Seanelly

I can see...that my gear will never equal the image seen here, which is why I appreciate you sharing this so much!

My opinion is you should find that pin you heard drop and stick with it.

I love that enthusiasm, Greg!

Okay, Michael, I will familiarize myself with HFD settings and guidescope focus to find a value that works for me. As to focusing on Vega before slewing to M51, I have no choice at present but to focus using the Bhatinov mask on a bright star because even in the 10x DSLR box the cross-hairs and floating focus bar are still quite dim and focus tricky. I've tried the B-mask on dimmer stars around the objects I'll be imaging but they are too dim unless a luckily positioned bright star is nearby. I realize that using APT or similar app (I assume this is how you get focus with your DSLR) to control my sessions is optimal and focusing is easier but I had no problem without it, really, using a digital remote shutter release as I do. I avoided using APT (I already have it on the laptop) right off when I started into imaging this past winter because I wanted to concentrate on the basics and getting things up and running before jumping into another set of parameters. Once I've got things under control here I'll definitely look into setting it up. Yes, it seems I am at the stage of refining the tools at my disposal to limit bad subs and reduce unwanted egging. Perhaps the new suggestions to be implemented tomorrow night will do the trick!

I like a speeding bandwagon.

Not your engine oil pans, I hope, else I'll never buy a used car from you!

Anything with mites in it I will avoid.

More very helpful suggestions, Michael, and I hope in future to be able to take over analysis of my guiding/imaging, etc., with my newfound knowledge of the technical details we are delving into. You've been very supportive and I appreciate it immensely. A quick summary of last night's tests: I set up as usual, with one exception, allowing the scope to settle down for a few minutes after the slew to the third alignment star (again Vega), and no star drifting ensued or any trouble on that front, so I will continue to do this in future, though the times in past that the image drifted a good deal across the DSLR live-view while I was busy with PHD2 setup can't be attributed to the scope 'settling', in my opinion because the drift was so far and continuing so long after the scope was stationary. Hopefully, however, with the more patient approach I'll be taking it will be the last I will see (or you will read!) of this strange phenomena. I set the parameters you suggested in PHD2 Brain (HFD: 1.5; untick Star-mass Detect), and used auto-star detect, but after several failed attempts where I got messages: HFD too low, I experimented with those two parameters and though I was able to eliminate the error messages by going back to the old parameters, I still could not get auto star detect to find a star that moved, so I selected a few of my own, but again, kept getting error 'star did not move enough'. So I abandoned M51 and sent the scope to M57, which by that time (app. 11 P.M.) was just above the tree line in the east and ready to image, though a little close to the horizon for my to attempt testing of sub quality. I reset the Brain parameters (HFD; Sta-mass) you suggested, activated GA, then selected a star with what was probably too high an SNR at around 275, but at least PHD2 started calibration immediately, much to my relief. (Question: GA says select an unsaturated star with SNR >=8; Is 275 too high? I did't think the star I selected was saturated, but I'm not experienced enough to know.) After GA routine I set the parameters it suggested, including the Drift-Limiting Exposure (which said 1.4), and started 3 minute exposures. Seeing/imaging conditions were bad, with definite haze and considerable, what I believe is called ECMWF cloud, which is not so much cloud as the haze just mentioned. Results were better than I expected, considering the challenging conditions, which probably dictated that I not attempt to compare or use the subs to change parameters in future, but I'm anxious to get this as right as possible before I wear out my welcome with you and didn't want to waste even these crappy conditions. You asked previously after looking at the subs I passed on for your inspection what criteria I was using to grade them. I just magnify each sub and if I see 'egg' shapes then I consider them either iffy, if just noticeable; or bad, if there is a definite lengthening that would mar or blur the final image if too many were stacked with the 'good' subs. You said you didn't think my poor subs were all that bad, and that drove me again to inspect a good portion of each of the six nights of my 5m M81-82 subs taken a couple of months ago, and if I was pressed, I would reconsider somewhat my opinion that they are superior to the good subs I am capturing now. Good subs from last night and from earlier experiments through these troubles tells me that they are roughly the same as M81-82, though M81-82 are 5m exposures. The big difference is in the number of what I would consider poor subs these days, significantly higher than M81-82. Conditions may contribute to poor subs, but even some of the truly 'overcast-like' subs from last night are sharp with no hint of egginess, while on the other hand some of the poor subs came during the odd improvements in conditions. I am looking to the new PHD2 parameters and the PHD2 developers you contacted to hopefully correct these losses with yours and their analysis, and perhaps with better imaging conditions and the latest recommendations this will be solved. Anyway, for what they're worth considering the lousy conditions, and after my struggle to begin imaging, I got 49 3m subs (800i), and found 18 in the poor class, as defined by me; 9 in the mediocre class that according to my criteria I would probably scrap; 9 in the so-so class that I would probably use, though with reservation; and 13 with no discernible faults whatsoever. Ideally my goal of course is to see all my subs like these, but practically, I realize this can never be, considering all the variables that go into capturing subs. So my reasonable goal, like else's, is to limit my total losses and reduce the iffy class. That's about it, unless you want examples from last night, though I doubt that will accomplish much considering the latest exchange between us and the terrible conditions, except to say that the GA recommendation to guide at 1.4s exposure was changed by me to 2s after checking the guide graph (not as good as a couple of nights ago, but as stated, conditions were very poor) some time into the imaging session, but with little difference that I could see, and so left it at 2s. From what you and the PHD2 techs have said, I suppose I couldn't really ask for better until I implement the changes suggested and give it another go, which looks good for Sunday night with much better conditions forecast. I will download the link you've supplied (much thanks) to the latest version of PHD2 today and set the latest recommended parameters, including exposure setting to 1s before implementing GA. In spite of all these troubles and my claim to going crazy over them, I find all this extremely interesting, and I'm looking at this as a very good lesson in guiding/imaging, and can see that much has been rectified up to this point, and the potential there to get fully back on track. Big thanks, Sean

