George Gearless

I recently bought a Bahtinov mask for both my 80mm refractor and my 180mm Mak. I've found it exceptionaly useful for making a propper focus on stars and nebulae. Particularly for photographing.

Friday, according to weather reports, should offer some clear skies and I might be able to get an hour or so of moonwatching before it sets. With my newly bought planetary/moon camera, I also hope to get some good photos with my Mak 180.

I have only once before had the chance to look at the moon with my 180. And it was a b**ch to focus properly. I suspect it will be even more difficult to focus properly while 'looking' through my camera/laptopscreen.

I don't suppose the Bahtinov mask will be of any use to me in this? So I'm hoping that someone has a tip or two how to go about this. I don't want to waste the limited time the moon is up.

Any hints and tips will be greatly appreciated.

31 minutes ago, celestron8g8 said:

I never said but I actually have CS5 , PSE 10 and Premier 10 . I use to use Premier a lot but I've slacked off video editing but both PSE and Premier I got as a package deal cause it was cheaper . But even then if you use all tools properly there are many many techniques to do in PS . One of the things I like about CS5 is you can use one of the tools (can't remember cause i'm at work ) but you can make objects in an image disappear easily like removing a telephone pole or street light or some small object that's annoying to your image . A lot like cloning . I like PS CS5 cause I have many editing softwares that I use that I can send directly to PS like Photomatix for example . Another I use is Topaz Software and most all of them work as a plugin to PS CS5 however Topaz has got into the iCloud stuff so they don't have as many products as use to which I think was a mistake cause I no longer deal with them for upgrades or new products . One thing I do not like is dealing with the iCloud softwares but most all software developers have gone to the Cloud so I only  work with software I have already purchased before the Cloud .  Adobe was the first I believe that started the Cloud and that's when I stopped using Adobe . Great products but I refuse to pay monthly or yearly subscriptions for product that should rightfully be mine . PS CS5 has a stacking tool but many prefer not to use it cause it is a bit difficult to get use to . But as mentioned plenty of other good software . 

I have the same approach as you towards monthly payments; heck no! I want something I can use where- and whenever I want, without having to rely on being able to log in.

I am sure I can get a hold of some bootleg copy of an older version of PS on piratebay or something. But I would actualy prefer to pay for it as I should. However, if commiting to some monthly scheme is the only other legal option, they may be forcing my hand on this issue. 

I am still perusing the other options suggested in this thread. If PS is making it too hard for me (or too ilegal) to get a working copy on my computer, I may drop it entirely. But the link that celestron8g8 suggested looks promising. I just want to make 100% sure that I won't have to sign up for a monthly scheme once I've bought it.

Edit: The link celestron8g8 posted does seem to be legit. Halway through purchasing process it says 'Full License'. So I think I'm sorted. 

Thankyou all for the many very helpful advice.

I was/am not blind to other programs such as Gimp and a few others whos names escape me at the moment.

I had however not heard of Astroart. I will definately be looking into that.

The reason I was so set on Photoshop was purely because it seems to be the common denominator when photos are presented. They may have been stacked, or otherwise treated in other programs. But quite often the final tweeks are supposedly made in PS.

Anyway, I have a lot of food for thought and a lot of links to browse through. Thanks all.

I'm realy confused with regards to what version of PS to get. 

On Adobes main page you get to choose between a multitude of monthly recurring payments. I was hoping for a one download deal, instead of a monthly payment.

So I did a google search for Photoshop and was even more confused. I can get Photoshop Elements, Photoshop Premium Elements, Photoshop Full Version, Photoshop Lightroom and a multitude of others that are too numerous to mention here. 

Where can I get a "Photoshop for Astro photography"? Or to put it another way; which version am I looking for?

I personaly prefer a dark background. So the second one would be my choice.

Artisticaly it's a beautiful picture. It could easily be put in a nice frame and put on a wall somewhere to brighten up a room.

But I'll agree theres a little too much Disney stars over the whole thing. But I guess it's a matter of personal preference. 

The T-ring and adapter suggests that you will want to try some photographing? Regardless of what mount and scope you have, the moon is always a wonderful target. It's also good target to familiarize yourself with the controls of the telescopes field of view (what is up/down/left/right).

If you will want to try your hand at some deep sky objects, I'd suggest M42/M43 the Orion nebula. It's the biggest and brightest nebula out there. But I haven't checked if it's 'up' at a reasonable hour at your location. M13 The Hercules cluster is also and awe inspiring target.

As for reading, I second Wiggy's suggestion of getting a hold of 'Every photon counts'. It covers all the bases of astro photography, but without getting to nerdy. 

