Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

MimasDeathStar

Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MimasDeathStar

  1. That’s not the lens of the phone it’ll be the eyepiece. Yes, I’m not sure it would be possible to track by hand. if you use PiPP before registax then it will line it up for you (and does a pretty good job). It’s not a substitute for tracking but it’s a lifesaver nonetheless.
  2. One image is just a blur! I use the exact same Barlow it’s fine. im sure you know this but if shooting mars make sure you shoot video not photo, then stack in registax. There’s loads of guides out there, but very different to shooting moon Also I don’t think phone cameras actually shoot at 64mp - they normally interpolate the pixels to produce a higher quality (prob 16) mp picture using clever AI. So you’d want to stay away from these settings. My planetary camera is 2mp for example. For planetary small sensors and high sensitivity are your friend. edit; @wobblewing this vid
  3. I suppose it’s more of a philosophical question... I keep coming back to it, I just love the look of it, the heritage values, the idea of it. But I know on paper it probably won’t really compete with its contemporaries will it? I mean a sky max 127 would be a better lunar / planetary scope for half the price. An ed80 would (correct me if I’m wrong) probably be as sharp if not sharper, with as good, if not better contrast. And a more flexible FOV, and more versatility in its camera connections etc (and easier to mount). But still... Most if my astronomy is just visu
  4. I did take several short runs but was messing about with the exposure / gain combo each time so I didn’t want to risk stitching all the videos together as I wasn’t sure if it would make it better or worse. Also I spent that long messing I was beginning to worry about rotation. yes definitely playing with the clutches helped. I think holding the base between thumb and forefinger seems to be the technique that’s working best, But up/down is tricker as there’s still a bit of friction - it seems to want to “lean” a bit and then jump. But it’s not the end of the world. If I like it enough I’ll
  5. What a difference a night makes! loosening the clutches and getting the balance near perfect made a huge difference, as did spending 10 mins getting the red dot finder as accurate as possible! Although I think if I keep doing this I may have to get a finder scope too as we’re getting into the territory where the RDF dot is too big to centre mars properly. watched a tutorial on wavelets - I think I’m a little clearer but struggled with the maths so I think I’ll have to keep coming back to that. Discovered an RGB Align button in Registax that totally transformed it so very pleased abou
  6. Definitely Hale-Bopp. I was about 14 at the time. I'd never really taken much interest in the night sky but I remember standing in my driveway looking up and it was just... there! Brilliant.
  7. First planetary image of any sort actually! So this has been a bit of a learning experience! I seemed to just blindly stumble through the programs I used, if anyone has any tips or guides for capturing or processing I'd be delighted to hear them! The one thing I do know is that I am using equipment that isn't ideal! However I thought I would have a crack and see what happened. I will admit that I am absolutely delighted by my modest results. Telescope: Skywatcher 150p on it's white turntable base (so many many reasons why this made it quite difficult! focusser, lack of tracking,
  8. Cheaper laser collimators can be a bit of a lottery, and by cheaper I mean anything under about £75 which isn’t that cheap actually! They are better than Cheshire collimators in terms of convenience, but they aren’t any more accurate which is the main thing. The big challenge is that it’s quite difficult to find a laser that points dead straight, and that’s your issue! Telrads are nearly universally adored! But they’re quite big and not very pretty. I only use a 6x30 finder these days - but there’s a couple of techniques to learn to get the best out of them. Finders are a very personal th
  9. Great M27, could instantly relate to that view. M71 is one of my favourites weirdly, Took a long time to track it down in my old 70mm refractor - but its really handily placed so I knew exactly where it was. Its dead easy in my 6" now though - almost takes some of the fun out of it! M97 is my new fabled unicorn!
  10. No, I’m afraid not. The kits nearly always contain filters and eyepieces that you probably won’t use so don’t actually represent good value. The celestron kits particularly are extremely over priced. BST starguiders are often recommended as “good budget eyepieces”. Personally I find this quite shocking as they are nearly £50 a piece but hey ho. Your scope will be relatively unforgiving on eyepieces so if nothing else something like this should be an aspirational target if nothing else. However - and this might seem controversial - I have never, and I mean never, heard or met anyone w