I love this little gem, and coincidentally am imaging it as I write this. I'm hoping for three hours to add to the two from a few days ago, which being my first crack at this lovely object surprised me in preliminary processing with it's strong colour and it's beautiful isolation. You've got both stars quite nicely and I hope I can do as well!

a fascinating subject, well done.

What a lovely, interesting sight.

A beautifully fitting way to end Ottawa, Ontario's Tulip Festival. If I can ever get my guiding like this example I could die happy.

A pleasing example of this massive cluster.

Exquisite, so much depth!

Wonderfully detailed, so much to see.

This is superb, much core detail, a very pleasing sight.

Just on my way out the door as the weather is clear for the time being, but caught your response in time to write everything down. I will see to your suggestions and get back to you.

1) Ya, I've been through the reflector start-up craze and spent more than I'd have liked in working my way up to a 10" Dob, so I'm not anxious to do it again by building this obs. too small to begin with, and 3 meters square seems to be where I'm headed. It is very secluded on the property, too, and if we build solid I may consider storing the reflector, etc., there, too. 2) Good suggestions on the roof. I'm into my sixties now and though with no physical handicaps yet, looking ahead makes sense. I live in Ottawa so snow and ice, etc., must be taken into account for roof mechanics. Definitely the most serious thing to consider, and I won't rush until I'm as sure as I can be. My contractor son is a whiz at this stuff, but he's used to spending other people's money with abandon, and though I wouldn't attempt this without him, I'm constantly bringing him back to reality in our discussions over this! 3) I have all summer to get this right, so if I don't, I have nobody to blame but myself. 4) Again, I rely on the genius of my son for a solid build. He's erected many decks, sheds, docks, garages, etc., many of his own design, and the fact that he's continually sought after for these things is a testament to his capabilities. Thanks for the input. Sean

