Jump to content

Banner.jpg.39bf5bb2e6bf87794d3e2a4b88f26f1b.jpg

04Stefan07

Members
  • Posts

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

9 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Astronomy & Astrophotography, Scale Model Building, Coin Collecting, 3D Printing, Computers & Technology
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah they looked better and the stars more pin point when the spacing was way under recommendation specs. I have been threading the flat directly onto my focus extension tube which I think is better than using the push fit adapter it came with.
  2. Got a bit of progress. At 53mm and 56mm (need to purchase some smaller spacers for 55mm), looks to be better but now the stars look a bit like seagulls. Below is 53mm, 56mm had the same effect.
  3. OK, here is what I did. I have attached a photo of the spacing but there is a slight problem. ASI1600MM (6.5mm) - EFW (20mm) - M42 Spacer (5mm) - Field Flat = 31.5mm (depsite ES, ZWO and Altair Astro saying their back focus requirement is 55-56mm) Now the biggest problem with this is the damn focus distance for this scope! The second photo shows that my focus is all the way out and I can't go any further. Is there a way I can adjust it so the focus can be further in?? With the photos, its a full moon tonight so a bit washed out and had a few clouds. No guiding as I am waiting on my new mount and guidescope so I kept the exposures under 10 seconds. Photos (there is a weird artifact on them, not sure what it could be) - 9 second exposure - 4 second exposure - 1 second exposure I have uploaded the photos here (2x2 bin) around 8mb each. Are you able to check the corners? The stars do look more round and pin-point on all edges which may look promising but would like a second opinion. Thanks! 1second_frame_and_focus_3.fit 4seconds_frame_and_focus_4.fit 9seconds_frame_and_focus_1.fit
  4. Stand by, I may have found something but will need to upload photos.
  5. Ok so did some testing and I give up. I’ve spent 4 nights on this issue and it’s been an issue since I changed camera and filter wheel. I used to use a 178mm-cool now using the 1600mm-pro. I tried adding more space, the stars direction indicated to add more, still no change then I couldn’t focus at all! So I went the opposite and removed space and now the stars have the different effect that I need to go further in. I took all spacers out so it was the camera, EFW and flat and still no good, i am now adding space between the camera and EFW and still no good, The scope needs 2 of the 2” spaces which I think is just stupid, no idea why the focus point is so far back. So my conclusion is there is an issue with either the camera, field flat or scope itself.
  6. It might be clear tonight so I will give it a test and report back with my findings. I will keep adding spacing. Anything else I should try?
  7. https://www.altairastro.com/lightwave-08x-reducer-290-p.asp Thats the flat I use. Specifies it needs 55mm. It's so bloody confusing. According to the chart its too close so I will just keep adding space. Let's make a bet, I reckon it will end up in the neighbours garden haha.
  8. Yep I’ll give that a go. So how come the recommend 55mm (Flat) and 56mm (ZWO) is incorrect if I need to add more space? I’m guessing there’s really no way of telling how much I need other than adding more spacers and seeing what happens.
  9. Thanks for the advice! I have been doing more testing without the OAG. Managed to get this. Bottom Right, Top Left and Top Right (apologies, the clouds came in but you can see the stars in relation to their corners, bottom left I couldn't get but the stars aim inward). So I have been doing some researching and forum searching and tried various configurations. This confuiguration is better than some others. - Flat - M48 - 11mm - M48 - 16.5mm - T2-T2 - 2mm - EFW - 20mm - 1600MM - 6.5MM = 56mm So I have met the 55mm and 56mm with different configs and still no good! According to some charts I found online, when the stars are this shape it means that camera is too close to the field flat, but how can that be? I am just at a standstill I got no idea what to try next.
  10. OK so I managed to improve it quite a bit. It's still there in some corners but no way near as bad. I removed the OAG entirely and put back the guidescope. So far so good.
  11. Yep been running various test the last two nights to try and correct the problem. Tried rotating the camera, refining the spacing but still the same issues. Was thinking tilt was an issue so I swapped a push fit adapter with a thread, the star shaped changed from one corner to another. It could be a combination of tilt and spacing but I am also thinking maybe the flat. Maybe 0.8x reduction is too much? I should just go for a flat or a 0.9x? I am now running tests without the OAG just to see. I was getting elongated stars in the OAG and it was a pain for PHD to track. I saw diagrams about it being too far and too close but adjusted it didn't change anything. Possibly a 1600MM and the field flat not liking each other?
  12. I am running a series of subs and I where I get the above effect the stars are elongated. Could it be the field flatner I am using with my setup that isn't compatible? I am using the Altair Astro 0.8x Reducer/Flat.
  13. Ah, so thats what the flat darks fix in the images! Thank you
  14. I have taken a few subs using different filters and I am getting a strange effect on the edges. It can't be the filters as it's doing it on all of them (unless thats possible?). Maybe something to do with the 1600MM-Pro? I used to use a 178MM-Cool without an OAG and never had this issue. Running an ES ED102, 36mm Baader LRGB, Field Flat 0.8x, OAG, 1600MM-Pro
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.