Orion Nebula (M42) with a DSLR, Start to Finish is an absolutely fantastic Youtube video. It's very long (over two hours). So it's propably something you can bookmark and come back to when you feel like it. The reason I like this video is because not only is it very thorough, he uses minimalistic equipment that a 'newbie' is likely to have access to. You can find a lot of videos where people showcase their very fine and VERY expensive gear. Something only the rich or the very serious amateur will be able to afford. So I like the minimalistic approach. Because the fundamental principals are exactly the same. Regardless of your equipment. It's pretty much a 'walkthrough' on how to photograph the Orion Nebula. 

2 hours ago, Uranium235 said:

Rolling shutters are a feature of interline type sensors, and shutters are used for full frame transfer sensors. Its all about the speed of which the image is read from the sensor (interline = fast, full frame = slow)

http://www.optique-ingenieur.org/en/courses/OPI_ang_M05_C06/co/Contenu_07.html

http://www.optique-ingenieur.org/en/courses/OPI_ang_M05_C06/co/Contenu_09.html

Was worried that those links were some realy nerdy [removed word] that would go over my head. But they were actualy quite informative and interesting. In fact, that whole site looks worth perusing a bit more. So thanks for that, Uranium.

3 hours ago, WanderingEye said:

The reason SM asks the question is some cameras such as DSLR and Atik 383L+ and other KAF8300 sensor cameras do have a physical shutter... 😀👍

Once I've figured out what cable to get for my Canon DSLR, I'll definately be trying it out in combination with my SM. But I have yet to give my newly aquired 385MC a propper run. So, first things first.

Guess I'll be taking my darks the old fashioned way :).

You're off to a good start. 

I sympathize with your apprehension towards learning various post production tools on a computer. To get the full benefit of your labours behind the camera/telescope, you will unfortuantely have to spend a great deal of time in front of your computer. But you can get a long way by just running your pics through the 'default' settings of a stacking program. Such as Deep Sky Stacker. Just by doing that, you get very presentable results.

I think I spent all of 7 mins on my first stack of 10 pictures and was delighted with the result. Even with that minor effort, it made a huge difference.

2 minutes ago, Adam J said:

None of the ZWO cameras have a physical shutter, a rolling shutter is simply as type of electronic shutter that controls how the photo sites are read.

So the answer is no for stellarmate.

I was afraid the reply would be something like "yes, ofcourse a rolling shutter is a shutter. D'uh"!

So now I feel less daft for asking since it wasn't so obvious afterall . Thanks, Adam.

Ok. I know this might seem like a daft question. But I am genuinly in doubt.

I have this camera: ZWO ASI 385MC USB 3.0 Colour Camera.

It says it has a "rolling shutter". I'm not sure what that is. In my mind I am picturing a spinning cylinder with a hole in it that blocks the light from getting to the sensor. Except when the hole is aligned with the sensor and the aperture, then it lets light through.

Anyway, the reason I'm asking is that when I set my Stellarmate up for "automatic darks" it asks if my camera has a shutter. And I am unsure if a 'rolling shutter' qualifies as such.

Anyone?

28 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

 

It is also lighter setup and that can only help.

Exactly why I piled pretty much everything I had on the mount. If it could handle this with usable results, then I wouldn't have problems with the 80. And as reported, I think it performed rather well. I'm quite happy with my little experiment. Even if the error reporting may turn out to be flawed.

32 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

I have recently started to use EKOS and internal guider to control my AZ-EQ6 mount.  I got guiding values closer to 0.75" RMS with good polar alignment. I too am slightly suspiscious of the <0.5" guiding you reported @George Gearless. 

Sorry if I missed it, George, but did you input the value of your guidescope's focal length into the set up in EKOS?  It needs that to calculate the guiding error correctly. 

I have been pretty dilligent in checking all the boxes and 'dotting the I's'. Without remembering specifically, I'd say that I did enter it correctly. But I'll check again next time I get the chance to set up on a clear night. 

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

Stock mounts vary quite a bit in guide performance - some are smoother than others, but I would expect on average EQ35 class mount - which is probably closer to EQ5 than EQ3 in guide performance, to have something like 1-1.5" RMS guide error.

One could do sub 1" RMS on such mount if mount is smooth and conditions are particularly favorable on a given night - meaning 0 wind and very good seeing conditions.

Orion miniscope has 162mm focal length (if I'm not mistaken) and ZWO 120 mono has 3.75um pixel size. Together that gives 4.77"/px of guide resolution. Centroid calculations are able to determine star position to about 1/16 to 1/20 of single pixel (depending on SNR) - which means ~0.25", and RMS calculation should be precise if it is larger than about x3 of that, so if RMS figure is larger than 0.75" then it can be "trusted" (it is about right) - smaller than that, I'm simply thinking that you won't be able to get accurate reading.