Surely the Raptors cannot be said to have disappointed their fans this year no matter how their season ends now? I suppose if you absolutely must see a championship from this year then nothing will do but victory, but as a fairweather fan I see nothing but good now no matter what the final outcome. That said, Toronto would be a madhouse with a championship trophy! As a dedicated Ottawa Rough Rider fan since the first Grey Cup I recall seeing in 1966, I certainly know how to grin and bear mediocre seasons, and seeing the newly minted Ottawa Redblacks win the Grey Cup in 2016 was the sporting highlight of my life, even above the great Clements to Gabriel win in '76 and the Canada/Russia Summit Series in '72, because with age I appreciate these things so much more! I don't know if this will make you feel good or bad or neutral, but I remember watching the Leafs win their last Stanley Cup in '67, or perhaps you are old enough to have seen it yourself. If not, it may be some consolation that I was cheering for the Habs and I cried when Toronto scored the empty net goal to ice the last game! I've heard that glue is sometimes used for a cut, though never had it done. At least it wasn't staples. I do have in the back of my mind the possibility of upsizing to the 120 APO from the 100, and though my midsection is not really an issue (yet), I'm leaning toward 9'x9' because though it's more cost, I don't want to get into the same situation I found myself in jumping from a 4.5" reflector to a 6" to finally being satisfied with a 10" dob. Go big or go home, my son said last night, but he's not paying for it. But I'm not paying him, either, so there are savings right there. We will have to consider how to roof this thing. The issue of power has come up, my son wanting to trench in a fixed supply, but I vetoed this. I don't mind continuing with an extension cord for the time being, and we can always do it later if it comes to that. Biggest issue is COST. I keep telling my wife that I'm done with the expenditures in this hobby, and it was so while I was observing, but imaging is a whole nuther story.

1) Four calibrations: For some reason lately the first few stars I choose for calibration do not move and eventually I get a fail message 'star did not move enough'. I'm choosing good unsaturated stars with 8>SNR but it is like I am choosing bad pixels or something even though I've tried stars with 100> SNR with the same results. So now I can tell within ten seconds or so that the star is not moving and I try another and after a few times I get one that starts to move right away. I have no idea why this is, but it never happened before this recent trouble began except for a couple of times when I was just starting out with PHD2 and I chose bad pixels. Is it possible to select bad pixels with high SNR? (BTW, you mentioned in your previous response, quote: "GA once only at the start of each night, Calibrate near each new object." Is the calibration we are speaking of above what you are talking about? (it had me somewhat confused as I thought it might mean a different calibration elsewhere, but I believe now that it is one and the same, meaning I use GA to start the night, and when I switch to a new object I simply go through the calibration routine again.) 2) GA suggestions: You mentioned taking care to follow these recommendations and that is what I did, and I swear that I saw GA recommending exposures 'between 1 and 3 seconds', and since I was exposing at 2.5 already, I left it that way. The weather may be clear enough tonight to set up at least for a while and I will scour GA recommendations to see where I missed this absolute (0.8 or whatever it says tonight) number. My guide camera will take faster exposures, I believe down to 0.1 seconds or maybe it is 0.01 seconds, but at any rate I've tried exposures occasionally at .5 second to see the how guiding reacted, so I know it will do this at least. 3) Unfortunately I can't answer that because I left the exposures at 2.5 seconds because of what I saw (what I swear I saw!) GA recommend, between 1-3 seconds. If fortune favours me with a few hours of clear weather tonight I will find the correct GA exposure recommendation you refer to and perhaps experiment with it around that recommendation to see if I can tweak it better. From what you've said and asked I feel much better about nailing this down, and believe that you are right that a little fine tuning will see this overwith for good. Fingers crossed. Sean

