Newforestgimp

I will have another round or 3 of collimation, I’m even considering one of those electronic Collimators like the Ocal as I’m just not sure how I would tell if it was any better as it looked pretty good by eye.

I guess the positive on this set of subs is the stars are better than before first collimation.

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

You need to collimate your scope. Stars are rather poor looking.

DSS can't make them out as they look more like small DSOs than pin point stars. One way of tricking the DSS or other software is to bin your data (in a certain way to keep color information) - so that star size reduces.

For example - here is x6 reduced image (single sub):

Now stars look more point like.

BTW - you really need flats and darks, and using offset of 0 is not good idea.

 

I was advised to use 90 and 0 for the ASI071 not used a dedicated astro cam before, what settings would you suggest ?

20 minutes ago, Lee_P said:

I'm a refractor guy so am not that clued up on collimation, but my guess is that your collimation is out of whack to such an extent that your autofocus routine can't work properly. So if I were you I'd first spend time getting the collimation spot-on; then I expect your autofocus will work much better.  

I'm starting to think I'm a refractor guy too 🙂

45 minutes ago, Lee_P said:

I've just taken a look at your Crescent data using PixInsight. Collimation / focus is off.

Still, here's your data straight out of integration:

And with a very quick edit:

thank you,

I dont doubt it on both points, collimation and focus, the collimation was much worse when i first attempted taking any captures. I just binned the lot. Do you think focus or collimation is the primary reason ?

The focusing is annoying me that the autofocus routines always give different results after multiple passes, leaving me unsure which is the best focus position.

46 minutes ago, Nosieman said:

Adjusting the threshold for detection will yield a better detection.

I just tried 2 of your files with the detection down to 2% and got DSS to "see" 61 stars.

 

yeah but it only stacks about 4 from the entire list.

Thanks Vlaiv,

Im getting a bit tired of the autofocus routines, i thought my eyesight was bad but.....
Which software are you using to do the binning ? im not familiar with doing that.

Hi All,

Im after a favour, below are a couple of drop box links to two sets of data captured last night, I cant get DSS to stack them, it sees no stars.
I wondered if any of you processing gurus could have a go at one or both sets and see why you think DSS wont stack them ?
they come from my new big rig as i call it, ive been having some teething problems shall we say and these are the first captures for me. I appreciate there might not be enough data to get a decent image i was experimenting with 1min and 3 min exposures on two different targets. I would like to see if anyone can determine why i cant stack, no stars found etc. captured on RC8" with ASI071MC Pro 90 gain 0 Offset.

They are only Lights, no darks or flats as yet captured.

M27         https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z6ncux1ucblhuil/AACm_3lbRj5dQP7x5-oA7rvva?dl=0

Crescent   https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hne3yqytxj4kgdr/AAB9VPI1mssHVCed_9ut0TCHa?dl=0

See what you think....

Andy

10 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

I will sink a post in to the ground with, say a 12"x12" plate fastened to the top at groundish level and then at least 4 x 12 or 16mm holes drilled in it. The bottom of the actual pier will have a similar plate fastened to it so I just marry the plates up and fit the 12 or 16mm nuts and bolts and fasten them together. I can move it around on a sack truck if necessary and my wife can just hold it steady while I bolt/unbolt, shouldn't be too much of a big deal and I won't be moving it that often anyway.

Perfecto !

3 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Agreed but it's my best option. I actually have two 600mm offcuts of the 8" stuff so I know how heavy they are, mind you having said that they're lighter than the lengths holding the roof up 😂

200x200x600 is a nice solid block, will it be tall enough ?

mine is 150x150x1500 with about 2’ in concrete 

1 minute ago, iapa said:

Leave the ‘pier’ in place and replace the mount with a bird bath when necessary

That’s what I do.

3 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

The only difference for me is that I want to make it removable so my thought is to sink the base and have a plate at about ground level that will marry up to another plate fastened to the bottom of the post. The reason I quoted the above is because where I want the pier is on our patio (I call it a patio as that's easiest to visualise but reality is it's a yard in front of our old barns as we live in an old farmhouse). That being said it's the place where we have our family barbecues etc etc which are our big thing so my wife would like it to not be there at those times, hence the removable bit.....

The only thing I would say if it’s oak it’s really heavy I mean REALLY F’ing heavy (excuse my language) so removable would limit size, depending on strength. I could just about manage to manoeuvre (I couldn’t lift it other than bear hugging and standing straight, and kind of shuffling along) with much swearing.

but I like the idea.

