-
Posts
1,123 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Everything posted by vineyard
-
-
2h40 on the Eastern Veil with a 6nmHA & 294MCPro. Its WIP, so this is just messing around with PI (ghs script) & GIMP. Cheers
-
Ingenious. I'm toying with the idea of using these cake boards to make the retaining rings: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Culpitt-Round-Cards-Silver-Boards/dp/B09RKM257Q/ just need to figure out the holding cylindrical cardboard contraption. Excellent idea of the hobby boxes to store them carefully in.
-
Noticed that yesterday evening - well played.
-
A sad loss & a beautiful eulogy. V good of them to share those photos too, to convey a sense of the person behind the art.
-
If the Astronomik curves are correct, the CLS is cutting off the long-pass. The Astronomik UHC seems to be somewhat akin to a long-pass filter above 630nm so the CLS would cut that off at about 700nm. (The Baader UHC curve seems to have a shut off in it unlike the Astronomik UHC, at least going by Semrock curves: https://searchlight.semrock.com/?sid=a08a1af9-84ee-49d2-959d-153d7e7c0eb8#)
-
Thanks @vlaiv - nuanced explanations such as yours is part of why SGL is so rich to learn via. From my clumsily phrased perspective, I was just really surprised at the difference in the two images. For my crude mental model, in the OSC+double stack, all the 4 Bayer arrayed pixels are being used for 4.5-5h yet so much of the structure still doesn't come close to emerging - whereas in the OSC+NB (which to my mind means akin to a mono camera with 1/4 of the pixels, albeit with interpolation between the pixels which a pure mono wouldn't need to do) one night gave so much richer data. Maybe "NB is faster" is a better formulation for what has surprised me. I hear you on the set-up & flats - people's mileage will vary but for me <2h in one night vs 4 nights to get 4-5h is much more convenient, especially with that much difference in data. (I'll admit I'm lazy and if I haven't messed with the setup & no big changes have happened wrt dust bunnies, I just use the same flats for a few nights - I suppose slight focus changes night-to-night should mean I should take new flats). Cheers!
-
I think it would depend on which filters you stack @edarter & @tomato. If I had 2 proper NB filters, I wouldn't stack them b/c they'll be working on different parts of the spectrum as you say. I can't remember where I first read of this double-stacking but I think it was in some obscure CN thread. Based on the logic described therein, I double-stacked an Astronomik UHC & CLSCCD filter. I've pasted their respective band-passes below - I think b/c they work on v similar parts of the spectrum (as you surmised @ollypenrice) but w slightly tighter passes in the UHC, the combined effect is a bit closer to a dual-band like L-Enhance (still not as tight as that & nowhere near as tight as an L-Extreme). The interesting thing is that in solar, double-stacking HA etalons does tighten the bandpass but perhaps that's because of a different physics being used wrt the filtration mechanism? Thanks too for that image @The Lazy Astronomer - v v helpful. I'll try and do a Pixelmath comarison later, but at quick glance I think there's more finer detail in that than even w the OSC+NB, which would be another validation of mono?
-
While I save for a fuller frame camera, the eternal debate of mono vs OSC (+dual band filters) wages on in my head. And a point often made is that mono is actually faster not slower. I think I just saw an example of this. Two images below - the colour is about 4.5-5h of OSC over 4 nights last autumn (w dual-stacked filters to synthesise a dual-band) on NGC 6888. The red one is only 1h48from last night via a 6nm HA filter and the same camera 294MCPro on the same target. The difference in data gathered is shocking. Clearly a tighter NB filter will be helping (vs synthetic dual-band), but this is as a semi-mono w c 60% less capture time than the OSC - so I'd imagine a proper mono would have captured even more data? And btw this is on full moon night at a time of year when astro dark doesn't exist (even if the moon wasn't out). Mono really is faster!
-
Jupiter, Saturn and Mars under better seeing (14 June)
vineyard replied to Kon's topic in Imaging - Planetary
That's dedication - bravo! -
Scorpius under true dark skies
vineyard replied to emyliano2000's topic in Imaging - Widefield, Special Events and Comets
That is...just stunning. Wow. -
Yes I'd noticed that those shapes only seemed to be on the bottom edge not the top, hence my curiosity. Interesting re it being an altitude-related stacking artefact. I'm afraid I don't understand the subtleties of stacking algorithms anywhere near remotely but intuitively yes I can see how higher refraction lower down while the image registers based on stars higher up could do that. It's almost like there's a need for adaptive registration for stacking purposes. Looking fwd to seeing the fuller project. And cracking vistas from the obs.