That was quite the slide show, nicely documented. I hope your head healed up, no Frankenstein scar? Would your drive to the hospital be considered distracted driving? (Okay, enough, I'm sure it was nothing to laugh at at the time. Once I was helping a buddy move a bed/couch (I forget what they're called exactly) and the cheap cord we were using to tie it closed snapped and the thing sprung open and caught several of my fingers so bad that I was afraid I'd severed one or all because while we were carefully folding it to get my hand out the blood was pouring out of the glove. Fortunately it was more fright than serious, though I do have a couple of nasty scars.) I will definitely be installing a pier, as much for rigidity as for ground clearance inside; I've kicked my tripod legs one time too many! Sinking it won't be too much of a problem, as my son has installed a number of pilings for decks, etc. Even a flagpole one time! It looks about 2 meters square? After a year plus, are you finding it at all cramped? I was thinking 3x3 but that may be overdoing it, especially as I will only be in there for setup, not observing, and extra width is extra cost. That is an interesting roof design, something I'll keep in mind as I go forward. I'm not very concerned with how it will finish out, as it will be fairly well hidden from view from the house (my wife's concern), and almost entirely from neighbors (my concern), though knowing my son, I'll have to keep a rein on his enthusiasm for aesthetics. As long as it is solid, functional and weather-proofed to a reasonable degree I'll be happy. I think my dog might wonder why his house is so much smaller, though, haha. Thanks a bunch for the ideas. (Just watched the Raptors game. I'm not much into basketball, but that was exciting.)

Hi, folks. I'd like to set up a permanent location about 20 meters off the side of the house to hold my imaging scope. I am quite handy and my son is an experienced contractor so we are confident of handling what needs to be done, but this is something neither of us wishes to jump into without some tech advice. Can anyone provide suggestions or details or preferably schematics for a reasonably priced observatory to enclose an F9 100mm APO that will be mounted on a pier, especially a simple roof design that can be manipulated by one person. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Hello, Michael. If you could indulge me once more (a figure of speech, perhaps I mean once or twice more), I have the results from Tuesday night's imaging session, and results are mixed. I was very conscious of my setup routine, tension, balance, cable placement, etc., but while centering the third star (Vega) of alignment in the DSLR 10x live-view box for B-mask focusing, I noticed it was drifting briefly uncommanded, not out of the box, so the drift was not much, but some drift nonetheless, and I had to recenter a couple of times before it settled down. Then after focusing and re-placing the star in the unmagnified center of the DSLR where it was originally after 3-star align, I selected M51 and after framing this galaxy with a couple of 30s exposures I turned my attention to activating GA, and when I returned to the DSLR (2 minutes?) to check positioning of M51 with another 30s exposure, M51 had drifted up the DSLR live-view screen exactly as it had done before! Not all the way out, but a significant drift considering that the DSLR live-view was unmagnified, and far enough that I had no choice but to re-center it, which I did with a couple of short exposures, and then moved it around a few times to see if it would drift again but it seemed stable this time, so I went back to PHD2 to reset. Here is the last short (30s) exposure taken to frame M51 in the DSLR live-view. Magnified, you can see that the image shows star trails (significantly, in the same direction as all the bad subs in the earlier sessions that started all this trouble) over the 30 second exposure, which I only discovered later when studying the exposures: IMG_5248.CR2 And here is the 30s exposure after activating GA where I discovered that the image had drifted in the DSLR live-view along the lines of the star trails in the image above: IMG_5251.CR2 All that aside, once GA gave me the go-ahead and I set the recommendations it provided, I started 3 minute exposures. I could not find calibration setting in GA and only discovered last night that it lies in the 'brain' section of PHD2. This I will rectify next session, but it remained as-is for the two objects I imaged Tuesday night. Results from 26x3m M51subs were varied. 9 were very good, 10 showed very slight star trails under heavy cropping but adequate for wide-field look, and 7 showed significant trails, not as bad as they were in the previous sessions where all the trouble started, but pretty much useless nonetheless. Following are an example of each. Good 3m M51 sub: IMG_5269.CR2 Mediocre sub: IMG_5275.CR2 Bad sub: IMG_5289.CR2 Keep in mind that even the bad subs show star trails significantly shorter than the trails that first brought all this to mine and your attention a couple of weeks ago, which were perhaps 3 times longer, and I'm wondering if it's possible that the 7/26 bad M51 subs from Tuesday might be attributed to the scope orientation, which was nearly vertical during the 90 or so minutes of exposing? I wonder this because after M51 I switched to M57 and my percentage of bad subs dropped from 7/26 for M51, to 14/69 for M57, though a loss that is still far more than I was getting before all this trouble started. I imaged 69 3m exposures of M57. 42 were good, 13 mediocre, and the 14 bad ones just mentioned. Following are examples of each. Good 3m M57 sub: IMG_5297.CR2 Mediocre sub: IMG_5305.CR2 Bad sub: IMG_5309.CR2 Again keep in mind that these short star trails are nowhere near as bad as the ones that brought all this to our attention in the first place, so something has changed for the better. That said, I remind you that my sub losses before all this were minimal, perhaps 2-3% at most. I thought that maybe all this scrutiny of my subs was making me too critical of their appearance, but I checked a bunch of my subs from six sessions a couple of months ago comprising 17 hours total of 5 minute exposures on M81-M82, and they are near perfect, an example of which follows. Typical 5m sub of M81-M82: IMG_2775.CR2 I'm at a loss as to why even the best subs from Tuesday night can't match the typical M81-M82 sub. They are okay, but looking at my M81-M82's thoroughly shows me they are crisper without a doubt. This is driving me crazy. Finally, I attach the guide log from Tuesday night. PHD2_GuideLog_2019-05-21_215054.txt What on earth, or should I say Heaven, is going on? (A rhetorical question for the most part, but at this stage I'll try any suggestions you might have!) Yours in agony, Sean

