Chris Willocks

Thank you, appreciate the kind words.

Thanks for the feedback. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though as they say and everyone has their own unique processing style and take on it, which is what keeps it interesting. It'd be boring if everyones' images looked the same.

I presume they would have checked all of the raw data i.e. straight out of the camera to verify it. It's irrelevant now anyway. Here's my image, if anyone is interested. I couldn't upload the full sized copy as it's too large. I'm still proud of it on a personal level anyway:

Okay, thanks for the information and the confirmation. That's a disappointing result, but it is what it is. I was aware of the Hubble one, but I think the record had to be the whole galaxy in the frame. But it doesn't matter any longer anyway.

It is a 3x3 (9 panel) mosaic of M31, the image scale of each frame is 0.60"/px and the overall FOV of the image is 3.61 x 2.46 degrees. The resolution of the image is 21,882 x 14,883 (325 megapixels). The current record is held by Robert Gendler at 21,904 x 14,454 (316 megapixels). According to Robert's website (http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/M31NMmosaic.html), he states "This image will be published in the 2008 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest image (in pixel dimensions) of a spiral galaxy ever taken". This is also confirmed to still be standing on the official website: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/83321-largest-image-of-a-spiral-galaxy. The main measurement of the record is the number of pixels in the image, which I've managed to surpass. The other details aren't really relevant to the record as far I can tell. Kind regards, Chris

Good morning everyone and Merry Christmas, Over the past three months or so, I've been working on a 3x3 (9 panel) mosaic of M31 in order to beat the current Guinness World Record for the largest image of a spiral galaxy ever taken, set by Robert Gendler in 2008. I've now finished the mosaic and it is indeed larger than the current record. However, I've gone to put an application in the official Guinness World Records website and it say that they don't take proactive applications for this record, as it states "This record has been sourced from expert consultants and institutions and we do not invite proactive applications". I've contacted them about the record, however I wanted to also check on here to see if anyone has any further information or knowledge on how I can get my attempt recognised, as it is indeed valid? Many thanks, Chris

Can anyone help with this? I still seem to be getting bloating in the red channel, but not the others as can be seen in this quick and scrappy LRGB image of NGC 2903 I put together: Initially I thought it might have been the focus in the red channel, but I'm using auto focus in SG Pro and everything looks fine with the graph. Could it be the RGB filters I'm using perhaps? Does anyone have any experience of the Astronomik Deep Sky RGB filters?

Okay, so I've finally had chance to test the scope again. The weather hasn't been great up to now. I've since added a TS Optics 2.5" Field Flattener to the scope. A little excessive perhaps. Here are some images I took of the airy disk of Alpha Leonis for each filter: Luminance: Red: Green: Blue: How do these look? There is a slight notch on the left-hand side which is likely caused by the OAG prism. I have it orientated to the side of the sensor. I've tried to position the prism so that it causes minimal interference. Here is an LRGB (x1 frame per filter) image of Alpha Leonis in focus: Again, I think the slightly strange diffraction pattern on the left may be caused by the OAG. It is quite a bright star afterall. I've tried orientating the camera at a different angle (OAG remaining at same angle relative to the scope) and it doesn't move with it. Chris

I'll give it a try with the camera rotated as you say and will report back. Chris

I've had a look at the 1st, 5th and 10th frames for each colour to see how the stars change and strangely the aberration seems to get worse, rather than better. Here are the individual frames for each filter: 1st red frame: 5th red frame: 10th red frame: 1st green frame: 5th green frame: 10th green frame: 1st blue frame: 5th blue frame: 10th blue frame: Here are the combined RGB images for the 1st, 5th and 10th frames only: 1st RGB: 5th RGB: 10th RGB: I've tried to balance the colour channels as best I can for each RGB image. As far as I can tell, the aberration appears worse in the 10th image than the 1st. Here are the other red frames for reference: 2nd red frame: 3rd red frame: 4th red frame: 6th red frame: 7th red frame: 8th red frame: 9th red frame: As you can see on these later frames, the issue seems to be worse; especially if you look at the brighter stars. The only variables that changed were the location of the galaxy i.e. higher up in the sky and the temperature. Tilt is another possibility that came to mind, however the other filters aren't affected as much as the red channel. The other thing I forgot to mention was the moon was quite bright that evening, so this may have affected the images possibly? Although there shouldn't be any reflections inside the scope, as it is inside a dome that shields the scope from it. Chris

