celestron8g8

But where's the advantage with CC ?  Once downloaded on your computer then say 6 months down the road you decide you no longer want to be a member of the Cloud , what then ? Does what you downloaded still work to full capacity or does it stop working within a certain time or does it self un-install  ?? Is it still useable forever if you never join the Cloud again ??  If at some point it's not useable then all that money you spent is down the drain with non working software .  But if you own the actual software it still works to full capacity . Only disadvantage is it's no longer supported for updates . I can live with that cause all my software still works to full capacity AND I have a CD with the software to install on my computers all I want any time No need to continue to register cause once registered that's permanent .  So all I have to do is do a print out for mail in and just file it away .  

When you find what your looking for just make sure it doesn’t have Creative Cloud attached to it . If it says CLOUD in anyway it will be in the Cloud . Right now as i mentioned PSE and Premier are the only ones Adobe has available that’s not in the Cloud . LIGHT ROOM just went into the Cloud either last year or year before . Just a month before i was going to buy it . When you register it will ask if you want to join and all you need to do is decline the Cloud . Actually you can register online if you want to but if you don't want to register it it should give you options to print and mail registration. I did that long ago with PS7 and i just filed it and never mailed it in . 
 

Heres another place to find software : 

https://www.newegg.com/?nm_mc=knc-msnsearch-Mobile&cm_mmc=knc-msnsearch-Mobile-_-Branding-_-Main-_-Newegg&msclkid=56e4d46363691117c42389a288e90140&gclid=CI6BgOCD1OUCFcHJDQod42cJxQ&gclsrc=ds

1 hour ago, George Gearless said:

Thankyou all for the many very helpful advice.

I was/am not blind to other programs such as Gimp and a few others whos names escape me at the moment.

I had however not heard of Astroart. I will definately be looking into that.

The reason I was so set on Photoshop was purely because it seems to be the common denominator when photos are presented. They may have been stacked, or otherwise treated in other programs. But quite often the final tweeks are supposedly made in PS.

Anyway, I have a lot of food for thought and a lot of links to browse through. Thanks all.

I never said but I actually have CS5 , PSE 10 and Premier 10 . I use to use Premier a lot but I've slacked off video editing but both PSE and Premier I got as a package deal cause it was cheaper . But even then if you use all tools properly there are many many techniques to do in PS . One of the things I like about CS5 is you can use one of the tools (can't remember cause i'm at work ) but you can make objects in an image disappear easily like removing a telephone pole or street light or some small object that's annoying to your image . A lot like cloning . I like PS CS5 cause I have many editing softwares that I use that I can send directly to PS like Photomatix for example . Another I use is Topaz Software and most all of them work as a plugin to PS CS5 however Topaz has got into the iCloud stuff so they don't have as many products as use to which I think was a mistake cause I no longer deal with them for upgrades or new products . One thing I do not like is dealing with the iCloud softwares but most all software developers have gone to the Cloud so I only  work with software I have already purchased before the Cloud .  Adobe was the first I believe that started the Cloud and that's when I stopped using Adobe . Great products but I refuse to pay monthly or yearly subscriptions for product that should rightfully be mine . PS CS5 has a stacking tool but many prefer not to use it cause it is a bit difficult to get use to . But as mentioned plenty of other good software . 

Sharpest images I have ever  been able to take was with camrera body and my AT1010 Stellarvue 80mm refractor . I've never got as sharp an image with my C8 or 5" Newt.  . I've never got a sharp image with camera and lens . 

You can still buy PS Elements separate as well as Premier separate or you can buy them in a combo . Everything else Adobe makes is in the Cloud with monthly fees . PSE 2020 can do just about all what PS full version does . You should be able to buy it from Adobe or on Amazon or one of your local software stores . 
 

https://www.adobe.com/products/elements-family.html?promoid=V2XYKZ3B&mv=other

52 minutes ago, Rodd said:

By the way--I gave it a bit of a stretch.  I think I was being too conservative.  It still needs several hours of data--but I see some promise now.  In the end--its not teh camera--its the photagrapher.  As far as quality goes--FOV and pixel size are camera.  Hosey is a bit dark--just a quicky to see how teh data is.  Also--i will definitely take a cloer look at teh subs--I havent even looked at them yet!  I am sure there are some nastis in there.