  11. Wow I’ve never seen that much detail on Mars although it is still definitely my favourite planet! Can’t wait for it to appear around the back of the house (a few weeks yet though!)
  12. Hello all I'm not sure how to phrase this so please forgive me if it sounds like gibberish! I recently obtained a 150p flextube and had some great fun taking it to a reasonably rural location over the last couple of weeks. Having tried for some time, I finally managed to tick M51 off my list - twice in two sessions! The view on the second session was brilliant and I could quite easily make out the two little blobs that make it up. On the second session I had a go at trying to find M101. I didn't realise until after that this is quite a challenging target in even my 6" scope fro
  13. Thankyou - yes I think it is more or less manageable without glasses after all which is handy!
  14. Thats interesting thanks, maybe I will stick with Hyperions then
  15. Hello all I have searched for this a few times but I haven't found any recent discussion so am going to risk floating it again! I've got an f5 150mm reflector. I splurged a bit and got a 21mm hyperion and, after the initial shock of how big it is, am really enjoying using it! I have a 26mm plossl that covers almost the exact same area of sky so I'm able to reasonably well compare the two. Centre sharpness, contrast and definition are noticeably better on the Hyperion but I do notice quite a whopping dropoff in sharpness from about 80% out. I bought the hyperion mainly for its ma
  16. You may want to reconsider your setup. You will have several challenges to overcome: The 76 eq has a spherical not parabolic mirror which means that you are going to struggle with focus either way - and probably have some fuzziness at the edges even if you can get the centre in focus. The 76eq wont reach focus with a camera as the focusser doesnt have enough inward travel to reach focus. You have discovered this - and that is why you have managed to get around it with your barlow and eyepiece. However... The longer the focal length the more difficult it is to trac
  17. I see. I suppose a rep may be trying to rationalise a nebulous concept so I can see where they are coming from. But I don't agree. Imagine a scenario where you could get every major eyepiece on the market and test them against these known standards, and then plot them on a chart using a quotient of some sort. Well in that scenario - picking your eyepiece would take 10 seconds and require almost no thought at all. It would be easier for eyepiece manufacturers, and consumers. But you have to factor in the subjectivity of eyepiece selection - which is based on many more things than just
  18. Where did you get the "5-8%" figure from, I've never heard of eyepieces being quantified on any sort of ranking scale before, short of using a ronchi test I have no idea how it would be possible to make such a statement? Its not really possible to say eyepiece X is 43.7% or whatever better than Y. Like you say, its all subjective. Its only through trial and error that you can make a decision yourself what is an appropriate amount of money to spend on eyepieces. Just a word of warning though - as I'm sure you will find out in due course - nearly all astronomy items always (and I mean alway
  19. That is about the most that you can extract in terms of an image with your current equipment. I think it is a very good picture, nice and sharp and looks in focus. The big problem is that the sun is a bit boring now and just an orange ball! Pictures will look more exciting when there are some sun spots. Filters probably wont make a significant difference.
  20. I'm no telescope expert - but is this a new telescope? http://www.opticalvision.co.uk/astronomical_telescopes-sky-watcher-dobsonians/heritage-150p-flextube.html It looks like a new skywatcher telescope to me although I couldn't find much information on it anywhere. It looks pretty cool to me, and a nice step up from the 130p.
  21. Don't worry about it glad you are sorted. If it helps I have done the exact same thing more than once (and much worse)!
  22. They can be a bit fiddly at first. The easiest way is to take your finderscope (pedantic - you have a Red Dot Finder - RDF - not a finderscope ) off the telescope to test. Adjust all of the adjustment knobs so that they are about halfway through their range of motion. Take the finder scope to a relatively dark / dimly lit place (doesnt have to be pitch black) - and then switch on. Turn the knob all the way round to full power and make sure the little LED is illuminated. Hopefully with it now just in your hands you can wiggle it around and then eventually you'll be able to close in
×
×
  • 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.