter that should work for that. The IDAS NBX is so new that there isn't a lot of information about it or pictures from it other than what's on the company website. I am certainly open to other suggestions. I would like to keep price down to around $300USD (230GBP). I live in Bortle 5/6. For broadband filters, I currently own a Baader Moon and Skyglow filter. I am considering getting something different though as it is old and has a significantly large transmission curve in the blue/green part of the spectrum. We are all aware of the effects of new LED lights which primarily fall into this part of the spectrum. My top contenders for this type of filter right now are: Optolong L-Pro, IDAS LPS D2, or IDAS NGS1. I don't know how much of an improvement the L-Pro or IDAS NGS1 would be over my current filter. The IDAS LPS D2 was however specifically designed with LED's in mind, which I have street lamps all around my house and nearby shopping centers. I am of course open to other suggestions.
  13. Vlaiv, thanks for this. I followed your math up to this point: "Angle is 5.74 degrees. This gives approx ratio of ~4.975 or F/5." Solving for sin angle = 0.1 gives me an angle of 174.26. I'm assuming to get the angle you have, you subtracted that from 180, giving you 5.74. While I understand how you got that number, I'm not quite sure why you did it other than the fact that 180degrees is coplanar to 0 and you're just looking for an angle of incidence to that plane. The real question I'm trying to understand is the ratio and where that comes from. I'm assuming its the ratio of 5.74 degrees to some other angle, but I'm not sure what other angle.
  14. My first time ever shooting the Veil. This was the first decent night we've had in a very long time. We've had terrible weather all summer so I haven't been able to image anything for a couple months. This is also one of my first images with this new camera. New camera, full moon, moderate light pollution (Bortle 6), faint target, not optimal filter, and only a couple hours to work with, I certainly wasn't expecting much. I'm happy with what I did get though. I'm honestly slightly more impressed with the full field of stars than I am with the nebula complex itself. QHY247C WO Redcat 2" Baader Moon and Skyglow iOptron CEM40EC 38x180s lights, 30 darks, 20 flats, 20 dark flats Processed in Pixinsight with final touchups in Photoshop.
  15. Just wondering how you're getting along with this. I only have an 8", but am having a bit of a time getting mine right as well. It's definitely close, but not perfect. My MoonLite focuser has an adjustment ring on it, which is attached via a spacer ring to the telescope which also happens to be the part that adjusts the primary. My secondary mirror is center spotted, but it would seem to me that any adjustment you do to the primary throws off any adjustment you've done to the focuser. I'm not quite sure how to get them co-planar without removing the primary assembly from the telescope and doing the kitchen table collimation that is referenced in another thread.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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