 

 

I wish i could see that in RGB ! 

1 hour ago, deanok said:

Hi all, does anyone have any experience of converting a c8 to hyperstar ? Where to get kit etc ..... I have a c8 sat in observatory under bench doing nothing and it may be a nice project ......

Here some info and what to use  :  https://starizona.com/hyperstar/   

Also there are videos on YouTube for other explainations  :  

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

That's the myth--they do not reduce exposure time for individual targets in the FOV--like galaxies.  You must apply what I am saying correctly--read above--I am NOT talking about the whole FOV.

I would like to see you argue with manufactures of Focal Reducers and convince them otherwise cause all brands of FRs’ claim exactly what i copied/pasted above then gave a link to the quote . So just to let you know i wont argue with you but i usually go by manufactures description of their product . I know what your trying to say relating to resolution but resolution will be determined by the camera you use and the size of it’s sensor . I understand the more pixels the bigger the resolution where you cannot increase the image size without degrading it as where you can reduce an image without degrading it . What I don’t understand is why your so concerned with that theory over a FR ?? Especially if your not using one  .  What you should have done is reduce the larger image to the same size as the smaller image then do your comparison . 

51 minutes ago, Paz said:

It can also get expensive if you are careful! 😮

Your are right for sure , especially if you have a big pocket book   ! 

So basically your just going by a theory and not actual facts  . Sorry my bad for not understanding so i'll just bow out of the conversation . But I would like to mention a Focal Reducer is actually for this purpose and nothing else  : 

"QUOTE"   Focal reducers are primarily used in astrophotography to compress the light cone exiting the telescope down to a size closer to that of the sensor within your camera. This also results in a brighter image which reduces the exposure time. Focal reducers also reduce field curvature, providing the flat field necessary for astrophotography. "QUOTE" 

https://www.skiesunlimited.com/astro-imaging-accessories/focal-reducers/

To get a better comparison you need to take an image with the same scope  .  When you change scopes  your only changing the FL in the scope with the Focal Reducer attached  .  When I compare your images tho the f3 is slightly brighter than the f7 but since the f3 is smaller it's hard to compare detail properly . The only reason for a FR is to increase the speed of the exposure time and make the image brighter . Trade off is a smaller image due to a wider FOV but FRs' also can produce coma at the edge of FOV of the image . 

2 minutes ago, Mick H said:

Thanks celestron8g8, 32mm with Barlow instead of 15mm then its best of both worlds.

When you buy extra EPs' take into consideration the FOV degs . The 32mm Plossi I have is an older model and only gives me approx. 49 degs of AFOV  . Celestron  sells some that are now 60 and someat a higher cost but has 82 degs AFOV . If you can swing it buy as expensive as you can comfortably afford . Doesn't have to be Celestrons , Telvue sell some very nice EPs' but expensive .  SO if your just getting into astronomy viewing buy wisely until you have got  use to your equipment and how it works best for you . Remember it can get expensive if your not careful . 

If your not doing AP there really is no reason to have it . Main purpose of a Focal Reducer is to make imaging faster by changing your scope from  F/10 to  F/6.3 . this shortens the exposure time in AP . In return tho the trade off is it reduces the object size also . I have tried viewing with mine way back but I prefer not to use it for anything except AP which I haven't done in several  years now cause I've retired from any AP . If your just wanting to view I would suggest a 32mm Plossi or maybe a 40mm Plossi for wide field viewing . I have a 25mm also that came with my C8 I bought back in 97' and it actually is my best  EP for viewing planets and the moon which I used often with a 2x barlow . If you want to go higher viewing and not use a barlow then you might consider a 10mm or around 7.5mm without a barlow .  just remember tho if you go higher power than what your scope recommends the viewing can start degrading and give bad viewing . Besides also when using very high power your actually looking past most objects in the sky , that's why I recommend lower power like the 32mm which you can use with your barlow which in turn makes it a 16mm EP so just remember when using a barlow it doubles your EP from whatever size it is . 

