Whats the best set-up for imaging the Moon?

[sabana]

I'd be very interested on peoples opinions on this one.

If you could choose a set-up what would it be for.

1) Incredible crater/sea/mountain/shadow detail.

2) Hi res video definition

I've seen some amazing detailed vidz of the moon and photographs too.

You could spend years working your way around the moon never mind everyhing else out there. So to really fill that HD TV screen what would your recommend? Budget I would say to be limited to beginner/intermediate pockets.

clear skies

[Spikey]

For a beginner and a beginners budget I think it would be hard to beat a Mak 127 for Moon viewing. There are some very good images produced of the moon produced with a Mak and webcam option as well.

[Voliton]

So far I've tried a 10" Newt, 8" R/c, and a slywatcher 120mm Refractor. Best images ar from the latter. Modify a Logitech C-910 5mp webcam and a quality 2" 2X Barlow and you can explore at Prime, 2X, and 3X - that is up to 500x with a 1000mm focal lengthon a night with excellent seeing - at 1080P resolution.

Regards, Gary

[Jandy100]

I have the Evostar 120mm on EQ5, and have found that lunar views were excellent. I have a selection SW plossl EP's & 2 x Barlow.

However, the most stunning best results have been with my recent purchase of BST Explorer ED 60 degree 8mm EP from Sky's the Limit. The views were stunning and noticed very little achromatic abberation in the field of view.

In my own limited beginners opinion for the best views the quality of the EP is very important. When funds finally allow I hope to invest in RA/DEC drives, power pack & a web cam & try some astro photography.

[E621Keith]

For a beginner / intermediate budget Skymax 127 or 150 mak mounted on a EQ5 and image with a modified webcam or Celestron NexImager. The Evostar 120 will show chromatic aberrations on moon and planets. It is acceptable for visual because our eye is not that sensitive to purple, but a camera will capture those purple fringes.

If you need HD resolution, Imaging Sources DFK41 will do 960p HD at 15fps, but it's not cheap.

[riklaunim]

modified webcam or Celestron NexImager

NexImage? The over-expensive webcam? No point.

If you need HD resolution, Imaging Sources DFK41 will do 960p HD at 15fps, but it's not cheap.

Why, oh why a color camera for the Moon?

To get nice detail on the Moon you need some aperture. Maks may be handy, but the price for mak aperture is quite high. 150/750 Newtonian is cheaper. 8" SCT would be quite optimal but much more expensive.

As for camera - if cheap then modified MS LifeCam Studio (example moon) as it has a lot of pixels and high IR sensitivity. From dedicated - planetary like DMK21AU618 (example), or more Moonish like Point Grey Chameleon (example; seems like cheaper from bigger DMKs).

In filters - broad infrared or red/infrared filter to limit the bad seeing and atmospheric dispersion if the Moon is low.

[sabana]

Wow. That DMK photo is incredible. A good 8 inch newtonian on a tracking mount sounds good. What mount would you recommend for this set up?

Would a 6 inch SCT and the DMK mono cams on an ALT AZ be just as good?

Many thanks

[riklaunim]

I've seen some planetary images taken from the Celestron C8 SE (alt/az) so it's doable (although I can't say it that mount is stable with C8. It likes to freez in very low temperatures )

[Voliton]

The DMK is an excellent camera. The ICCapture is probably the best capture program around. They do come at a hefty price for Lunar.

The Life cam ( I have 2 ) works pretty well but has very intrusive software which must be removed for decent FPS. Highest resolution is 1270 x800. It has a very high PC power requirement - 2.8 Dual Core/ more mem the better, and a big harddrive. Biggest problem is a meager amount of manual control over the camera. Moon is not too bad but Saturn, Jupiter etc are difficult

The C-910 is next generation HD webcam and more user friendly. It is also about the same price. Mine were 55.00 US each. Mod is simple and straightforward. All you need is a C - T2 adapter an nosepiece. Can capture up to 1900x2500 at 15 fps and has full control. The software plays nice with others - IcCapture SharpCap, AmCap, last two are free . Doesn't require as much horsepower on the pc. 2.0 Dual Core does pretty well - still need a big harddrive. 1 minute of video is a 2 gig file at 4x lossless compression.

Both a SCT and Newt have large center obstruction causing diffraction . This can be delt with by using an off axis mask, at least on the Newt. A Newt is usually fast which means critical focus and a continuously warping image by seeing. Both the Refractor and SCT are more reasonable f ration and more forgiving on focus - makes it much easier to watch the display. SCt is often too slow causing very high magnification at Prime. For a rule of thumb, think of a 1/4" sensor as a 6mm Ep field of view. Even at 1000mm focal length you are at a 166x FOV, an SCT at 2000 FL starts you at 333x. The smaller the FOV the bigger your seeing issues.

Both the Newt and SCT are relatively heavy 20 - 30 lbs requiring a mount in the 600.00 range - probably a CG5 or relative. Refractor around 120mm are 14 - 17 lbs so you can go with a lighter Vixen or Skywatcher mount or the EQ5. Alt/Az is never recomended for imaging. Field rotation make viewing irritating at best and imaging very difficult.

A iR cut filter is a must for Lunar planetary , Baader makes a good. Several colored filters help with contrast I like the minus Violet. You will also need several neutral density filters say a 15 and a 25% .

Why Color? It is more enjoyable. In B&W everything is dead and lifeless. You have more than enough light available and more that enough pixels recording that light. Sensitivity is not an issue, contrast is not a issue detail is more related to resolution and seeing. All of the last will be delt with in stacking. So... why not? If you remove it at the get-go you can't get it back .