Mind you, that is enough precision to guide such mount on stock values (meaning about 1"-1.5" RMS), but does limit your imaging resolution to about 2"/px.

Another way to tell if your guiding was really that good is to examine subs you've taken while guiding. What sort of star shapes did you get? Are stars distorted in any way - for example not round, maybe elongated in one direction or egg shaped? If they are round - which means that guide error was uniform in every direction (good thing), next what you want to look at is FWHM of stars in arcseconds. This value is true measure of achieved resolution on the image, and if that number is comparatively small (depends on guiding, scope size and seeing on that night) - then yes, you were indeed guiding really well.

Yes, that is quite good general rule of thumb to have guide RMS at least half of imaging resolution or smaller (smaller is of course better, and larger is worse, but it will not "ruin" image - it will just look a bit blurrier).

Some good info there Vlaiv. Thanks.

Unfortunately I did not have time to take actual photos, so I cannot comment on the shapes of the images.  I was simply playing around with the guiding setup for the first time to see how I fared. I struggled for a long time to get the focus right. I am still having problems with the Stellarmate App, so I had to run inside to my desktop computer with WiFi to check the picture, then run back out to make adjustments, then back inside to check, and so on. The point of the exercise was primarily to check out the guiding function and to see if my mount could handle the weight. Keep in mind that I will be using my Mak 180mm primarily for lunar and planetary observations/photographs. In that situation I will not be needing guiding. For DS I will be using my trusty EvoStar 80ED. The experiment was purely to stress/weight test the mount with guidance.  After one hour of tracking, I could not detect any movement of the star that my main was pointed at. Combined with the apparently excellent small margin of error in the tracking graph, I feel confident that I will be attempting long exposure photographs in the very near future.

And that will be the true test. 

5 hours ago, david_taurus83 said:

Are you using the internal guider or PHD2? Make sure the reading is in arc seconds and not pixels.

 

Also, make sure in the guiding tab that Ekos has selected the correct camera and scope.

Since I don't know the difference between the internal guider and PHD2, I'm guessing I'm using the internal guider :). I pretty much went with whatever default settings Ekos offered. The graph explicitly said "arcseconds" on the Y-axis and time on the X-axis. There is also a circular graphic representation of the error (kind of like a bulls-eye where it marks little dots at each measurement). But that is hard to read accurately. Although it gives a good visual representation to check if everything is working fine.

Yes, I am quite sure that I selected the right scope and camera in the guiding tab. Just for fun, I tried changing the camera's in the menu, and it warned me that I was now trying to guide with my main scope.

@vlaiv, @wimvb

All my equipment is very much stock. Expecting anything better than a 'stock result' is propably being hopefull.

I did enter the the guidescope and camera info into Stellarmate. But considering I am using a Orion miniscope (9x50) as guide, and a ZWO 120 Mono camera, I think it is more likely that my system is unable to properly determine the error.

I'm a complete newbie at using a guidescope. And using Stellarmate overall, for that matter. So I was just trying to figure out what kind of error margin I should expect. I simply had no frame of reference.

While there is still a long way to go, your replies leads me to believe that I am at least on the right track.

Thanks both of you.

So I've finaly managed to succesfully set up my mount with Stellarmate and all the 'fixings' that I've bought over the summer. I've made a lot of beginners mistakes, but I think I'm finaly ready.

I successfully guided my mount for the first time yesterday and was extremely delighted that it worked so well. Especialy since I'm realy pushing the weightlimits of my mounts capabilities.

It's a EQM-35 Pro and the datasheet says that it can handle 10kg of additional load. Needless to say, I was a bit worried when I piled on my 180mm Maksutov (7kg tubeweight), Orion mini guiderscope, two ZWO cameras, extension tube and heat bands. But it seemed to handle it allright. Or did it?

In the Ekos guiding program, there is a graph representation of how much your scope 'wobbles' off the targeted star. I stared at it for about 10 to 15 mins to see if there were any major fluctuations. But it remained relatively steady. As far as I could tell, it never exeeded 0.5 of an arcsecond. Is that a reasonable level of accuracy for AP?

I should mention that my polar alignment was very rough and very dirty. It was somewhat on purpose, because I wished to 'stress-test' the guiding utility and see how well it compensated for a sloppy setup.

If this is how you start, then I dread (for my own sake) how you finish.

They're all great pictures. But I have a personal afinity for the Andromeda galaxy. Great shot.

3 hours ago, PhoTenix said:

Thanks guys. I'm in the UK So my budget would be about £150. 

