Jump to content


Pitch Black Skies

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pitch Black Skies

  1. I set the gain to unity and left WB (B) and WB (R) at 50, there doesn't seem to be an automatic setting for them. Not sure if that was correct or not. I never checked the histogram. I adjusted the exposure until it looked bright on my screen. If I reduced the exposure time, would that have given me more FPS? Anyway this is what I managed It's okay, not overly impressed with it. It's a mosaic. I might try my main cam next as a comparison. That can fit the whole disc in it's FOV. I will try a longer video and stack a small percentage.
  2. Hi guys, I've decided to try some lunar photography with my guide cam (ASI224MC) and Asiair Pro. I'm confused about what values I should set the video settings at in the Asiair. Can someone help? I'm using a 130P-DS
  3. Thanks mate, I'm familiar with the process but I am asking Mr Spock as just wondering how he does it with the laser.
  4. For extra peace of mind and security. Post what you think you would like to buy in this thread for feedback. Equipment is generally well looked after but as with buying anything online you need to have your wits about you. Not so long ago, a chap was scammed here on SGL but it was dealt with very well.
  5. Hi Laurance, I've had two lasers, the cats absolutely love them. One of them literally tried to run up my wall after the dot one night, the other stated doing a moonwalk across the kitchen floor trying to get the dot between her hind paws. The thing with lasers is that they can't tell if the secondary is rotated correctly. Well that and all the other things such as they need to be sat squarely in the focuser, need collimating themselves, etc. I recommend a Rigel Aline Collimation Cap and a premium Cheshire sightube. Be sure to check out and maybe follow this thread also for 130P-DS owners. Best of luck
  6. Oh right, that's interesting. I was considering upgrading my HEQ5 with the Rowan belt mod but not sure if it really needs it. Just make sure you remove any backlash before your test for an accurate comparison. If it's fine without it, you could sell it on. A handy £100 or so
  7. Congratulations on acquiring an EQ6. I'd say if you're guiding and have carefully removed any backlash, the difference would be negligible. However, it will be much quieter once upgraded and you won't have to worry about backlash/slack in that area of the mount for quite some time. I'd say do it.
  8. I think it will only be a concern if you want very large prints of your images. As you probably already know the general recommendation for printing is 300ppi (pixels per inch). I can print 12"×12" which is about 250ppi and the image still looks quite resolved up close. It might be worth sending FLO a quick email asking them which one they would recommend. There are very helpful.
  9. Great picture and with zero calibration frames, simply amazing.
  10. I think non-cooled astro cams are only intended for planetary imaging. Cooled varieties for long exposures. Although you can try a technique called 'Lucky Imaging'. A Canon 800D and an intervalometer worked great for me. Just set it up and let it do it's thing while you head back indoors to the cosy warmth. Head back out when the sequence is finished, end of. Here is an example of M31 with mine. Edit: I'd like to introduce you to this thread too BTW, it's for 130P-DS owners. Plenty of info there to see what others are using.
  11. What thread are you referring to? I'd like to have a look.
  12. Apart from the sensor size and shape. I think the next main difference is that the 533 has zero amp glow, although that could be easily calibrated out with darks on the 294. Here is an example of 2 hours work from my 533. I didn't use any darks, flats, dark flats etc. I think you will be pleased with either camera. It's personal preference really. Best of luck.
  13. M42 from a couple of nights ago. This time with a UV/IR cut filter.
  14. Taken last night, 5th January 2022 180×60s lights No calibration frames Processed in Startools HEQ5, ASI533MC, 130P-DS, ZWO UV/IR cut filter, Skywatcher Aplanatic coma corrector M42 (Orion Nebula)
  15. M51 (Whirlpool Galaxy) Its spiral arms were first discovered in 1845 by astronomer William Parsons, 3rd Earl of Rosse. Lord Rosse used his Leviathan telescope which still resides today at Birr Castle, Co. Offaly, Republic of Ireland.
  16. I don't think your mount is tracking at all. Check the tracking rate in the handsets menu's. Sidereal should be highlighted.
  17. In that case, my answer is yes. A baffle that just covers the mirrors edge with the clips removed would be the ideal solution. That would completely prevent the mirror from being stopped down.
  18. @rotatux "I already understand the enough repeated principle of the primary baffle." Are you sure? You intend to mask just the clips with half circles of cardboard... That will still leave the bevelled edges exposed and then you would have 3 new shadows, of 3 semi circle cardboard masks... Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is you are trying to describe. A quick sketch/diagram might help to explain what you want to do better. I can't see how masking just the clips is going to help in anyway.
  19. The thickness of the baffle doesn't really matter, it's more about the size of it's inner diameter. With the clips removed, you could manufacturer a baffle to just cover the bevel on the mirror edge but I'm not sure how you're going to fix it in place. I wouldn't worry too much about the aperture being stopped down. A few of us here use the baffle specifically designed for the 130pds and see no significant difference in light gathering. Alternatively, you could just decide to not use a baffle and go with the silicone method only. It will only become obvious that you aren't using the aperture mask if there is really bright stars in your pictures. You will see slight diffraction spikes and halo's but you will have to go looking for them, and even then, they will look okay.
  20. Hi mate, That wouldn't work. The idea of the primary baffle is not really to mask the clips but rather the area between them, along with the clips. Check out this post, it explains it well. Now you could make your own primary baffle and fit it but for the sake of a few £, you can get a robust one specifically made for it. Truth be told, it only pushes the focal ratio from F5 to F5.3ish. As alacant has mentioned, you could try the silicone method which might negate the need for a baffle altogether, depending on how the mirrors edge behaves.
  21. Absolutely, I really like the idea of the silicone method though. Not only does it prevent lateral movement from the mirror and might eliminate the need for buying a baffle, but it also leaves the focal ratio intact and maximises light gathering.
  • 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.