billhinge

minding its own business, patiently accumulating dust for billions of years so that someday it could grow into a Ceres sized asteroid then some nutter crashes into you!

poor Dimorphos, never hurt anyone 😪

10 minutes ago, Stu said:

Very true! A bit like building a scope shed and still having to wheel your 24” dob 4 miles to the observing site 😜

They need something like the Thunderbird 1 launcher

Had ago, and since there isn't a JWST palette yet I decided to try for detail - NGC 3324 JWST 

The screen resolution on the web looses a lot of detail - pity most will never see the full potential - you have to click and expand to see better!

Best book on PI is http://www.deepskycolors.com/mastering-pixinsight.html , hardcopy sold out but you can buy the pdf

I think PI is great being an IT person 😉, I love their lack of compromise (road to hell etc ...). Its just a collection of tools and there is always more than one combination of tools that will do the job, some ways are better than others but the above books explain the pro's and cons and explain how to move beyond default settings.

Fein are the same with powertools, we don't put anti-vibration technologies on our drills because we design them so that they don't vibrate. They aren't built to a price point either...

2 hours ago, pipnina said:

I'm possibly going to be getting a 130 f6.6 APO triplet soon, but it comes with a 2" focuser. So far, the highest quality corrector I have found seems to need at least a 2.5" focuser (Here) or even a 3.5" (Here). I have an APS-C sensor at current so these would allow me to bring the scope down to a more reasonable f4.95 while also being extremely sharp out to full frame distance, with barely any vignetting across a full frame sensor, let alone my APS-C one. But this also makes me wonder if there are stronger reducing correctors I could use, that would allow me to take the scope even faster for my camera?

The other thing was to do with replacement focusers in general. It seems rack & pinion is very popular, and having googled it, it seems many actually have a strong distain for crayfords, even the mighty diamondtrack not free from criticism from many! Yet R&P would suffer backlash and leave me at risk of having to set backlash compensation settings precisely on my EAF? Are there any particularly good 3" focusers that would fit on the back of such a telescope without mechanical issues?

I come from the land of mirrors as it stands so I am not well read up on refractors, but I have finally had enough of cheap newtonians and the many problems they have that I am unable to solve!

Any help and suggestions welcome : D

You also have to consider the tube side fitting diameter, the focuser size on the tube side and probable adapter that connects the two. If your tube is not one of the 'common brand' sizes it may be difficult to find an off the shelf adapter. So you need an adapter for the focuser you buy, that fits your tube and focuser, they aren't cheap, you may also need to consider backfocus depending if you have any gizmos in your light path eg Riccardi M82 . Its a non trivial consideration so you need to plan things out before buying

I bought an APM 3.7" R&P to replace the 2" Crayford Feathertouch on my TMB 115mm. Due to the diameter of the Krupex tube there were no off the shelf adapters despite contacting APM and Starlight Instruments plus others. They suggested an expensive custom jobbie and wanted me to send the whole scope overseas to be measured! In the end I measured it myself , designed an adapter and 3d printed it. It fits

Nothing wrong with the 2" Feathertouch just that it wasn't easy to attach a M82 Riccardi to. The Feathertouch 3.5" isn't worth 2.5x the price of the APM 3.7" (if you can find one)

Thanks, in case you didn't know, you can roll your own since its free data !

How to below, I gave it a quick try last night but was a bit time limited, big files

https://www.galactic-hunter.com/post/jwst-data

I made a list of potential NGC targets from the downloadable spreadsheet - there are lot more thingies if you want to try other things

NGC-2024
NGC-346
NGC-7469
NGC-2403
NGC-300
NGC-253
NGC-1448
NGC-2992
NGC-3081
NGC-3227
NGC-4388
NGC-5135
NGC-5728
NGC-7172
NGC-1087
NGC-1300
NGC-1365
NGC-1385
NGC-1433
NGC-1512
NGC-1566
NGC-1672
NGC-2835
NGC-3351
NGC-3627
NGC-4254
NGC-4303
NGC-4321
NGC-4535
NGC-5068
NGC-7496
NGC-628
NGC-891
NGC-104
NGC-602
NGC 3324
NGC 3132
NGC 7320
NGC 7469
NGC 6552
NGC 346
NGC 5139
NGC 5728
NGC 5135
NGC 7172
NGC 1365
NGC 7496
NGC 628
NGC 2070
NGC 6822
NGC 104
NGC 6720

Did you try NoiseXTerminator? (on PI)

Just did a quick test with your colour image as I didn't notice anything obvious on the Fits file after running de-noise - I did a DBE as well

6 hours ago, Laurieast said:

Your welcome! All I did was:

 

Maybe it was the way I asked it? Who knows, good luck with it, I like it.

I thought I was stupid but checking my history I had tried it before, last night it was timing out but works now. Must have been unlucky yesterday

54 minutes ago, Laurieast said:

Is this it? 
https://www.starnetastro.com/download/

How did you find that! I spent about 2 hours googling and reading CN threads last night. Thanks I have to integrate it onto a new M1 macbook now, unlike my last macbook it doesn't have cuda support

On 31/01/2022 at 15:04, SyedT said:

Thanks for starting the thread!