Regards, Gary

[riklaunim]

Both a SCT and Newt have large center obstruction causing diffraction . This can be delt with by using an off axis mask, at least on the Newt.

Why would you REDUCE your aperture for imaging? There is no point in doing so for lunar and alike imaging.

A iR cut filter is a must for Lunar planetary , Baader makes a good. Several colored filters help with contrast I like the minus Violet. You will also need several neutral density filters say a 15 and a 25% .

For lunar imaging - rubbish. Red visual is the best for Moon (it will pass red and infrared wavelengths at a very high transmission factor).

[Voliton]

We may be talking about different things . I am talking about a IR cutoff at 690nm. This is effective to remove wavelengths which do not focas at the same point as other parts of the spectrum. This is one of the reasons similar filters are used on all terrestrial cameras. Both CCD and CMOS cameras are disproportionately sensitive to ir. This isn't deep sky, where you want to record every photon. Even there an IR cut can be effect in reducing star bloat. I certainly don't agree with using a red filter.

As for aperture, it mostly applies to Lunar Newts have a central obstruction often at 15 to 25% of the FOV. This causes diffraction and therefore blurring. An off-axis removes that obstruction completely and cuts down light to a level you have to go with either camera control or filters anyway. If I turn my 10" newt to the moon and remove the camera I get a beam of light I can read by - and I'm partially night blind. My preferred scope would be the biggest Apochromatic refractor I can get... with an IR cut filter.

[riklaunim]

We may be talking about different things . I am talking about a IR cutoff at 690nm. This is effective to remove wavelengths which do not focas at the same point as other parts of the spectrum. This is one of the reasons similar filters are used on all terrestrial cameras. Both CCD and CMOS cameras are disproportionately sensitive to ir. This isn't deep sky, where you want to record every photon. Even there an IR cut can be effect in reducing star bloat. I certainly don't agree with using a red filter.

Infrared is commonly used for planetary or lunar imaging. You cut the visible light and use only infrared light that is much less affected by seeing. All above examples were done in infrared or red/infrared light with a mono camers - what 99% people use for such imaging. There is no "bloat" as shorter wavelengths are cut out.

As for aperture, it mostly applies to Lunar Newts have a central obstruction often at 15 to 25% of the FOV. This causes diffraction and therefore blurring. An off-axis removes that obstruction completely and cuts down light to a level you have to go with either camera control or filters anyway. If I turn my 10" newt to the moon and remove the camera I get a beam of light I can read by - and I'm partially night blind. My preferred scope would be the biggest Apochromatic refractor I can get... with an IR cut filter.

Well, I have a C11 and I don't have to reduce the aperture. I just lower the gain in the camera to get a high SNR per frame and that's it - short exposures, and low gain. Results are linked above. This is not visual usage, this is imaging and for imaging aperture rules.

[Psychobilly]

I quite liked using my DMK21AU04 with a 690 or 742nm IR Pass filter on my CPC800...

[E621Keith]

Infrared is commonly used for planetary or lunar imaging. You cut the visible light and use only infrared light that is much less affected by seeing. All above examples were done in infrared or red/infrared light with a mono camers - what 99% people use for such imaging. There is no "bloat" as shorter wavelengths are cut out.

Well, I have a C11 and I don't have to reduce the aperture. I just lower the gain in the camera to get a high SNR per frame and that's it - short exposures, and low gain. Results are linked above. This is not visual usage, this is imaging and for imaging aperture rules.

Infra red imaging is not exactly for beginner and certainly not common. You may be skilled in IR imaging, but the OP have a beginner's budget, which I guess would be around £500.

Voliton was talking about Newtonians. Newtonian will generate diffraction spikes unless stopped down such that no part of the secondary spider interact with the light path. That spike will affect contrast regardless of whether you are doing imaging or visual. Your C11 is a SCT not a Newt, so it doesn't matter how amazing your c11 is, a newt need to be stop down.

[riklaunim]

I did used a 150/750 Newtonian, and red visual filter or ProPlanet 742 worked nicely with that scope (and they are cheap) - and no off axis masks. Assumption that beginner must use crappy set just because he is a beginner or can't spend much is crazy. You can get a lot of value by spending not much but wisely

[E621Keith]

Assumption that beginner must use crappy set just because he is a beginner or can't spend much is crazy. You can get a lot of value by spending not much but wisely

That's true, you don't need to spend much to get good results. I just read this on another thread.

Backyard astronomer snaps Beta Pictoris dust disk The Register

Apparently, if one is skilled enough, it is possible to image the protoplanetary disk of another star with a 10 inch and a webcam.

[jgs001]

The little 127 Mak is an excellent choice for lunar and planetary work. It's compact, and reasonably light weight, but delivers where it counts. Using something like a modded SPC900 or webcam is also a great starting point, they are cheap and can achieve excellent results. I'm currently using my guide camera as a lunar imager, it's about half the price of the IS/DMK cameras, and pulls dual duty. I'm getting good results with that.

For the moon, using a red or even IR filter (not blocking) can improve the results, but you need a suitable tube and camera combination that will still deliver good exposure levels without overdriving the camera. Keep it easy and simple in the beginning, imaging cam, a UV/IR block filter (it helps keep the sensor clean and is comparatively cheap) and a reasonable aperture scope. You can use a simple AltAz quite easily and effectively.

You should be able to achieve good results with modest equipment, but watch out.. it's both addictive and can get very expensive.

For visual, either something like the 127 Mak, or a decent refractor (I prefer the views through my 80ED, than my Skymax 102, not tried the 127) will be great.