Thanks for the detailed reply and analysis Adam. I'm using the mono version of the 428EX with the Starlight Xpress MIDI Filter Wheel. I'm using Astronomik 1.25" Deep Sky RGB filters also: https://www.astronomik.com/en/photographic-filters/deep-sky-rgb-colour-filters.html. I've always used Baader filters, but the Astronomik filters have had good reviews from what I've read. I shot the colours in standard R, G, B order and over the space of one night; 10x frames for each filter at 600s seconds each. The cooling of the telescope is a good point. I do have it permanently housed in a Pulsar dome, but obviously the optics themselves need quite a bit of time to cool down, being a triplet. I did start imaging within 10 minutes or so, so this may be a possible cause. Another thing that crossed my mind was the fact that when I started imaging at around 7pm, NGC 2841 was quite low in the sky and towards the end of the night was near the zenith. I've read that atmospheric distortion can cause this type of issue? Perhaps I could try combining the last frame i.e. frame 10 from each filter to see if the issue still exists, as these were taken later on in the night when the scope would have cooled down and the object would have been higher in the sky also. I'll also try your other suggestions. Thanks, Chris

Hi everyone, I've had chance to use the scope a bit now and here is the first image I've managed to obtain with it in combination with my Atik 428EX Mono camera; NGC 2841 in Ursa Major: Quite pleased with the result. Quite a low image scale at 1.16"/px (although I have done a x2 drizzle on this particular image which is probably pushing it a bit). Strangely I can see a bit of lateral chromatic aberration on some of the stars if you look closely enough (blue on one side and green on the opposite side). I wasn't sure if this perhaps might be caused by tilt or something else in my imaging train? I've had to use quite a long extension tube (about 55mm long) in front of the filter wheel to get it to focus, so this might be flexing slightly? The stars still look round though. Anyone have any experience with this? It's only minor, but the perfectionist inside me is struggling to cope with it. I initially stacked it in DSS, but noticed it was improved and not as visible after stacking in PixInsight. Anyway, apart from that, it's a great scope. The stars are nice and round. I was debating with myself on whether to add a field flattener to it, although the sensor on the 428EX is quite small, so might not be necessary? Perhaps it may improve the stars though still? The focuser is very sturdy and has many connection options e.g. 2", M63 etc. So it's great for full-frame sensors. It also has the rotation ring which is good. I've not had chance to look through the scope yet visually, as I plan on using it mainly for imaging. However, I will have to at some point. Chris

Thanks everyone, not had chance for first light yet with it, as the weather has typically gone downhill (always the way when you buy a new scope). Also been trying to get everything set up equipment-wise in the dome. Unbelievable how many cables can congregate when you have a two-scope setup. Nearly there though. Last issue I'm having is trying to use two SX filter wheels simultaneously. According to SX, you have to use one with USB and the other with the serial port. So hopefully I can get that sorted. Anyway, I'll post some images when I manage to get any. I'm looking forward to imaging some rarer galaxies and other smaller objects. Chris

So I've finally received the scope I must say it's a beaut; quite a bit bigger than I thought in real life, but they always are. Makes the FSQ-85 look tiny: The focuser is pretty large as well. Should be good for imaging: I like the fact that they include the optical report. Strehl ratio is 0.980, which I presume is quite good? Anyway, just installed it in the dome with the FSQ piggybacked. Hopefully I can get imaging with it soon, when the weather picks up. Chris

Thanks again for all the advice everyone. After a bit of thought, I've gone and pulled the trigger on the Altair Wave 115. I know it's a little more expensive, but I like the fact that it comes with the Losmandy style bar. I probably would have changed the tube rings and bar anyway on the TS Optics 115, which would have added another £200 to £300 onto the price. Plus it has the optical report with it, so you know you're likely getting a decent piece of glass. The 3.5" focuser looks quite sturdy too, which is obviously important for imaging. For the same money, I could have bought a Tak FC-100, which is a legendary scope. But like a lot of Tak scopes, they don't seem to equip them with focusers dedicated for imaging, without paying extra for a Starlight etc. Anyway, I'll post some unboxing images when I receive the scope, hopefully on Monday. Chris

I was looking at those and they look really nice, but as you say, pretty expensive. That or a Tak TSA-120/TOA-130 would a dream scope I think.

