-
Posts
1,503 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation
1,592 ExcellentProfile Information
-
Gender
Male
-
Interests
Sailing, cycling and Astrophotography
-
Location
Penrith, Cumbria
Recent Profile Visitors
1,576 profile views
-
As @The Lazy Astronomer says, in Bortle 7 the read noise will be swamped in seconds. In reality you just need to choose a sub length that allows you to take enough total integration time without needing a super-computer to process. Personally, in my B6 back garden, I use 2 minute subs for most targets and 3-5 minutes for NB. Have you watched the Robin Glover video about AP. Well worth a look if you haven't.
-
Right now it does not matter. Clouds look the same through all the scopes! If I was to limit it to one, it would be the 115mm triplet as it is the most versatile. It is a good imaging scope but also very good for visual. Can I use the ST80 as a guide / finder scope?😄
-
Advice on goto mount for visual
Clarkey replied to PatrickO's topic in Getting Started Equipment Help and Advice
The AZ GTi will mount up to 5kg and is probably OK for visual with a decent tripod. The are other options depending on your budget. -
Having seen these lists I feel much better. And I can justify a new one. Yippee!!
-
I think it is a really good rendition. Different with the exaggerated Ha - but in a good way. I particularly like the first one.
-
That's a great image. Really nice detail. I spent a night imaging with my RC8 and 115mm triplet (total of 18 hours) and got nowhere near this amount of detail. Admittedly Bortle 6 with pretty poor seeing. I do need to check though Göran, are you sure you live in Sweden? You get more clear nights than my Spanish and UK rigs put together! I think you have a direct link to Hubble🤣🤣
-
I looked at this and gave it some serious consideration. However, doing a bit more research there does seem to be a banding issue with the Svbony version of the 533. I can't comment from personal experience, but I believe there is a thread somewhere of SGL about it.
-
I certainly agree regards the meagre pickings. I have managed 5 hours in the last 6 weeks😫
-
If there is any flex between the guide scope image and the scope image the guide graph would be irrelevant. However, if 5 second exposures are also showing poor star shapes the culprit appears to be the optical train. Have you tried rotating the camera and coma corrector to see if the aberration follows? I'm not trying to be patronising - just trying to rule out the obvious.
-
My method is very different. If you are talking about the Adam Block videos, this suggests you use PI for processing? For my (acceptable) comet image, I used a very different process. 1. Take the normal shots and then remove the stars from all the images using a batch process in PI. (This takes a long time) 2. Comet stack the starless images to give the comet stack. This will have some minor trails from where the stars were removed. 3. Process the comet image using masks etc to blur the star trails that remain. 4, Run a normal star stack to give you the star image. Remove the stars and add them back to the comet image as per normal processing. There may be a better way - but as yet I have only paid for the Adam Block Fundamentals videos. The comet and Horizons is more expense.... Below is the result. (This was about the first image I had ever done in PI, so I suspect I could get better results now I know what I am doing with the software).
-
Very nice rendition. The good seeing certainly helped - very crisp. This was one of the first galaxies I ever imaged back in the days of my 600D. Looking at my version makes me realise I need to do it again!