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_banner_android_vs_ios_winners.thumb.jpg.803608cf7eedd5cfb31eedc3e3f357e9.jpg

the_laughing_crow

Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Excellent

1 Follower

About the_laughing_crow

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oxfordshire
  1. Armed with an IR filter for the first time on an ZWO asi224mc I popped out to get some images of the moon and to my horror realised I had no idea whatsoever how to properly capture the video in mono. Much frantic searching online indicated that all I needed to do was deselect the "debayering" in firecapture. However when I did this I could see the bayer matrix on the final result especially when processed with auttostakkert with the x3 drizzle. The picture here is with x1.5 drizzle and the bayer matrix is still a bit visible in the bright white areas, especially if you zoom in. I am really happy with the image.... but I feel that if the bayer matrix is still visible I'm probably not doing things optimally. So any advice out there on the best way to shoot mono with an asi224mc and firecapture?
  2. What optionsight I have for an SCT reducer compatible focuser?
  3. @Jessun: Moonlites compatibility with a focal reducer on an SCT is wy I'm opting for that manufacturer. What might my other options be and what were the issues you faced? @lightbucket: I think I selected the correct flange in the drop down (3.25" celestron tall large) - price is £244
  4. Ive been considering upgrading the focuser on my 11" celestron SCT, having become well and truely fed up with the mirror slop when imaging. I'd like the option to use my focal reducer - I dont use it much now but can see it becoming more useful in the future if I ever get bored of planetary imaging. So clearly Ive been pricing things up and noticed a very large price differential between FLO and the rother valley optics website [RVO]. Is there a reason for this? Im fairly certain these are the same items yet on FLO it retails at £359 and on RVO at £244 - Im assuming im missing something and would be grateful of people on here could assist! cheers guys, David
  5. OH.... you seem to be right, playing with the gamma got the lines to go away. Thankyou! erm..... where can i learn about this? The phrase "lower than a linear response" is somewhat mystifying to me. Id spent years and years using a SPC900 and wxastrocapture. All the bells and whistles with the new set up are daunting!
  6. Hello, Im just wondering if seeing gaps in a histogram is "normal" [see attached image] This was just with the lens cap off and pointing at the ceiling in the living room - not very bright, not very dark Thanks for any info! David
  7. No Barlow, figured I'd leave that for another day. So much to relearn I thought I'd keep it simple as I thought a Barlow may be pushing it mag wise
  8. Equipment: C11, asi224mc First time back at planetary imaging in a long long time. Last time it was a heritage 130p and a Phillips webcam which got me some great Jupiters, now Ive upgraded my equipment and Im back in the saddle. I seem to be having some learning difficulties getting used to the new equipment as I wouldn't classify the image below as brilliant.... still not terrible for the first attempt in a long time. The asi224mc has SO many options to twiddle with during capture, not like the old webcam... its a bit daunting! I've also managed to forget almost everything I knew about aligning/stacking and processing I've noticed my focus seems to be soft despite using a focussing mask, I do need to shoot mars over housing so Im wondering if heat from the roofs is screwing with me... [exact same thing for venus]. Or is it also that Mars is just difficult right now [low and small]. This was taken tonight [20/01/17] from Oxfordshire. Anyway any help or tips or links to tutorials or interesting threads on capture and processing are very much appreciated!
  9. Thanks Neil, Using this adapter, I would insert it into the 3.25" click lock, then screw on focal reducer, then...... I'd then need another 2" click lock to insert the diagonal/camera into. So two click locks, instead of one. I just don't see what the 3.25" clicklock brings to the party except for limitations.
  10. Thanks for the responses! I don't think this affects aperture at all. Both versions of the baader clicklock have at one end an opening of 2" in diameter where the 2" diagonal will go. At the other end one clicklock is 2" and the other is 3.25". So regardless they both limit aperture to 2". I've borrowed a non 3.25" click lock to check the system works and it does: With reducer and diagonal: The disk at the top of the first image is the standard adapter that ships with the scope. Essentially the 3.25" clicklock seems to be a 2" clicklock combined with the baader version of that adapter in a single unit. The drawback being that the 3.25" clicklock has no threads. So if I to want to use a focal reducer with a click lock these are my options: 1. Telescope>adapter>focal reducer>2" clicklock>diagonal/camera 2. Telescope>3.25" clicklock: No threads!!! So have to remove 3.25" clicklock replace original adapter, screw on focal reducer screw on a 2" click lock (!!!!), the insert diagonal/camera
  11. Yeah but the one for the 8"/9.25" will fit onto an 11" SCT. 11" SCTs have a stock back on them which is 2" across... eg this is what you screw the standard focal reducer onto. The one specifically for the 11" requires removing this stock back. That means you no longer have threads to screw a focal reducer onto. That means using a focal reducer requires removal of the 3.25", replacing the stock back, screwing on focal reducer and then screwing on something else other than the 3.25" click lock - which is incompatible with a focal reducer. The smaller click lock which does fit onto an 11" SCT is however compatible with the focal reducer. You screw on the focal reducer first, then the click lock.
  12. Having thought about it I'm feeling fairly confident that the best option is actually the standard 2" click lock as it avoids having to change the visual back to use the focal reducer. I actually cant see any advantages of the 3.25" click lock, only disadvantages. Anyone out there using these on an 11" SCT?
  13. Hi I've got a 11" celestron and have decided to get a 2" baader click lock. It seems I have two options: the standard 2" baader click lock which would screw onto my existing visual back: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/baader-click-lock-2-for-celestron-meade-sct.html OR the click lock which would replace my existing visual back: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/baader-planetarium-2-clicklock-adapter-for-large-325-sct-thread.html So as I see it the first option which screws onto the existing visual back has the benefit that if I want to use my focal reducer I just unscrew the click lock and screw on the focal reducer. The second option which replaces the visual back would mean id have to unscrew the click lock, put on the old visual back and then screw on the focal reducer. So one more step. Any one have any thoughts?
  14. Just to update on this: had the scope out last night and all auto alignment, tracking etc seems to be fine
  15. Yeah I was using the celestron + 7 key to fire it into boot loader mode and had seen the little connection wizard window. Googling has shown a lot of people complaining about the flakey CFM software
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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