Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

487 Excellent

1 Follower

About SyedT

  1. Someone just posted the below image saying "Shotgun waiting for clear skies!!" and I'm done
  2. Would really recommend it. Have a look at the free trial and see what you think. It's simplified the whole calibration/registration/normalisation/integration process into a very simple workflow. Load images, select settings (it now has automatic settings for most things), calibrate (calibration is done within the app with no extra calibrated frames created), and then hit integrate. The latest update has made it even faster than before. Also, the light pollution correction is excellent, sorts out gradients with minimal fuss.
  3. I personally think it's some space treasure! Anyone up for a commerical spaceflight?
  4. Gina, have you thought about getting AstroPixelProcessor? I find it simplifies the workflow a lot and gives excellent results. I then post-process in Pixinsight.
  5. Think there's an executable standalone version if I recall correctly! https://sourceforge.net/projects/starnet/files/ Anyway, I don't think Starnet is everyone's cup of tea, I only use it to create starless images for the "wow" factor. For actual processing, I tend to just use the raw data I have and control stars using masks. I may start using it in the future, but we'll see I guess.
  6. Carol, Starnet's definitely not suitable for every single image, but I find it does at times do a very good job as a Pixinsight plug-in. See thread below which I posted a while back when I initially found Starnet, it did an excellent job on both mono Ha and a bicolour Ha/OIII image:
  7. No problem! It's up to you, but to save £39 you could return the 5x1.25 FW, order a 5x36 FW and an extra carousel. The 5x36 FW is shipped in 4-6 days though, so depends on how impatient you are (I'd probably be impatient enough to get the 2 carousels if I'm honest!). In terms of the larger filter wheel, I've had experience of using two 5x2" carousels, and I found it annoying to have to exchange them whenever I needed to change from BB/NB, especially if it was in the middle of an imaging session in the winter!
  8. I see! In that case, getting the 5x36 mm FW and an extra 36 mm FW is the best way to go for your particular setup.
  9. If you buy the 7x36 and guide head then that's £449. Buying the 5x36 mini FW + an extra carousel would be £319, so you'd effectively be paying £130 more. In terms of design, I think the issue arises with the filter mounts themselves; I'm not sure if Astronomik make thinner filter mounts for example. I've been using 7x36 for a while now so can't remember.
  10. This is always amazing to see, well done Alice and dad for taking up the hobby. Wish you all the best!
  11. I definitely didn't get that lucky. Just one of my subs had two satellite trails!
  12. You'd have to purchase a 5x36mm carousel for the filter: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starlight-xpress-accessories/starlight-xpress-5x-36mm-unmounted-filter-carousel-for-mini-filterwheel.html. Since you've bought these items new, you could contact FLO and ask for an exchange for a 5x36 mm FW (https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starlight-xpress-accessories/starlight-xpress-usb-mini-filter-wheel-5-x-36mm-with-oag.html) and 36 mm filters? The other thing I'm thinking of is the number of filters you have. If you're hoping to do narrowband work in the future, then it'll be a pain to open up the FW and exchange the LRGB filters for narrowband filters and you'll expose them to dust as well. If so, getting a full-size FW would be better as it can accommodate 7x36mm filters: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/starlight-xpress-accessories/starlight-xpress-usb-filter-wheel.html The OAG is extra and so the whole setup is £169 more, but depends on what your preferences are.
  13. This was an interesting read: https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/blog/unmounted-filters-which-side-should-face-the-telescope/ Confirms that the non-reflective side should be towards the camera, and that the way they design the mounted filters would mean that putting them as you have in the first image is the only correct orientation. The only permanent solution not requiring experimentation with various ideas that I can think of would be to switch to unmounted filters as they sit right inside the carousel with a small portion jutting out.
  14. There's a calculator here: http://astronomy.tools/calculators/guidescope_suitability Normally people say the ratio should be 1:6 or less between the imaging and guiding scope but I've heard of people succeeding with guiding well beyond these parameters, so I suspect there's a lot to do with your individual setup/seeing conditions etc.
  15. Agreed with RayD's post, you do need to meet some criteria prior to running the images through CCDInspector. I wonder if you would find MaxSelector easier to use? It's very simple; add the set of images, hit Analyse, and it will give you a list of values including collimation, FWHM, curvature, tilt etc. I can run your raw subs through if you upload them if you'd like. Guiding seems like it wasn't a problem then, but due to the variable distortion I'm wondering if it did cause an issue due to PA. I would imagine focuser slop would give you elongation on one side and relatively OK looking stars on the other. Deconvolution helps to shrink the stars depending on how extreme you go with it, and I find it does help with their appearance overall. Key thing would be to create a good StarMask and experiment plenty of times.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.