For those with 64-bit Windows and NVIDIA GPUs, this webpage takes you through using the GPU for Starnet when using Pixinsight, which massively accelerates the process: https://darkskies.space/pixinsight-starnet-cuda/

Starnet V2 is a huge improvement on V1, both from a star removal and speed perspective. In PI, V1 took 1 min 55 seconds and V2 took just 55 seconds via the GPU-accelerated process described above. It's much better at identifying and removing larger stars and also leaves fewer and less obvious removal artefacts. 

Original:

 

V1:

 

V2:

I was hoping to test starnetv2 against StarXterminator but starnetv2 seems to have disappeared from the internet!  - at least for mac users, the various download sites don't seem to work (yes I read the CN threads)

Anyway I wanted to try against a standard ref so found the above, this is the equivalent StarXterminator and NoiseXterminator with the same source

To me StarXterminator seems slightly better? (I'm thinking of buying, especially as starnetv2 doesn't play nice with Apple M1 whereas StarXterminator has neural engine support on the mac)

I had a go using the competition data for this

I used the full fat AI with maximum processing options but it was still quick

Here are my effort,  if I had entered the competition - you can play with the colours yourself if you don't like mine

I was going to use starnet++ for comparison but it isn't available on the M1 mac because someone decided I shouldn't have it, duh!, however if you can find it on the internet then you can struggle to install  it manually. Unfortunately it is nowhere to be found. I looked but no luck. If they are making it so difficult I can't be bothered

Guess I shall have to volunteer to do a side by side then 😉 I'll try one of those images from the IKO contest

May give it a go tonight

I tried the PS version last night, only gives the one AI version option. Takes about the same time about 20s, so quite quick.

With PI I got two images - galaxies + stars but the PS only seems to give galaxies? Did a good job though!

I'm quite impressed so I may try the noise reduction app as well

Anyone done a comparison with the old starnet (sp?) app in PI?

12 hours ago, billhinge said:

I  hadn't heard of this before so thanks for the heads up, gave it ago, hardly breaks a sweat, am I missing something?

Here are the Lite version and the Full version

StarXTerminator: Processing view: NBRGBCombination_DBE

Writing swap files...

644.561 MiB/s

Lite Version

RC-Astro StarXTerminator version 2.0.1, AI version 11 lite

Tile overlap = 20%

Removing stars: done

Generating stars image

27.068 s

StarXTerminator: Processing view: NBRGBCombination_DBE1

Writing swap files...

655.160 MiB/s

Full Fat Version

RC-Astro StarXTerminator version 2.0.1, AI version 11

Tile overlap = 20%

Removing stars: done

Generating stars image

21.114 s

I used the data here. IKO - M81 & M82 LRGB+Ha - Processing Competition

I didn't put a lot of effort into the test as I just wanted to try it out speed and quality wise.  The Full fat version is faster and better

 

 

Out of the box settings - seems OK to me Full Fat on the RHS

 

 

 

Apple Macbook M1 Max 64GB Ram - it does have a built in neural engine - not sure if this uses that though?

 

 

Just noticed the blurb, it does seem that it uses the M1 Max hardware neural engine which would explain the speed (21 seconds)

GPU/Neural Engine recommended for fast performance, but not required. Not all GPUs are supported. 

16 minutes ago, Explorer42 said:

Indeed it's very easy to take it apart. The mine is old anf has many marks on the edge of  the corrector and on the tube. I guess previous owners have tried several positions 🤔

Now you've seen how easy it is to disassemble and that its only cardboard shims and some screws actually holds the corrector plate in place to the high accuracy of a complex scientific instrument you can decide yourself if orientation matters 🤣

I was being sarcastic in case you didn't catch that. I wouldn't worry too much IMHO, I doubt the Chinese factory did  exhaustive field trials on each scope to get best orientation  🙂

I  hadn't heard of this before so thanks for the heads up, gave it ago, hardly breaks a sweat, am I missing something?

Here are the Lite version and the Full version

StarXTerminator: Processing view: NBRGBCombination_DBE

Writing swap files...

644.561 MiB/s

Lite Version

RC-Astro StarXTerminator version 2.0.1, AI version 11 lite

Tile overlap = 20%

Removing stars: done

Generating stars image

27.068 s

StarXTerminator: Processing view: NBRGBCombination_DBE1

Writing swap files...

655.160 MiB/s

Full Fat Version

RC-Astro StarXTerminator version 2.0.1, AI version 11

Tile overlap = 20%

Removing stars: done

Generating stars image

21.114 s

I used the data here. IKO - M81 & M82 LRGB+Ha - Processing Competition

I didn't put a lot of effort into the test as I just wanted to try it out speed and quality wise.  The Full fat version is faster and better

Out of the box settings - seems OK to me Full Fat on the RHS

Apple Macbook M1 Max 64GB Ram - it does have a built in neural engine - not sure if this uses that though?

Years ago there used to be a lot of holy war discussions on CN about removing the correctors from SCT's.