-
That's stunning. Is there any justification left for mono when OSC delivers that? Couldn't help pixel peeping (it's that good an image!) and is there some v v slight tilt (there seem to be some trails towards the bottom edge)? (That's not a criticism btw - I'd be over the moon w an image like that - more curiosity)
-
Do you mean prime focus (I think afocal involves an EP)? Great images of the most recent 2 galaxies too. You're definitely motivating me to take the 7"+NV on a galaxy hunt What f-ratio are those galaxy observations running at? (If its a Celestron 8" with NV at prime focus then that suggests f/10?) Thanks!
-
I'd echo the step change that NV makes - I use it in Bortle 8/9 skies with a 7" Mak, 5" Mak and 3" frac. It's a complete game-changer for visual. I haven't had a chance to run it on any galaxies yet (mostly globs & some nebulae) so your report on M51 w an 8" is v encouraging. Can I ask what f/ratios you were effectively running your NV at (ie, the native f-ratio of your scope & if you were doing this afocally, which EP you were using?)? Thanks
-
Continuing clean up of data from old imaging setup. Here's c 3h of HA on Jellyfish Nebula. Definitely hoping to spend more time on this target when the winter comes back. Cheers
-
Thanks Steve, that's v kind. IKWYM about what is out there. I actually hadn't appreciated how many other objects are out there even just around M101 - have started capturing some data w the newer wider-field imaging setup & there's quite a few other things up there even in just that bit of sky. To think there's probably creatures out there looking at/towards us wondering the same thing. Or else it's all just a simulation😂
-
Am in the process of changing imaging scope, so just cleaning out data captured with the old setup. Here's 9h44 of M101 roughly equally split between CLSCCD & HA filters. This is a crop of about the central 1//3-1/2 (from memory) of the aggregate image taken w an ASI294MCPro & a TV102iis w a 0.79 reducer-flattener. Rescaled jpg for size. Cheers.
-
Starting out with a Pegasus motor focuser
vineyard replied to StuartT's topic in Getting Started Equipment Help and Advice
Just a quick note to say thanks for this thread all - have found it v useful as recently switched to a Pegasus Motor Focuser & have been v puzzled by the focus behaviour. Having stumbled across this thread, I suspect it was indeed backlash - have hopefully calibrated it along the lines suggested, will find out the next clear sky🤞🏾 Cheers all! -
Flats using a light panel
vineyard replied to PeterCPC's topic in Imaging - Tips, Tricks and Techniques
Yes I've noticed horizontal bands in my flats as well (with an artist's light panel, so I guess that's LED) - and they definitely affect the final image. You can post-process them out more or less, but it's not ideal. I haven't got round to it yet, but will test a t-shirt over the objective facing the light panel to see if that diffuses it enough as per @ONIKKINEN suggestion above. -
After a quick go at M13 about 10 days ago, I tried a few more GCs over 2 nights - one night w the STF7 & the TV55 but w/o the 0.5x reducer, so running at about f/4.7. The second night with a wee Meade ETX125 (f/15) with a TV40 plossl (so running at about f/10). For the STF I tried an Astronomik CLSCCD filter since looking at its transmission profile, its seems a bit like a long-pass filter. For the ETX I used a 642nm lowpass filter. Targets both nights were M13, M92 & NGC 6229 in Hercules, M3 in Canes Venatici, M53 in Coma Berenices & NGC5466 in Bootes. As well as M57 in Lyra (ok its a PN but why not ). The first night I just did one-star alignment on the MiniTower II, the second night (since I knew the FOV would be tighter w the ETX) two-star alignment. Both nights were great. Successfully managed to view all the targets - except NGC5466 which I could not find both nights. Needed to do a little bit of panning when only 1-star alignment was used but that was to be expected. As expected 2-star alignment brought the scope much closer to target. If I had to compare the two (just from memory) I'd say the STF7 but that's to be expected w better framing (wider FOV) and more aperture. But the Meade ETX even at f/10 did its job v well - more than sufficient for clusters, & a lot lighter & easier to setup. Seeing the clusters jewel-like hanging in the sky was v nice. Not a chance I could have seen those w/o NV in Bortle 8/9 here.
- 1 reply
-
- 1