Andy56

Hi, and thanks for you comments. I've decided that the 294 has had a number of issues with some user so so that's off the list. I don't want to be one of the unlucky ones and have tons of issues. The 2600, although great, is just to expensive. At the moment the 533 is top of the list it similar spec to the 2600 just smaller and 14-bit. The images on astrobin are good with the ZS61 . The size is smaller than APS-C but covers most of what I want and I could use mosaics. Also it about £1000 cheaper and I could buy a another scope (or two) with the difference. I think Len1257's comment "The best camera is the one that you can afford" tipped me and that's realistically the 533. Cheers Andy

Hi, Thanks for you comments. The cost of the 2600 is to high for me. I was pushing it at the 071. I started at the 294 or 533 and kept looking and the cost went up. The 533 is a bit small and only covers 1/2 NGC7000 but all of the HH nebula and M42 and has zero amp glow. The 294 covers most of NGC7000 but is older(?) and doesn't have zero amp glow. I also read loads of stuff about pixels sizes and used the "CCD Suitability Calculator" but none of the combinations ended up in the green. So from you comments there is no fundamental reason there would incompatibility just a choice with trades offs each way. Kind regards Andy

Hi, I've been using a 600D with a WO ZS61ed and an Optolong L-extreme sitting on an HEQ5. Any one in Southern ULK will know that the night temps are high at the moment and with the Optolong L-Extreme exposure times are long and the sensor temperature is in the low 30's giving loads of noise. So I've decided to get a cooled astro camera and after much reading I feel I will go for the ZWO ASI071MC-Pro. The 600D is an aps sensor the same as the 071 and the image coverage is what I'm looking for ie NGC7000, M42 Horse Head area. Now, as I understand all cameras have their quirks and this one is no different but is there any fundamental reason why this combination is not good? Is there a better camera for the DSO's I'm after? Kind regards Andy

Just come across this because I'm thinking of getting the same filter. So thanks for the info and: n is the refractive index. Unfortunately I can't find this anywhere at the moment. t = 1.85 I was sent this by another member of the forum. Unfortunately I can find where it was from to add a thank you. HTH Andy

This was on the HH nebula. The results were good by my standards. BUT I've reprocessed M42 with no darks but with flats, lights and bias: The flats failed to remove the dust mote on the left but a little cropping will do this. Also seem to have some oval stars top right but best of M42 so far. I'm now going to try and stack last years as well from the WO ZS61ED/Star Adventurer + guiding. Thanks for your help. Cheers Andy

Many thanks for you comments. I hadn't taken the flats yet. I normally do this the next day ie this morning but I've been out all day and will do them this evening and re-stack. Yes they are not there. I used darks, bias, flats and dark flats for this one Alacant: Just been through each sub, stretched using APT auto stretch, they seem OK except a couple of geo-stationary satellites and the background shade goes from neutral to green and reddish. I'll do the flats now and re-stack. ( telescope and camera are still attached.) I'll get back later, it's going to take and hour or so. Cheers Andy

Hi, Nice clear night last night so I thought I'd re-do M42 with the HEQ5 Father Christmas brought me. 600D astro modded, guided, with a WO ZS 61 ED. Bortle 5/6 So after 145 45s subs and 25 darks with dithering every other sub, I stacked them in DSS I then use Pixinsight for a Automatic background Extraction then a quick manual stretch and got some weird banding I've not seen before. I've attached a typical sub and the offending result. I've viewed each sub and there are no major issues I've not experience this before and I wonder if you guys had any thoughts on why the banding has occurred. The 3rd image is a half processed image of the Horse Head Nebulae taken a couple of nights ago from the same location. Many thanks Andy

Thanks guys I'm getting an understanding now. So with the setup I have, GoTo++ in APT is the quickest way and removes the need to align an object in the centre of the sensor 3 times, which is the major problem I had. This will also tell ASCOM which then acts as a server for other clients eg Stellarium. So if I wanted to do a full alignment (although possibly not needed) I guess I would use GoTo++ on 3 objects and then it should be fully aligned. This just to answer my original objective. Can't wait for the next clear night!! Cheers Andy

