Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

rnobleeddy

Members
  • Posts

    769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

304 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nottingham

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I wouldn't rule out the battery, but I never had any issues with that combination.
  2. Can't help with everything, but: - In terms of the noise/banding, if not already, you will definitely want to dither, ideally between every frame, maybe every 2-3 frames if you're shooting short exposures. - Make sure the screen on the camera is not on whilst you're shooting, as there can be light leakage (it was an issue on a 550D I had) - Back spacing is never exact, so you'll need a way to adjust the spacing, and then change it until you get good stars - For star colours, this was par for the course for me with dual band filters. You're effectively just collecting 2 wavelengths. The centre of the star is overexposed (to collect enough data on the nebula) so that's white, then the edges are one colour or another depending on the colour of the star. Options are to shoot some shorted exposures without the filter then blend the images, or use the processing software you use to repair the stars. All in, I'd have been very happy with that for my first image
  3. When I referred to a filter, I meant a solar continuum filter. In terms of shorter exposures and stacking, there's no hardware limitations to prevent recording a videos and stacking the frames, but I guess the software doesn't offer that option yet.
  4. I wouldn't read too much in to that - the images I saw of nebula are much better, and there'll almost certainly be more options around stacking in future.
  5. Haven't been astronomy-ing for a while but saw a YouTube video of this and wanted to come and read the thread. Obviously mixed thoughts, but from my perspective, it's a game changer at this price point. Maybe not right now, but if you think that might be possible in 5-years, I can imagine getting this eating the budget end of the AP market. On the flip side, I have no answer to the Q about why you'd do this over look at pictures on the internet. The same could be said of all AP - very few of us produce images that are as good as those on astrobin. For example, I've kept some kit to take white light photos of the sun. I enjoy it. All this needs is a way to attach a 1.25" or 2" filter somewhere, and the right software, and it's going to produce white light solar images as good as my setup, which cost a lot more.
  6. I've used Linux for years. My question was why is anyone needs a 64-bit version. Unless you need to use all the RAM on the 8Gb Pi in a single process, I can't think of another reason. And that certainly doesn't seem necessary for imaging.
  7. I understand the desire to stay away from rolling your own! Curious to know what's the advantage of getting a 64-bit version?
  8. Is the idea of pixels being "too small" still relevant? For anyone who images with a range of scopes, isn't it better to get the smallest pixels and then just bin? That way, you can avoid undersampling for widefield. My logic is: - read noise on the modern cameras is low, so software binning isn't really a problem. - Fractional binning allows you get back to the correct sampling rate (last time this came up, there was a suggestion that is was unproven, but empirical results have been good) - The range of pixel sizes available in modern CMOS cameras is relatively small, and the current generation is so much better than CCDs or earlier CMOS cameras (higher QE, back illumination etc) that the impact of using one of these is far bigger than the gains in avoiding binning
  9. I'd suggest you watch his other videos. They're very good and I put a lot of faith in his reviews.
  10. I assume you've corrected flats on both images with flats taken with/without the corrector accordingly? At this stage, if possible, I'd try out another MPCC III. You may have a bad example. Or perhaps someone else has some other ideas. Probably worth a new post- this may have the same impact, but the cause is different. I didn't have this happen with my MPCC II or III with broadband filters.
  11. To offer a different viewpoint... I had an EQ5 to start with, and then an AZ-GTi for a 60mm APO. I preferred the AZ-GTi and it produced better AP results. The EQ5 was so very bad at guiding in DEC. I can't remember the details, but from memory, the design of the EQ5 leaves out a bearing on the DEC axis and has a shim instead, so is prone to stiction. The AZ-GTI wasn't amazing compared to a HEQ5 or EQ6, but was more than good enough for the 300mm OTA I was using. I'd also say that you do need to guide. A DSLR will need long exposures and neither mount will be able to track well enough unguided for minutes.
  12. My latest camera won't work without a powered USB hub, but the current one I have has too short a cable for the telescope I'm using. The 5V PSU doesn't appear to be a standard one, so I figure it's easier to buy a new USB hub with a longer cable out of the box (life's too short for unnecessary soldering!). Any recommendations for a powered 4+ port USB hub with a long (e.g. 1m) PSU cable?
  13. I don't know why more blue, but any time you chop out vast chunks of the light spectrum, it's best to assume you'll need to rebalance the colours when processing. You can seem from https://www.firstlightoptics.com/light-pollution-reduction-imaging/optolong-l-pro-light-pollution-broadband-filter.html that's it's going to make a significant difference. That would depend on the camera size primarily, as well as where the filter is placed. More worrying is that your flats should correct this unless you're using a filter that's way too small. In which case all you can do is crop.
  14. This issue was specifically when using by narrowband filters with the older (gen 2 or gen 1) MPCC filters. So this sounds like a different problem. Have you tried ditching the MPCC to confirm that's 100% the cause?
  15. Whether it's a downside or not is a personal thing but from my experience of doing both, getting interesting colour from 12 hours or SHO data is much easier than getting interesting colours from 12 hours of dual band data. And therefore I can knock out a decent SHO image in 30 minutes, whereas I'm still working on massaging the dual band data I collected earlier in January. I do use Startools, which may make a difference - it's a got an extremely easy workflow for pure SHO or LRGB data, but it get's a lot harder to add RGB stars, or to use starnet++, and I've had little success in salvaging stars from highly stretched dual band data. I agree. Your images above are much better than anything I managed with my SHO filters + mono camera!
×
×
  • 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.