Okay, thanks for the info everyone. The improved mechanics i.e. focuser and tube rings etc. make it a very tempting prospect regardless of the glass type. I was going to buy the TS Optics version, but it's not in stock until the middle of February. It's just for deep sky imaging of smaller objects like galaxies and planetary nebulae with my Atik 428EX. Already have an FSQ-85EDX and Atik 383L for wide-field stuff. Anyway, I might go ahead with the Altair one. Chris

Morning everyone, Does anyone know if the Altair 115 Triplet Apo uses FPL-51 or FPL-53 glass? https://www.altairastro.com/altair-wave-series-115-f7-ed-triplet-apo-453-p.asp I know their Starwave 115 Triplet uses something similar to FPL-51 and it looks similar to the 115 model that TS Optics and Astro-Tech etc. sell. But the above Wave model is £700 more expensive, for which price you'd expect FPL-53. I can't find any info on the product page about the type of glass used. I believe it is a new model for 2021 too. Thanks, Chris

Thanks everyone for your help with this. Much appreciated. Like you say; I think it's very difficult to get it looking 100% new looking, but as long as it's clean and there's no scratches, then it should be okay. Best not to shine a torch on it either, as it'll never be good enough otherwise!

Well I've had a go at cleaning my FSQ85EDX objective with the Baader Optical Wonder Fluid and am quite happy with the result: I tried using the Tiffen lens paper initially, however found that I had to use the soft cloths that came with the Baader fluid to avoid streaks. I tried using my breath to remove any residue, but strangely this just made the streaks worse. It's not 100% immaculate, as you can still see some residue marks at certain angles, but nothing is perfect. Main thing is it's a lot cleaner than it was and no scratches that I can see of! Chris

Thanks both, just as I thought. Even though I've been tempted by the VC200L, Edge HD 8 and other similar sized reflectors, I've also been considering a mid-sized apo, such as the TS Optics 115mm F/7 Triplet, which has a good reputation and isn't overly expensive: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p3041_TS-Optics-PHOTOLINE-115-mm-f-7-Triplet-Apo---2-5--RAP-focuser.html. It should also be lightweight enough that I can piggyback my FSQ-85EDX on top of it also. As mentioned in the thread that @JeremyS shared, these days pixel sizes are getting so small that apos can obtain small pixel scales similar to larger reflectors. Plus refractors are significantly less trouble. To be honest I've always been more of a refractor enthusiast. For example, if I paired the TS Optics 115mm Triplet with the Starlight Xpress Trius Pro 814, then that'd give a pixel scale of 0.95"/pixel, which is pretty decent for imaging smaller objects (seeing dependent). Obviously a 115mm refractor would be slightly slower than a larger reflector for a given pixel scale, due to the smaller aperture, but a lot of the smaller pixel cameras are more sensitive e.g. the Pro 814 has a QE of 77% vs 54% of something like an Atik 383L for example.

Hi everyone, I'm very tempted to get a Vixen VC200L for imaging smaller DSOs such as galaxies and planetary nebulae etc. I just wanted to get your thoughts on this scope. At the moment I have a Takahashi FSQ-85EDX on a EQ6-R Pro housed in a Pulsar dome, which is great for wide-field imaging, but obviously not for anything small. I am aware of the common characteristics of the VC200L that people mention, such as thick spider vanes leading to diamond shape stars and the focuser not being the best. But after looking at quite a few images taken with the VC200L, the stars don't bother me as I like diffraction spikes a lot. I think the scope is something different too, that not many people consider, even though it's been around a long time. Thanks, Chris

I've just come across this tutorial on cleaning an Astro-Physics objective. Looks pretty straightforward:

I'll probably go with the disposable wipes route with the Baader fluid then. Did you use Kimwipes as mentioned above or do you think they'd be okay?

I was originally very tempted by one of these; specifically the 200mm F/5 model, but the fact that FLO are now stocking them makes the prospect even more tempting. Whilst they aren't as straight-forward to use as refractors, I think newtonians have always been underrated for astrophotography; especially when it comes to value for money. You wouldn't think that the images above would have come from a scope costing only around the £400 to £500 mark. That in itself makes me question whether it's worth spending another £1K on something like a VC200L, Edge HD 8 or apo. I also thought about spending a bit more on a ONTC carbon newtonian, but is the difference in the end result image-wise worth the extra cost of these scopes?