Mandy D
-
Posts
1,281 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Mandy D
-
-
Graphic Workshop is an old one that I used to use about 30 years ago in the DOS days. It was quite good back then and easy to use. I have no idea how it compares, today, but might be worthy of a look.
https://www.mindworkshop.com/gwspro.html
I remember it coming with this warning:
"Should you fail to register any of the evaluation software available through our web pages and continue to use it, be advised that a leather-winged demon of the night will tear itself, shrieking blood and fury, from the endless caverns of the nether world, hurl itself into the darkness with a thirst for blood on its slavering fangs and search the very threads of time for the throbbing of your heartbeat. Just thought you'd want to know that. Alchemy Mindworks accepts no responsibility for any loss, damage or expense caused by leather-winged demons of the night, either."
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, paulastro said:
Thanks Mandy, that's along the lines I read previously about GIMP. I think it would test my patience too much. Generally, if an image takes more than about 10/15 mts to process where I want to be I wouldn't bother. As you can probably tell, I spend more time observing than imaging 😊.
The beauty of GIMP, I find, is that it is extemely quick and easy to do things, once you have learnt it. The learning curve is the problem, not really that GIMP is slow or difficult to use. I certainly would not recommend it to someone who wants to dive in and get a perfect result the first time they use it. Most of the time, I can get 90% there in under 30 seconds.
-
Another vote for GIMP, here. It is very good, but the learning curve is steep. Much in it is not obvious. You know it should be there, but can never find it on your own because it is buried deep in a menu somewhere. Much of the help online is very outdated. I really like it, but get annoyed when I want to do soemething for the first time and have to trawl the web for answers. Rule of Thirds is now in it and easy to use, yet doing a search for it, you only find the old fudges that can barely be said to work.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Mal22 said:
Aperture is the circumference of the telescope I.e how much light can get into it. The more light that can get in, the more detail becomes visible. Of the two telescopes you’ve shared, the Celestron has a 60mm aperture, and the Nat Geo one has 114mm - so the Nat Geo one captures nearly double the amount of light and therefore more detail.
Sorry to nitpick here, but aperture is quoted by diameter. Double the aperture and you will capture, not double, but four times the amount of light as light capture is proportional to area. Resolution ("detail") is normally quoted as linear resolution, so that will double.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Stevish said:
My god that starsense
My god this is hard to find in Canada, may have to spend more then I want
Try next door in the USA. I understand there is some sort of free-trade agreement between Canada and USA. You will find a lot more choice and many, many more dealers. Join RASC (Royal Astronomical Society of Canada) or just follow them on Facebook. Their page is very active. I don't know whereabouts you are, but there is a big public access observatory at Black Nugget Lake campground, just north of Edmonton. I understand they have a range of telescopes available for loan for up to a month, which would allow you to test the water before leaping and buying.
Here is a link to the observatory project:
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Nika1982 said:
Celestron AstroMaster LT 60AZ refractor Any thoughts about this one ?
Yes. A nice thing about this package is that it comes with a tripod and is alt-azimuth mounted, so is intuitive to use. You will get some colour fringing around bright objects, but it won't be terrible as the scope is f/10. It is also affordable and a respected brand.
If you are anywhere near Bordeaux, there is a telecope retailer there who is very helpful and has telescopes on display. I forget the name, but it is on the web.
-
3 minutes ago, Richard N said:
At that age, a microscope will be better value.
I had one. It did nothing for me at that age. Now, a telescope ... That got my attention. I think it all depends on the child's interests.
-
4
-
1
-
-
Does she have any pre-conceived notions of what a telescope looks like? Often, children are more focused on this than anything else and may be disappointed if it does not look like what they imagined. As long as it is easy to use and gives reasonable views of the Moon, in particular and can also be pointed at other things on land and in the sky it will be servicable in this situation. Small, tabletop Newtonians, such as the Skywatcher 100P which has been suggested work well, but may not match her idea of a telescope, whereas a small refractor on a tripod might. I would suggest showing her some pictures online of different types of telescope within budget and seeing what gets her excited, then report back here with your findings and we will try to help you better.