10/4, thanks.

Is/has anyone out there using/used this type of scope, be it the 80, 100 or 120mm aperture? I can't find anything in search. I'd like to see some SGL critiques and images, preferably but not necessarily with a DSLR. Online search brings up many 100ED images, but very few more definitive, and besides, the comments associated with the images (in Flickr, etc.) are almost exclusively plain dry facts. I bought the 100 in November of last year after many hours and days of reading reviews and general info on scope manufacturers, focal length, cost, etc., and I must say that so far I have zero regrets where quality, price, and performance are concerned. I read more often than not that buying a shorter focal length scope was the best way for a beginner to get into imaging, as it was more forgiving, but I'm glad I went with my gut on the 900mm, mainly because I have a preference for globs and galaxies rather than nebulae, and from what I gathered I was fairly certain that with experience I could handle any problems a longer focal length scope might bring. I bought the scope as a package deal which included the HEQ5 mount (another relatively quality piece for the price for this cash-starved newby) and Orion guidescope/guide camera, focal reducer-in short, everything I thought I needed (turns out not quite, but that's a whole nuther story) except my Canon T6i, which I picked up for a song (I won it in a karaoke contest, haha, just kidding, sorry if you've heard that one before) from an Ottawa University student who had used it for a semester. She said she took maybe only a few hundred photos before dropping the course, and the camera picture count was 1750/10,000 when I checked, considerably more than she said, but still nearly new, unless she lied and had rolled over the count, but the camera and screen were spotless, and even if so, 11,750 shutter releases was peanuts. My T2i has been used almost every day for five years taking hundreds of daytime photos and is still going strong, though I've worn out a couple of lenses. (My techie brother modded the T6i for $100 (I insisted he get something for his trouble) and it has performed flawlessly, and another welcome bit of savings.) Anyway, plug for Canon out of the way, does anyone have anything to show or say concerning this scope, keeping in mind the relatively low price, etc.? I want the good with the bad, if it comes to that, as if there are any potential problems with it I'd like to have a heads-up. Sean