Hi, Many thanks for your responses. So it seems plate solving is the way, ie let the software find out where the telescope is pointing instead of pointing the telescope to a particular star. I have familiarity with APT and plate solving and clicking "Show" so that Stellarium will show where I'm pointing. Now, how do I do it for alignment? When I read the manuals is seems to require some familiarity that I don't have. So, in APT Do I point the telescope south and plate solve in APT. Then click "Show" and Stellarium should show me where I'm pointing. Then, in Stellarium, use the "Slew Telescope To" dialogue box and hit sync. OR Do I point the telescope south and plate solve in APT. Then click "Sync" in the "Point Craft" dialogue box. Then repeat for East and West. Will this give me the GoTo alignment I need? Just a little more help and a warm clear night will be great. Not much chance at the moment though. Many thanks Andy

Hi, Father Christmas brought me a HEQ5 for Christmas. After Christmas I set it up indoors and got ASCOM/EQMOD/Stellarium all linked. I already have APT PHP2 and Stellarium linked. so that was all working. I have a direct cable from the PC to the HEQ5 So on Tuesday I set it up in the garden while it was light. That's a WO ZS61/600d (astro modified)/guidescope + laptop. I had forgotten to refocus the polar scope to infinity after checking the graticule alignment on a nearby (10m) roof so when I looked for Polaris I could not find it. Unlike my Star Adventurer which is always quite easy. Also the default setting of the led was very high and I had to reconnect the hand control to reduce it. So I gave up on this and ensured that the polar axis was aligned as well as possible. I had read that a crude polar alignment can be overcome by tracking. Not ideal but OK for a first attempt so I tried to do an alignment. ( and it was getting cold) So this is where I need some advice or clarification. Slewing to Jupiter using Stellarium did not put it on sensor and I found looking at the camera screen and moving the scope using the PC very difficult, same with Vega and after doing the alignment it could not find M31 or M45 but it found NGC7000 very well, relatively close to Vega. I have read that you can use plate solving to align the scope. Ie instead of moving the scope to the star you tell the app (Stellarium, APT) where it's pointing. Have I understood this correctly? Can this be done through APT alone? and is there a walk though. The best I've read is from Padraic M This seems to indicated that I could use this for alignment by pointing the scope to a starry region of the sky, plate solve, Sync and show in Stellarium for confirmation. If I do this for three points will this give me a good alignment? Cheers Andy

Hi, I've just come across some of my early astrophotography. I do have some slides from about '85 taken in New Zealand but I've not seen them for a while. Probably buried in the loft. These are slides taken on Scotch 800/3200. That's all it says on the film and I can't remember details that far back. 1995 Hale-Bopp. I don't know where I took these probably back garden in Newbury. 3 exposures, time and F number unknown. Probably taken on a Pentax MZ5n on a tripod Couldn't plate solve. It came back with a focal length that I've never owned. Might try film imaging again with tracker etc. Enjoy Andy

Thanks for the feedback. I'll go ahead with the modification. Many thanks, Andy

Hi, I'm about to get my 600D astro modified but I'm not sure that the sensor is good. I seem to have quite a lot of hot pixels and I' m wondering if this is normal or bad. I attached a jpeg and it's orf file for you guy's to view and give an opinion. It could be normal but I have no other reference. If it is bad then I could consider trying a newer camera. Many thanks Andy L_4500_ISO800_60s__17C.CR2

Hi Guys, Thanks for you input. I set up Point Craft in APT to use all sky plate solver. Added the Remote control plugin into Stellarium and checked the port numbers matched. Loaded some images into APT and solved them. After some trial and error I found the magic button "Show" and Stellarium went straight there. Now I have to get a feel of the amount of movement with the Star Adventurer for manual alignment but I notice that this can be done straight from the image taken in APT so should make things easy. Barbulo: Yes loads of galaxies. I use Gimp and found how to use the masks tool to deepen the background. I still seem to get vignetting even after applying 30 or so light frame. I think I need to retake them the morning after each session. I hope I get some good skies like the other day soon. Many thanks Andy