3 hours ago, scotty38 said:

That looks great and really glad I saw this as it's EXACTLY what I want to do and have described to my wife. We have a covered BBQ area using similar 8" posts which gave me the thought initially but this just confirmed things.

Ah yes the covered area is next years project 👍

2 minutes ago, tomato said:

If you polar align regularly then only warpage within a session would be a problem, it’s exposed and outside all the time so I can’t see rapid changes occurring.

Yeah it’s not a permanent telescope pier, I just got fed up with tripods, I do tend to leave it set for a few days.

I have markings on the plates to give me North so normally it’s a few little tweaks and I’m aligned again, then a quick check before the subsequent nights.

14 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

It would be slight movement via warpage that I'd worry about with wood,. You don't find this?

It certainly looks better than concrete!

Olly

Buildings have stood for centuries on oak, I’m happy it will be ok for my telescope. But seriously if it should warp or go out of true the levelling plate will adjust to account for it.

I suppose it could split in middle of a session but I’ll live with that risk 👍

9 hours ago, callisto said:

Did you get your wood locally or delivered?

 

Mark

I had it delivered, it can be VERY expensive so do shop around, a local-ish wood mill who deliver is best, because of the weight some charge a fortune for delivery.

9 minutes ago, callisto said:

I can see by your garden you like wood 😁...me too 😉

I've been thinking of doing something similar but haven't got round to it yet.

 

Mark.

 

Do it,

all joking aside it gives it a second use as a bird table as the best place for it was smack bang in centre of garden & I didn’t want a random post stuck there.

33 minutes ago, callisto said:

Is there any movement with the oak pier?...sorry just curious 

 

Mark.

It’s pretty solid, 6” sq solid green oak, I could barely lift it, it’s not like any old timber.

yes it will split as it ages but as it ages it will get tougher, the splits don’t impact on its strength.

it doubles as the worlds most over engineered bird table.

12 minutes ago, Viktiste said:

I like that wooden pier 👍

Cheers, last years project.

I’d never get away with a concrete or metal one, and I’ve got bit of an oak fetish, I think it will hold for a few years 😉

24 minutes ago, CedricTheBrave said:

I'm a sucker for gadgets but this looks pretty good!

As my newt is quite a sensitive soul to collimate and my eyesight is rubbish through small holes due to intraocular replacments several years ago 

I have had an Ocal electronic focuser arrive today! makes life much easier.

i tried making one from a web cam a while back but it was never very accurate so when this popped up I thought I would give it a go

nicely made unit the software is a little basic but it does what it says on the tin.

 

Would be very interested to hear how this works out, could be tempted.

👍

Some nice new cables, ooh exciting 😂 

Re-cables with Lindy Cromo cables and colour coded to use the same ports each time.

8 hours ago, Starwatcher2001 said:

4 hours ago, Viktiste said:

Yes, absolutely!

It should be possible to tell McAfee to allow Ioptron commander.

Why use McAfee anyway? The firewall + virus program that comes with windows is good enough...  My mount LapTop is dedicated for that purpose, so I have disabled firewall etc. on it. But then I have no private stuff (like e-mail etc.) on it.

I think I’ve told mcafee to leave commander alone, fingers crossed 🤞 

I’ve just discovered that McAfee seems to think that “Ioptron commander port checker.exe” is a virus and quarantined it each time I’ve tried to connect to mount before reinstalling, do you think this could be why commander will only connect once directly after a fresh install ?

Thanks chaps I shall try this tomorrow, it’s hard to get it set up when you can’t get any stars in view !!!

Centred scope on vega and it only appeared as a moon shape at edge of frame on OAG, I literally just guessed it might still be vega and tried to focus on it.

any help with gain and exposure ? I’m using an ASI120MM, I’m finding it quite demanding stepping up from a refractor.

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Never saw such stars, but it is not uncommon to have distorted stars at the edge of the field where OAG operates.

Star to the right in above screen shot are closer to optical axis and still "concentrated" while those on the left are starting to show signs of field curvature and astigmatism.

That is OAG fairly close to optical axis on 8" RC (about 10mm away from optical axis or so - it is part of FOV next to shorter side of 17.7 x 13.4 mm sensor).

Hmmm looks like something isn’t right with mine, seem to struggle getting stars to focus on let alone guide on.

maybe I’m a bit conservative how far the prism is pushed into the light path ?