confused...confused...

[Gaze Away]

Hi , I have had a lot of help on the site of late about what to use to get into imaging with my scope.

I have had a bit of conflicting advice ( well more confusing ) advice really. I am totally new to this. I have the celestron 11" edge hd ota from flo at an amazing price and would like to start to do a bit of imaging. I am not ready for dso's ...a long way off I expect, but would like to start on say the moon and a few planets.

What I do not want to do is waste my money. I have been a bit confused with chip size, pixel size and just really what is best to use. I have got the phillips web cam but wanted to move onto something slightly better bearing in mind this is an f10 scope. ( with no reducer for sale here yet ).

I have found a Boxed Atik 16IC-S colour and have found aStarlight Xpress HX516 CCD and also a Nova PLA-MX CCD Lunar/Planetary/Guide camera and even a orion starshoot OSC Deepspace imager. I believe these are a good buy if suitable because I can use them as a guider when I move on.

Celestron neximage5 is a possibility but I think it is a bit pricey for what it is. I was also told that is has certain limitations and small pixels...( I take it I wont be able to enlarge the image too much)...may be wrong...not sure !!!.

A canon eos 300d. It has been converted with a Baader ACF-1 filter. This allows for the capture of H-alpha and an improved IR response whilst still allowing the autofocus and canon lenses to operate normally. This is a major advantage of using the Baader rather than just removing the standard IR filter..

Are any of these better than my Phillips 880 flashed web cam and are any of these any good to start me off on the imaging side moon and some planets. If so do I need to use a barlow with them. my book is on the way (e.p.c)

I know that when I get a camera sorted I will be on a learning curve but it should be easier and become more clear to me as I go on. As I said I have used the phillips but was hoping to get something a bit better....If possible without having to buy other bits to make them work ( If you know what I mean)..

Much Obliged , and hope the weather stays for us all,

Andy

[Capricorn]

For moon and planets the "normal" approach is to get a .avi file of the offending object, select the best frames and stack them. Then do whatever and produce an image of the moon/planet.

As such then the philips should be fine.

Large/small pixels: More relevant to DSO imaging. You have to collect enough photons on a pixel to get the level up. If small pixels then less photons on it, so longer exposures. Also smaller pixels tend to be more noise and add in more pixels means the possibility of more dead pixels. So small is not always better.

The ccd cameras you mention are good and if they fit your budget then are reasonable but for future use.

For planetry imaging the Celestron 11" may need a barlow (2x) to get the image size on the philips chip up. Wouldn't think it will need a 5x.

Know the ccd's mentioned can do 10/20/?? frames per second and I guess these can be stacked as .avi frames are - not 100% however.

At this time you can use the philips, get .avi file, select the good frames and stack then process.

If the Celestron is on an Alt/Az mount then for long exposure DSO you will need to alter the mount to equitorial.

Which camera to use - philips now and whichever you choose/get next for use in the future.

[Gaze Away]

Thanks for that. I got the cgem dx.. (thinking ahead)... be a good mount for future dso's.

I can plainly see what you are saying...but I have got the Philips and just thought there may be a better camera for the moon/planets ? I suppose I mean maybe a dslr using a 2x barlow and even a reducer for the nearer moon! Does it work a better chip a better pic ? or does this mean as you say a good possibility of dead pixels or am I confusing the issue !!

Thanks

Andy

[Bizibilder]

To get yourself going use the Philips as suggested and practice, practice, practice! At the same time (not literally!) you could do full disc (or 2 pane mosaics) with your DSLR, again taking 40-60 images and stacking them will get better results. No need for fancy cameras really until you are sure as to exactly what you want (or more accurately can) do with your kit and local sky conditions. Some very good images have been taken of the Moon and planets with the simple set-up you are proposing to use.

[Gaze Away]

Thanks for the advice. With any luck I will have something to show in the next two weeks. I cant wait to try out the optics on the cell and I take it registax will be ok to process my images. Is there any way I can fit a light pollution filter in front of the phillips web cam?

Thanks Andy

[Bizibilder]

You should have an ir/uv filter on the webcam (or you will get "pink" pictures!). It is not necessary to fit a LP filter as well for Lunar and planetary work - the objects are so (comparatively) bright LP is not usually an issue. Registax 5 is the way to go - don't use Reg 6 unless you want artifacts all over the place! It does work but can be a bit of a pain for beginners - R5 is more or less bulletproof. There are some exellent video tutorials around on the web and in the tutorial section of SGL.

[Gaze Away]

You should have an ir/uv filter on the webcam (or you will get "pink" pictures!). It is not necessary to fit a LP filter as well for Lunar and planetary work - the objects are so (comparatively) bright LP is not usually an issue. Registax 5 is the way to go - don't use Reg 6 unless you want artifacts all over the place! It does work but can be a bit of a pain for beginners - R5 is more or less bulletproof. There are some exellent video tutorials around on the web and in the tutorial section of SGL.

Thanks very much Roger... I will have a good look around.

Andy

[glowjet]

Probably one of your best ways forward, as you have a very nice scope, is to invest in a copy of Every Photon Counts, available from FLO. It could save you money in the long run

John.

[sgazer]

most decent webcams will do a good job on planets, some are more popular than others, some have higher resolution. But as you might need it for a guide camera later on, that steers you more towards something that can do slightly longer exposures. I think a lot of people use standard webcams for guiding, but I found something with longer exposures (actually used a Mintron, but not ideal for planets) found guide stars very easily (never failed) with no adjustment of the guide scope. So any camera with a good frame rate (>10fps), long exposure (~5s) and decent resolution.