HI, I'm getting some success with astrophotography but one this that I seem to take a lot of time over is centring the target. I use a laptop next to my telescope. WO ZS61/flattener with Star Adventurer and 600D and 180mm guide scope. I use APT for the taking the images. I plate solve using All Sky Plate Solver but the other night's target was the Virgo Cluster and the solved plate had some many galaxies I was confused as to what I was looking at exactly. So is there a plate solver that can sent coordinates automatically to Stellarium (or similar) so I can zoom out I see the whole picture? In the morning I manually put the coordinates into Stellarium using the script tool but I don't want to be doing this in the cold. I have tried Platesolver2 through APT and stand alone, but it failed to solve even after giving the approx coordinates. As in the image below, I was hoping to get Markarian's Chain, I got some of it but not all. Overall I'm happy with the image (except the new dust bunnies). 98 X 60secs 15 darks at ISO800, some old flats and bias. I think the dust has appeared after the flats were taken. Unfortunately I've taken the rig down so I can't reproduce the correct orientation for the flats. Next time however... Regards Andy

I second ddm4313. The flip screen is a real back/knee saver. I chose the 600D above some of the other cheaper s/h ones because of this.

From my limited experience, the "Marks in the optical chain" look just like the dust on the sensor I had a week or two back. A sensor cleaning kit fixed it. They did not show on individual subs but accumulate in stacking. Cheers Andy

Many thanks for the info. Now I feel a need to use dithering. Great hobby! Andy

Hi Vlaiv, Reading you response I think understand the noise better as in your point that the noise accumulated slower than the signal. Also I've had a eureka moment. If I'm right (ignoring noise) the image will be LP + target so the difficulty with high light pollution is finding the right discrimination level (ie the black level) between the LP and target without losing the fainter parts of the target. Andy

Hi, I'm new to all this and have even more questions. I tried some guiding the other night now that an adaptor arrived for the ASI 120MM + Sky Watcher 5x90. It ran well once I have found a bright enough star for the guider, in fact I got a 300 second sub with a tiny amount of trailing but I think some this could declination or PA error. Ok my question is: What is the purpose for the connection between APT and PHD2. I have a Star Adventurer so no Dec guiding. Many thanks Andy

Hi, Thanks for the previous advice given. I'm starting to get to understand more, but I have another question because I'm not sure if my challenges are caused by my in/ability or whether the subs are just not good enough. If I have light pollution and possibly moon light, how can more subs make images better. My thinking is if background is as light or lighter than the nebulosity how can it be distinguished when processing. Longer/more subs will increase the pollution as much as the target. I'm considering this after stacking. Many thanks Andy.

Clarkey: I have only tried GIMP so I can't compare. But it's like any other tool you have to read and try. I have found it very usable so far but some of the PS Youtube videos I've seen make PS easier to use. But then I've not looked for those features on GIMP. Cobberwebb: Nice picture. You seem to have smoother detail than me, but that could be the awful light pollution in my area. I'm finding it difficult to separate back ground noise/pollution from the nebulosity. What's the Bortle number for where you took this, it's supposedly 5 in my area but 6 is more likely given the number of street lights in the area and Newbury is to the South. Can't wait for the lockdown to be lifted so I can go to better site. I use darks because I bought a second hand Canon 600D and it has some hot pixels. The darks remove them completely. I don' have any modern kit lenses for the Canon but the WO ZS61 meets my expectations.

Hi Alan, By crushed I assume you mean it's too dark. I've learned a lot from tutorials today. I'll have another go so I can remember the methods. Cheers Andy

This is good. I means it is very likely to be the t-ring and not the telescope/flattener. So I've processed M42 as well as I can with my experience: Overall I'm impressed. I think with more subs it would be less grainy. Cheers Andy

Many thanks for the info. I've re-set it using your calcs and checked it with a digital calliper (14.53mm) so I'll use it like this and try +/- a couple of mm to see what's best. I managed 25 subs (5 darks at ISO800) last night and after stacking in Sequator and a quick stretch using Gimp I got: There are a few positional issues; a few twigs from my neighbours hedge causing diffraction, and light pollution from the town due south but much better. I think it's over exposed and there are tracking issues and the dark frames haven't got rid of all of the hot pixels. At least I don't get the chromatic aberration from the vintage lenses I been using. Many thanks Andy