I'm fascinated with the universe and have dabbled in photography and have a half decent DSLR, although it's old now. 

So, I'm up most nights anyway, I don't get out, so thought to myself, I'll get back into it, as I love the night sky ☺️

T.

One thing you'll propably find out soon, is that the mount will be more important than which scope you get. At least when we're talking entry level.

In my oppinion you'll find your viewing experience a lot better with a shitty scope on a good mount, than vice versa. So £150 is propably ambitious in that regard. Because mounts aren't cheap.

I whole heartedly concur with Happy-Kats recommendation of the AZ- GTI mount with the 127mm Maksutov telescope. The mount is a Go-To mount that automatically directs the scope to the star/planet/NGC object you want to view. You direct it by using an App on your phone. I cannot overstate its usefulness as a beginner. I have learned more about the night sky using the AZ-GTI than I have reading about it on the internet or in books. There are a multitude of Go-To mounts out there. The reason I recommend this one in particular, is because it is usualy sold as a package deal with the Maksutov 127mm. It's a popular item, and hence the price is accordingly low. Alas, not £150 I'm afraid :(.

The Maksutov is not ideal for deep sky objects (Nebulae, galaxies and clusters). Planets and the moon is where this telescope type truly shines. But you CAN take some inspiring deepsky photos even with an outdated DSLR and your Maksutov 127mm. I did. And I was so enthused and delighted with my meager (but recognizable) result, that I have since invested many many hundreds of Euros in a new mount and several telescopes and cameras. Tread lighty my friend :). It is so addictive.

Good luck, and let us know how you get along.

2 hours ago, Ady Hale said:

having problems with Sky-Watcher Allview goto mount. it slews on the horizontal but as soon as i try it on the vertical the controller freezes and nothing happens , any ideas.

Regards Adrian

Could it be that you simply forgot to tighten the clutch properly?

(Speaking from experience).

Edit:

Oh never mind. I see now that you said the controler freezes. Propably a different issue then.

51 minutes ago, wimvb said:

Platesolving on a Stellarmate replaces any star alignment, except polar alignment. You just point the scope in your planetarium program (the Stellarmate "client" app) at the dso you want to image. The scope will then slew to what it thinks is the correct position. Depending on how you've set it up it will be close or a mile and a half off. Stellarmate will take images and correct the scope's position until the star field in the images matches the star field in the planetarium program, within a certain accuracy. For Stellarmate, the default accuracy is 30 arcseconds. Depending on your scope focal length, mount pointing accuracy, and sensor size, you may want to adjust that value. For widefield you increase the tolerance, and for long focal length on an accurate mount, you decrease it somewhat.

The first time you tell Stellarmate to point at a target, it may take a few corrections to center it. But the more points/targets you add to the Stellarmate pointing model, the more accurate it becomes.

Excellent news. Thanks Wim.

I have been neglecting my studies into the Stellarmate. I had some problems getting the app to work when I got it, but I finally got it solved with the help of Stellarmates excellent support. And once I got it working, I couldn't realy test the darned thing because of the summertime light nights. Now we're approaching the star-hunting season and I'm behind on my homework.

34 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Average PA is good enough for planetary videos, shouldn't need guiding, does your mount have a tracking mode for planets.

Dave

I believe it does. Skywatcher Mount EQM-35 PRO SynScan GoTo. If i remember correctly, there's a setting in one of the initial menus where you can set the tracking rate. Siderial has been enough for me so far and found no reason to change it. Planetary and lunar  photographing is usualy not more than a few minutes of recording anyway.

@michael8554 Thanks Michael.

Ok, so platesolving is not just a nifty way of aligning your scope. It's a procedure to make sure the observed stars correctly correlate to the map? Think I got it now.

As for the planetary photography, read my response to Davey. I was just wondering if my guidescope could handle the corrections needed to keep, say, Jupiter in the frame on a non-polar aligned scope.

@Davey-T Thanks for the reply.

Ok, so I still need to polar align. Got it.

Admitedly, I have not done enough 'research' into platesolving (particularly on Stellarmate) to ask qualified questions. But wether I use platesolving or the regular alignment procedure, I do need the go-to function on occasion when photographing a particularly faint object. I just figured platesolving would be a short cut to just that.

I know that I don't have to guide the scope for planetary photography. But once again I was just looking for a shortcut :). I figured that I could dispense with the polar alignment of the scope, if I let my guidescope correct the drift that would occur on a non-polar aligned setup. If it could keep the planet I'm photographing 'mostly' centered, I'd let Registax handle the rest in post production. Keep in mind that I will be using a 180mm Maksutov for planetray and lunar photographing. So it'll drift quickly out of sight if I don't set up proper polar alignment.