Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Zodiacal_Light

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zodiacal_Light

  1. The way I understand it is that to get the same image quality with shorter subs compared to longer subs, you need a longer total integration time with the shorter subs. So you can't really compare 120x1min subs with 4x30min subs. The total integration time for the 1min subs would have to be much longer to match the total integration time of the 30min subs.
  2. How long ago did you have this problem regarding the incorrect puck size? Should it be fixed by now? This would indicate a problem with the dovetail and not the puck, wouldn't it?
  3. Do you mean that the puck provided by ADM is too large? Do you have the newer or older style puck?
  4. Yeah, I'm considering getting some Parallax rings later on. My main problem now is that the current dovetail only supports the middle part of the scope, so the tube flexes. A longer dovetail should support the majority of the tube.
  5. Thanks. Another thing I'm wondering about, what's the total weight of your setup like?
  6. Which scope are you using them with? I checked and my puck is the newer style.
  7. I'm thinking of getting one of these for my SkyWatcher EQ6 Pro mount: http://www.admaccess...ual_Saddles.htm It would replace the stock Vixen saddle. For the bar I was thinking of getting one of these: http://www.admaccess...s_Universal.htm (31") My current scope is a Orion XT10i reflector, but due to the thin Vixen bar it's wobbling quite badly when touched. I'm imaging using this scope and notice quite a bit of flexure on 5min subs. Would this replacement cure this and provide a more stable platform or am I just wasting my money?
  8. The theory about the mirror clips could be correct, but I have no way to rotate the mirror cell. It only fits in one way. I could do a test by removing the clips, but I'm too afraid of the mirror dropping out accidentally.
  9. Ok, thanks for the info. I was just worrying that it was due to a problem with my primary mirror or something. You can only really see it on very bright stars, so it's not that big of a problem.
  10. So you're saying that a double set of spikes is normal? If for example there were 5 vanes, there would be 10 spikes equally spaced? So now the question is, what's the logic behind the extra set?
  11. The mirror clips seems to cause the dark shades under the dimmer spikes. This is fine, but I still don't understand the extra spikes. I understand that vanes not properly aligned to each other could cause extra spikes, but at such great angles?
  12. Yes, it's a reflector. I know it's caused by the secondary vanes, but why are there another set? I've never seen it look like that on other peoples images.
  13. Hi I'm wondering what might cause two sets of diffraction spikes to appear on a bright star? One is dimmer than the other and rotated 45 degrees relative to the brighter set. Is this normal or are there something wrong with my optics?
  14. I'm using the following equipment: Orion XT10i on SkyWatcher EQ6 Pro Canon 550D Orion Mini Autoguider + PHD Guiding Here my gallery: Flickr: zodiacal_light's Photostream
  15. Wouldn't there be not enough in-focus on a newt to use a OAG?
  16. I've got an Orion XT10i and also seem to be getting flexure from something. The guide scope is an Orion mini 50mm and has no problem keeping the guide star centered. However the main image show oval stars. It could be the focuser, but couldn't it also perhaps be the primary mirror shifting? I've tried pushing on the bottom of the primary mirror and it does indeed lift up a bit. Not the cell but the actual mirror itself is loose.
  17. I also have this camera and I'm very happy with it. Sorry about the memory card, but if you have a laptop you can use the remote shooting functionality to shoot and store photos through the laptop. Here's a few of my astro photos I've taken using the 550D. http://www.flickr.com/photos/54465894@N07/
  18. How good is this lens for astrophotography and what kind of results can I expect? I currently have the 18-55mm kit lens but I need a smaller FOV. I was planning on imaging the witch head nebula region and was wondering if it would be worth it to get this lens.
  19. Thanks for the comment Olly. I've uploaded the images to the forum albums instead.
  20. I've taken this image of M16 last weekend, but only managed to start processing it today. I made two versions of the image, one processed using photoshop and the other pixinsight. For the photoshop version I only used levels, curves, auto color balance, saturation and some unsharp masking. The pixinsight version went through DBE, color calibration, histogram stretch, noise reduction, curves and unsharp masking. I'm not sure which I prefer the most, photoshopped or pixinsighted. Pixinsight is definitely more powerful, but the color seems better in photoshop. Image acquisition details: Mount: EQ
×
×
  • 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.