-
4
-
-
@Tomservo I have the same scope and from what I understand, it is unusual for the focal length to match the specification. Because this is a two mirror system with hyperbolic mirrors, it is not like a Newtonian with only one active mirror. Both mirrors in an RC play a part in the magnification and effective focal length of the telescope. I understand that the mirrors are produced in volume and paired by selection after production to get a good match. This results in some significant differences in final focal length. What matters is adjusting the scope to it's best performance, not aiming for precisely 1370 mm. So, do not bother trying to achieve precisely 1370 mm. I have no practical experience of any of this, as I have, so far, had noneed to collimate my RC.
-
1 hour ago, HaplessWonder said:
Particular thanks to @Mandy D for his detailed opinions.
Actually, it is her. Glad to have been of help and to be appreciated.
-
1
-
-
@bosun21 How odd! It looks like a packing material. Nothing in the destructions about it?
-
@bosun21 is it bearing material? How soft is it?
-
This is related to epicyclic gearing problems. It also applies to motor-vehicle wheels, but in a slightly different way that means the top of the tyre is travelling forwards at twice the vehicle's forward speed, whilst the bottom of the tyre is not moving forwards at all. Of course, it is all resolved by accelrations.
A good few years back, when Thrust SSC broke the sound barrier, the engineering team noted that more drag was being exerted on the car than expected before it went supersonic or even trans-sonic. My immediate reaction was that the tops of the wheels were already moving at supersonic speeds whilst the car was only travelling at half the speed of sound, hence creating supersonic drag. What they found the cause to be, I don't know.
-
1 hour ago, maw lod qan said:
Definitely turn to Orion's nebula!
M42, without a doubt!
-
Before I jump in and state the obvious answer, what is the exact wording of the actual question on the exam paper? I'm assuming it is not what is printed on the picture presented, here! No, i cannot go and look at the video at present.
-
Good to know, @DaveL59. It looks like we will be going, after I mentioned it to my partner!
-
1
-
-
Stunning solar images, as always, @Nigella Bryant! One day, I am going to have to up my game on solar!
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Joanne G said:
Hi I just purchased a national geographic premium telescope, I am trying to work out how to use it with the help of YouTube 😱. I took the viewfinder apart and don't know how to put it back together, the lenses have come out
Model of telescope?
If by viewfinder, you mean eyepiece, as I suspect you do, it is probably not worth bothering putting it back together. The ones supplied with most telescopes are not great, so you would probably end up replacing it with something better. You can get eyepieces from as little as £20 or so, new. Putting it back together and getting it to perform as it should might be harder than you think. These things are not meant to be taken apart! As @Cosmic Geoff has said, please post some pictures. Ideally of the eyepiece in it's disassembled state so we can at least see what you have there.
-
2 hours ago, alacant said:
That's the GSO focuser. It doesn't fit SW reflectors.
If you scroll down to Features on the page linked to by @PeterC65 there is mention of Newtonian bases for this focuser, so it might still fit, but again, it will not be a cheap solution. I'm still leaning towards the Badder Diamond Steeltrack for little more money.
-
1
-
-
@JeremyS Thanks for this. It's only an hour down the road, so may just have to go.
-
2
-
-
@alacant It is expensive, but I think this may be it:
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, alacant said:
Hi
If anyone knows the answer to one of my original questions concerning the availability of the Quattro focuser, that would almost certainly represent a -drop-in- upgrade.
Anyone?
Sorry, I seem to have hijacked your thread. I had a look around this afternoon to see if I could find anything as your post reminded me I wanted an upgrade, but I cannot find the focuser you want anywhere. All I came up with was the Baader Diamond Steeltrack, which is rather expensive.
https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-diamond-2-steeltrack-nt-focuser.html
-
I might have to look around and see if I can get something better than I have or end up adjusting it. I don't think it is terrible, but it would be nice to get maximum performance out of the scope.
-
@Whistlin Bob Thanks. I'll give that one a miss, then. What did you end up using or recommend for imaging?
Cameras and focussing
in Getting Started With Imaging
Posted
@Bongo What DSLR do you have? Most recent (manufactured in the last 15 years or so) DSLRs have live view, where you can zoom in and focus using the LCD on the rear of the camera. If you can tell us which one you have we can probably help much more.