Some argued that Celestron orientate the corrector to be a specific optimal fit with the primary, you should find some marks on the edge when you unscrew the restraining ring

Others disbelieve this and say there is no best orientation - even if they did lining up some pen marks isn't high accuracy considering how the corrector is held in place

Or you could mark the edge of the corrector and just put it back how you found it - there were no original marks on mine

Take your pick 😉 

Taking it apart (to flock it with protostar or clean it) is easy as using a screw driver, putting it back is the challenge since you have to re-collimate it from scratch

I pay just over £8pm for the latest edition of Photoshop & Lightroom and avoid any faffing around plus I keep getting offers of trials of other Adobe software, to me thats a good deal but each to their own. As the DK say 'Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death'.  I'm on the latest Macbook so the old software probably wouldn't work anyway

Recalling Photoshop v? many years ago it now feels easier to use as well obviously improved

I have the full Acrobat through my business but I wouldn't buy it as an individual, expensive for what it is.

Just add acrobat to your photoshop sub and everyone is happy?

FWIW, I don't pay for Pixinsight since I have the early adopter licence

41 minutes ago, Mandy D said:

I looked at this picture and thought it looked odd, then it dawned on me. Why would anyone have run that ad for a telescope?

Presume to get the 'Safari' logo top right the right way up? Presumably it was marketed at parents buying for their kids. You can imagine the marketing people saying get the logo in the pic

7 hours ago, Macavity said:

Heheh. I'm not really into "debunking" stuff! There are Physics Teachers (and Academics?) here
who are far more up to date - and perhaps deal regularly with general physics questions? But I
thank you for the recommendation! (Better than some of the allegations & speculations? lol) 🥳

P.S. I could warm to Dr. Sabien H: "Conspiracy Theorists are not stupid... Zey are just WRONG! 🤣
 

Certainly not stupid, if you can convince enough of the public to buy your books and merch then you can make a nice living with no qualifications - plus no one can prove you are wrong

In case you are interested the JWST FITS archive is here. https://mast.stsci.edu/portal/Mashup/Clients/Mast/Portal.html. I downloaded some raw FITS files but nothing interesting, looks like you need to stitch and calibrate yourself and they are big. The documentation is megabytes and I don't have the patience to read it to find out which are the internet show stoppers that haven't yet been processed 

You can download as anonymous

Funny enough Nasa didn't get the email from the Pixinsight team ...

** Warning: Deprecated format: FITS

*** Error: PCL Legacy FITS Format Support: Invalid read operation in FITS

On 13/08/2022 at 22:00, Paul M said:

It's a bit f an old one that.

I think I like Varitasium, thought provoking and original, but recently I've had the feeling that he's trying to be controversial.  In particular his more recent video abbot electricity not flowing in cables.  He postulated that It propagates as a (the) field, dissociated from the "conductors" . That troubled me a bit, well, a lot actually. But as his detractors  eventually conceded, he was right!

And so it seems, perhaps much more controversially, with gravity. Just a manifestation of spacetime?? Beyond my pay grade!  

The problem is at school everyone tells you gravity is a downward force and then they test you on Newtons Law of Gravity, after that its hard to get that out of your head

here is a great example showing gravity isn't a force

On 13/08/2022 at 22:52, Paul M said:

Soon after his "electricity not flowing in conductors" episode the Youtube science fraternity was alight with arguments against his position. Quite a debacle but eventually they conceded defeat!

Look at the traffic he generated!

 https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB995GB995&sxsrf=ALiCzsbroPGnsbNhSFYTCVUz_JHIAClLcA:1660427332047&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=is+veritasium+wrong+about+electricity&fir=vu-TXOHjhEhJGM%2CKGKqVc7h22iWvM%2C_%3BS2CqerFfP9VukM%2CAILw1QQmwR80bM%2C_%3B6O_1xbATem3WVM%2Clox5-l9jAQCwFM%2C_%3BB8Vz-r520tIZmM%2CFAfoPyflrsB0HM%2C_%3BdlTKzNCsOtpX7M%2CCYVzGYxbq75ceM%2C_%3BKART3wIAi0jzkM%2Clox5-l9jAQCwFM%2C_%3BATTdwV4yOzC49M%2CtMlSnpPjPDxIiM%2C_%3B6uUg1jEG7CAWFM%2Clox5-l9jAQCwFM%2C_%3B6NE6Qw5x2ywGzM%2CdMWmci7P_4kC8M%2C_%3BntmEx869z7IaEM%2C-BRSHSak9tJ7fM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kTWrcrvMs9164h1l-SHA-wvZa7txg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi587Tq5cT5AhVDiFwKHZRSBSQQjJkEegQIHRAC&biw=1536&bih=656&dpr=1.25

Its the Poynting Vector (ExB) - physics not engineering   😉 

It was originally here - many of the the youtube science channels seem to share stories (I subscribe to most of them)

An equally surprising one, Do you know how a mirror works? 😉 

I googled and found this from 2006, apparently Apollo 8 as I thought

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/003522.html

I'm not the poster by the way!

The other poster mentioned was a wide angle shot of the astronauts in the command module with a white oxygen umbilical in the foreground (for some reason its the one I remember the most)