49 minutes ago, Louis D said:

Unless that glass is increasing the magnification, and assuming that glass is properly multicoated, the light lost to additional glass elements in the path is minimal and below the threshold of human perception.  In fact, if that added glass is a focal reducer, it actually increases the amount of light on a per area basis.

Sorry but i disagree . Even with cameras and lens when you add a teleconverter be it 1.4x or 2x  it doubles your f/stop which limits incoming light . Scopes with EPs and barlows are really nothing more than a big lens and principles  works same for both . Disagree if you wish but I’m through  discussing this topic cause it seems it’s going nowhere on agreements . Have a nice day .

14 hours ago, Merlin66 said:

RonL,

He states but doesn’t explain.

As mentioned above the FOV brightness will diminish due to the higher magnifcation being achieved - for the same eyepiece used without the barlow.

You would see the same effect using an eyepiece with half the focal length without the Barlow.

 

When you add a barlow yes light incoming is reduced . Also since you are doubling your EP power  for example if using a 20mm EP with a 2x barlow as you know you are viewing the same as if you were using a 10mm EP without a 2x barlow . That only makes since . Any time you  add more glass  to your line of viewing it will reduce incoming light .  When referring to FOV  it all depends on the FOV of the EP , but when you add a 2x barlow you are doubling all calculations . Maybe this link can explain to you what i'm saying .  Read all the way down to the "Exit Pupil" topic and he shows the calculations . SInce I don't ever really worry about these calculations I don't remember  everything all the time but these explainations usually are in most Owners Manuals , or least I know they are in my OM for my Celestron 8" SCT I've had since I bought my scope . Some times I wonder why the original question from the OP is even that much of a concern unless a person is a teacher at a school for astronomy or science explaining how optics work or is just curious and asking questions ? But reguardless here's the link :   https://www.chuckhawks.com/telescope_formulas.htm

IMPO , a true APO  wins over your two scopes . However if funds are there the bigger the better if you could afford it . True APOs’ can take high power much better than any achro can and probably the mak too without degrade . However with true APOs’ to get the best view you need good EPs’ Televues for example . However the best you can afford is your choices . Example in the USA  , Stellarvue make their own EPs’ to help match up their scopes . They can give great views . Also a factor is if you image an APO can give you excellent images and colors . Good luck on your choice of scopes tho ! 

On 09/10/2019 at 23:10, Merlin66 said:

RonL,

Not sure where the "" However all barlows reduce light by 75% "" comes from.

I could measure the actual transmission with the spectrograph, but I'm sure with today's coatings it's much better than 75%

 

This review explains :  https://www.chuckhawks.com/celestron_ultima_barlow.htm

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Sure. The advantage of the OAG is that it allows for mirror movement in the SCT. This is usually called 'mirror flop' but the term is an exaggeration. It does't flop, it may just move a bit. I would use an OAG with any reflector for this reason alone.

Olly

This is true with older SCTs' about mirror flop but if the OTA is a recent build in the last yr or so I believe Celestron has improved MF with their new SCTs' .  Can't remember exactly where but I was just reading few days ago how Celestron improved the focuser  to virtually eliminate MF . Now how correct this info was I can't prove it since I can't find my history where I read this . It maybe somewhere on Celestrons main website . But if his scope is new this should be something the OP doesn't really have to worry about now . 

19 hours ago, msacco said:

Hi guys! I've imaged M42 recently and would like to get some help with processing it, as I don't really manage to get anything 'more' out of it.

These are 2 images I've got from it:

 

I just feel like there's much more that can be done with it, but whatever I'm trying I just seem to ruin it.

Here is the stacked image(uploaded in xisf/tiff/fits format):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16Eb0BI_F0AaVdh0cZieYmQIbuX_Me0MU/view

Unfortunately I imaged it without the camera cooling as I'm currently having issues with that, and I didn't had the chance to take flats, so there is some dust on the camera sensor as shown in the pictures.

I've tried working with pixinsight, but I'm not sure where else to go with this and would love to get some advices 

About the equipment I've used:
Skywatcher 200p(f/5) with EQ5 and ZWO ASI071MC pro(without cooling). Thanks for the help!

