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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

saiph

New 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
  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. i was hoping for a little different approach, really. especially after seeing the earlier topics (few years ago) about the matter i brought to your attention, where people confirmed that they had succeeded. and btw, i don't remember who said it earlier, but if you do the math, you don't get 2-3 min of unguided and unPEC-ed exposure at this image scale simply by perfect 0.00" PA, not even if you stand in your hands at least not without any clearly visible star trails. anyway, i respect the point of view people expressed so far, even though i cannot agree 100% with them. and thanking you for your kind words, i wish you all "clear skies", gentlemen!
  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 (some people really had some good advice - unlike others - and i am truly grateful for their feedback, from the bottom of my heart). fyi, just because i don't afford super modern gear, or have two hundred thousand posts around, doesn't automatically make me your Piñata. so, unless you have some really valuable on-topic things to say, i will choose to ignore your further input. thank you very much. ok, let's get back to our topic, shall we? let's not loose focus here. sorry for that little intermezzo, folks. i just received reply from Celestron, after asking what is the actual format of the PEC data that needs to be uploaded to the controller, and what kind of operation does it do with it (if it's transformed in any way, added, subtracted, multiplied.. there must be some relation to the motor speed) and all i get is more or less a quote from the manual... as if..... great job, Celestron! you know how to keep your clients satisfied
  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 good. And then PEC happened.... ooohh.. it would be funny, if it didn't wreck my nerves.
  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 it easy, although not letting the image suck too much from under-processing. I use DSS for basic frame stacking and also saving an "augmented luminance" layer which I use in post (PS CS5) to bring those fuzzy patches of color out into the light. I use HDR masks, darks flats and biases, but still have to become friends with RAW, as so far I couldn't make too much use of it.
  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, right? That is why I was after a quick solution for a simple (in my mind) problem. And, what's with this "clutch loses PEC" thing? In my understanding, all a clutch release could possibly do, mechanically speaking, is shift the larger period curve caused by the RA shaft bearings with respect to the worm period (which is the one we are trying to reduce, anyhow; there aren't enough PEC data cells to cover a full RA shaft turn); since there is no way one could turn the RA worm, or its bearings, or the gear accidentally during a clutch twist.. am I right? Btw, ever since I collected the PE data I never touched the RA clutch, just to make sure no "wonder" happens; but, after seeing that none of my efforts has no effect whatsoever, I gave up on that caution, and played freely with that knob. The portable solution proposed by Stephen (?) [Zakalwe] seems pretty interesting, provided PHD can work well under Win10 and it will manage to communicate with my cam (which I think I already mentioned it pretty much failed to, so I may have to upgrade that too). So far I'm waiting for the reply of another fellow stargazer who has a Synguider for sale - I just hope he won't "miss" my PM too, as another fellow stargazer did, with another ad, earlier this year... I'm willing to give it a try this way - if it works, it works; if it doesn't, i'll explore more options, but for sure, it won't be a very pleasant endeavor. I am this close to giving up on this wonderful hobby (the photo part, mainly) due to excessive expenses, for my pocket at least. Anyway, if PEC is such a hostile thing to deal with, y.t.h. did Celestron even implement it in the first place, and how on Earth could those people, bragging about their success, make it through?.. It's puzzling me big time, to say the least
  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

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