Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_3.thumb.jpg.30e9b298c34c80517e8b443ce153fce3.jpg

saiph

Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About saiph

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Astronomy, Astrophotography, Spectroscopy, ATM
  • Location
    Krakow, Poland

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    mihai_2r05
  • Skype
    mihai_2r05

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. aaaand, of course, people got it all wrong because someone was too lazy to read what i posted and now everyone thinks i'm the bad guy nice... believe it or not, i DID say i appreciate all the help i received; when i said i'm grateful form the bottom of my heart i really meant it, i i was referring to what Zakalwe and others had posted - and again, i thank them for their well intended advice. but, hey - i'm the bad guy.. because i stood up for myself (?) in a conversation that could have otherwise been private - it didn't bring anything new or useful to the topic.
  2. it was about using software to estimate PA, not PE i already mentioned i use pecprep to deal with the PE data collected by Metaguide. so, what are we talking about here.... but, anyway, i'm not putting any barrier up against a good advice. and i'd appreciate if i didn't see my words twisted around, thank you
  3. ok, i know it may sound dumb to you, and you may laugh all you want, but i didn't really start doing this yesterday. i may have "some" idea about the difference between drift caused by improper PA and crappy PEC, alright? not everyone who's not using the latest fancy high-tech methods is a looser, you know? in fact, some of the senior imagers will confirm you that people were doing drift alignment long before the dawn of "pole master", and guess what - no one complained. so, how about you choose a less condescending tone, and let me judge if all two pages so far have been helpful or not
  4. I'm not using a camera and software to estimate PA
  5. RA drift larger than with no PEC, and larger than an unPECed/unguided EQ5, due to 3 arcmin PA deviation? Are you sure?
  6. No, no, sorry - my mistake: I meant 3 arcmin sticky Shift key.. Edited the text a minute later. I don't get it down to arcseconds even if I cast a spell over it I'm using only a polar finder and my own eyes to estimate deviation.
  7. Ouch.. that left a mark on my cheek
  8. There was extremely little if any Dec drift noticeable after more than two worm turns, and after doing PA check, after the ASPA routine, it showed something like 3' deviation.
  9. Hehe well, not exactly complaining, but I appreciate your input. All of you, guys. Don't get me wrong on that. I really do. I asked Celestron about it, and their reply couldn't be more late or incomplete. Still waiting for the enlightening answer to arrive. About that MGEN guider, though... oh boy.. " a bit" over budget, let's say...
  10. Thanks Yes, so I did. But no one replied. That is part of the reason I am so confused and slightly upset. Where is everybody..? That is what I thought too, about the max exp time, but after seeing the PE graph, math shows us that 2-3 min will definitely exceed the acceptable deviation at my imaging scale, with a ~ +/-25" of error. No way in heaven that will produce anywhere near round stars. Just for the record, two nights ago my PA was dead-on: all the stars I slewed to stopped straight into the tiny square of the reticle in my eyepiece. I guess that means it was pretty damn go
  11. That is good news, with the PHD. The rest is kind of killing the mood Well, yes, I tried to get some images, but not longer than the very basic 30s earlier mentioned (on a longer FL, I have to admit); there's that wider field Dumbbell nebula with the C80 reduced - only there I used 60s subs, but in either case, no PEC involved, since none of my trials produced the desired effect. I think I may have a basic idea of what you're talking about, and I must agree, I saw some decent shots with insufficient or too aggressive post-proc involved in the final pic. Personally, I try to take
  12. People, people. come on.. really? I know it's not a "cure-all" method and I never claimed it to be, of making the mount long exposure friendly - by which, btw, i didn't mean ONLY 30s (I was giving it as an example of what it could be, just as the other exposure times were an example - 60s, 120s, 240s - which, as I mentioned, are much closer to what I'm aiming at. not 30s.. seriously..?) But, on the other hand, I don't see myself spending big K of money, on super high-end mounts, just to enjoy taking some 2-3min pictures, come on.. you realize too this is plain ridiculous, rig
  13. it's the one in the signature - C80ED. And it's also reduced by a 0.8x FF/FR
  14. yes, that is exactly what stands behind "image scale" - as in arcsec/pixel (given by focal and sensor size)
  15. Now, that I come to think about it, you might actually be right lol.. It's the payload I have to carry with me every time I go out that keeps me away from guiding. And the fact that I don't have a solution for keeping my laptop powered up for long enough. Maybe with a more portable solution, such as a stand-alone guider, things would look differently.. I can't tell until I try it
×
×
  • 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.