IMPO you should stick with the second image . Your first image you over clipped the BP  according to the histogram . I messed with it in PS and only could see a slight difference or improvement depending on taste using curves but only to the slightest amount that really doesn't make since to change .  The only improvement could be in the trap section and you can do that but taking shorter exposures to expose the center stars better then doing a copy/paste by selection then feathering 1 or 2 pixels then copy and paste into this second image .  other than that is multiple short exposures stacked with your other exposures then editing to your likeness . 

On ‎29‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 07:59, Neiman said:

Hiya, I have a Celestron Advanced VX 9.25 scope and I’ve been looking to get a guidescope with camera and n imaging CMOS Camera. 

My question is do I need the guide scope ? Will it make things much easier, is it essential or advised ?

 

cheers

Neil

I agree with using a guide scope if possible . Celestron sells a Guide Scope package for $99.00 USD that is perfect for the 9.25 .  

https://www.celestron.com/products/80-mm-guidescope-package

The OAG for that will run you $259.00 USD which is 2-1/2 times price of guider scope . 

https://www.celestron.com/products/off-axis-guider

Watch this video on YouTube , this guy uses a the celestron guide scope with his 9.25 . It's just informational for how he uses the guide scope with a mono camera .  (This is not me myself , just a YT video ) 

1 hour ago, Louis D said:

Remember, coma does not decrease with increasing power.  As long as the AFOV remains the same, coma at the edge will remain the same apparent size.  Coma increases linearly center to edge, so it is more noticeable in ultrawide field eyepieces.  Going to a shorter focal length will double the magnification at the edge, bringing the apparent size of the coma right back to where it was at the lower power's edge of field.

That said, I have noticed that eyepieces with built in Smyth lenses (a matched Barlow in essence) tend to decrease the visible coma.  For instance, I see no difference in visible coma with my 10mm Delos in an f/6 Newt with or without my GSO coma corrector (that is to say, none is visible either way).  The difference with and without is quite noticeable in my 9mm Kellner, which has no Smyth component, despite its much narrower AFOV.

No problem.  I've never heard of parfocalness having any effect good or bad with respect to barlows.  Conjecturing here, it might reduce pushing the eye relief outward, and as a result, not introduce any added SAEP.

I did not know that the Celestron Ultima Barlow (the Japanese made shorty, I presume) was parfocal with the Ultima eyepieces.  You're saying that little to no refocusing is necessary when adding that Barlow to the optical chain?  That would be very useful for refractors in particular.

Here’s a very nice review on the Ultima 2x barlow . It explains the Parfocal system not only with Ultima EPs’ but several other popular EPs’ . 
 

https://www.chuckhawks.com/celestron_ultima_barlow.htm

here’s Chucks other reviews on all kinds of astro equip :  https://www.chuckhawks.com/index1.photography.htm

Back about 15 yrs ago i bought a Celestron auto/focuser for my 8” SCT . I’ve never removed it cause as you mention at high power it’s critical on focus and when using my DSLR for imaging it was critical when looking through the view finder to focus . It’s saved alot of headaches for me ! I’ve not seen the newer versions but i know they work the same . 

3 hours ago, Louis D said:

Not a clue what you mean by a barlow being parabolic with same brand EPs.  Do you mean parfocal?  Mirrors can be parabolic, but I've never heard of a parabolic barlow or eyepiece.  Parabolic describes a curve, not a relationship between two optical items.

 

Oh sorry , parfocal is what i meant . Meaning that very little if any refocus is needed when changing different EPs’ with the same barlow . My bad  

Just wondering if that difference is noticed with a barlow that is parfocal with same brand EPs’ ?? For example i have a set of Celestron Ultimas in 18mm , 10mm and 7.5mm . My barlow is also the Ultima and is parfocal with the EPs’ .  Wouldn’t it effect the FOV rather than the eye pupil exit ? However all barlows reduce light by 75% . But in reducing FOV will help remove or reduce coma at the edges of the FOV . 

Excellent capture !!