Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_lunar_landings.thumb.jpg.b50378d0845690d8a03305a49923eb40.jpg

Russe

Imaging with the 130pds

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RolandKol said:

differences in focus

You're making me feel guilty now! I focus once on a bright star at the start of the session and leave it there all night. Is expansion and contraction -that is what we're talking about I think (???)-  enough to make a difference? Sorry, now I am off topic....

Cheers and clear skies anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto.  Too little clear skies to be messing about checking focus every so often.

Carole 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alacant said:

You're making me feel guilty now! I focus once on a bright star at the start of the session and leave it there all night. Is expansion and contraction -that is what we're talking about I think (???)-  enough to make a difference? Sorry, now I am off topic....

Cheers and clear skies anyway.

Do you focus with a mask? I can certainly see the change from the start of a session to the end if I start at 7pm and end at 4am..a refocus every 2 -3 hours is certainly worth while to me. 

The second thing is that the place you see it is not so much in the FWHM but the correction of coma in the corners of the image. I note that as my focus drifts the corner stars become more egg shaped as the coma corrector only works in the far corners with perfect focus.  Some people actually focus on a star offset from the center of the image to mitigate against this.

Finally its worth while mentioning that such fine changes in focus are much more apparent on my small pixel mono ASI1600mm pro than they will be if your working with say a Canon 6D at the other end of of the pixel size scale. 

Adam 

Edited by Adam J
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 1-degree change in temperature will change the length of a steel 600mm f/l scope by about 0.004mm.

For a f4.5 scope like the 130P-DS the 'critical focus zone' where the focused image of a star is smaller than its airy disc is 50 microns or 0.05mm

http://www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm#CFZ

So assuming you focus perfectly in the middle of that zone, a temperature change of just  over 6 degrees will put you out (just) of focus.

The 130P-DS when used with a DSLR pretty much matches the pixel size to the size of the airy disc of a perfectly focused star. I suspect the extent to which any out of focus caused by thermal expansion will be detectable given the added effects of seeing on star sizes (I have never got stars smaller than about 2 pixels across).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen adam's comment - I think his point about ASI1600 (with 3.8um pixels) and a Canon 450D with 5.7um pixels making focus more critical is valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

A 1-degree change in temperature will change the length of a steel 600mm f/l scope by about 0.004mm.

For a f4.5 scope like the 130P-DS the 'critical focus zone' where the focused image of a star is smaller than its airy disc is 50 microns or 0.05mm

http://www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm#CFZ

So assuming you focus perfectly in the middle of that zone, a temperature change of just  over 6 degrees will put you out (just) of focus.

The 130P-DS when used with a DSLR pretty much matches the pixel size to the size of the airy disc of a perfectly focused star. I suspect the extent to which any out of focus caused by thermal expansion will be detectable given the added effects of seeing on star sizes (I have never got stars smaller than about 2 pixels across).

Problem is that the perfect focus position in the center of the image is not the same as that on the edge of the image. So assuming that you focus on the center perfectly the edge may well still be within your critical focus zone.....but its much close to the edge of that zone than the center, hence the coma issue in the corners. As such I would argue that its possible that a smaller temperature change than 6c will show in the corners of the image, but as I noted above maybe not in the center star FWHM. 

I guess the way I understand it is that the Airy disk is not the limiting factor in resolution. For example the Daws limit for a 130PDS is something like 0.8 arcseconds from memory.  My pixel scale with the 130PDS and the ASI1600mm pro is about 1.25 arcseconds per pixel. 

Adam

 

 

 

Edited by Adam J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stub Mandrel said:

So assuming you focus perfectly in the middle of that zone, a temperature change of just  over 6 degrees will put you out (just) of focus.

I suspect the number of nights where this occurs is quite small. It's a good thing to be aware of, but unless there's a change approaching that, then I'm going to carry on hanging out in the single focus club! ?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Adam J said:

I guess the way I understand it is that the Airy disk is not the limiting factor in resolution. For example the Daws limit for a 130PDS is something like 0.8 arcseconds from memory.  My pixel scale with the 130PDS and the ASI1600mm pro is about 1.25 arcseconds per pixel. 

I would say that, in the UK at least, perhaps not on top of a volcano in Tenerife, seeing is the limiting factor. Imaging planets or the moon with live video shows how much things get spread, even on apparently 'perfect' evenings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Adam J said:

as my focus drifts the corner stars become more egg shaped as the coma corrector only works in the far corners with perfect focus

Correct but YMMV depending on CC model and sensor size: I've seen the SkyWatcher's one being very tolerant, though with a smaller 4/3 sensor. e.g. I have used it at 2 distances separated by 19mm (factors 0.9x and 0.94x) and seen fair enough corner stars in both cases. I recognize however I don't image at the same level as most of you, I'm still a beginner in number of nights ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest tunning. The scope cover was broken, so a friend made me one with his 3d printer. 

P_20181124_165134.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 12:59, Whistlin Bob said:

I've not had too many problems with the focuser and mine seems to hold collimation pretty well- I check it most sessions and it's usually fine.

The thing I've always thought would be good was a shorter focal length f5 newt to go into the pds range, for a wider angle, so you can really go after some of those giant nebulas like the veil and the California. Wouldn't need to think so much about full frame then. I'd be more than happy to pay a similar price for that.

Sorry if this is getting off topic...

The problems I can see with that are:

1) Using an f5 scope of a shorter focal length would mean less aperture - and therefore would require a smaller central obstruction and secondary mirror size - not a satisfactory result.

Or

2) A faster focal ratio - which brings up a whole other bag of (perhaps worse) problems. 

Take a look at the Tak epsilon 130, and you will see the price of a fast widefield newt is rather high ;) 

However, there is one cheap way around the issue... mosaics! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uranium235 said:

would require a smaller central obstruction and secondary mirror size

So presumably a smaller illuminated field? I wondered if it might be something like that. Perhaps one day I'll get a short f/l frac instead- but I'm sure the 130pds will keep me going for a long time to come, before further investment is needed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got a finished version of last Saturdays subs. I managed to collect 16 ten minute Ha subs (it was a bright moon), along with another 10 of the shed wall (not included here!). I used them for the B&W image below, then combined them into the red channel of an RGB image from 9th October on the same target. My framing was a bit different this time (I definitely need to improve my framing), so the colour image below is the intersection between the 2.

130pds, Canon 600d, HEQ5, Baader Ha Filter (Ha), IDAS D2 filter for RGB from October.

Sadr HA 181117.jpg

Sadr HaRGB 181117.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reprocess around M8 taken last summer, bad weather has one con, to read and test a lot around Pix.

 

_0p65HT_0p35MS_HDR_curves_lhe_usm_backenh_res.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I feel slightly embarrassed posting yet another reprocess of this year-old data, but with the lunar illuminations this week and the bad weather I haven't been able to get and quality data with the new mount yet. I feel this is a big improvement over the old version of this image, the noise is still bad but the galaxies have a far more true-to-life colour balance and the stars are waaay more colourful.

Unfortunately the short-ish integration time refuses to give the image the "pop" which I'd like, so I'm planning to do a re-run on this pair as soon as they get a bit higher.

FInal.thumb.jpg.24ff675a89f07a6447bb858260c8a19c.jpg

The stars have got coloured rings around them, this seems to be an issue with most scopes but especially when imaging with a DSLR. I have reduced the effect by applying a gaussain to a star mask--it works quite well but the stars do tend to swell a tiny.

2.5 hours at ISO800 with 1000d (unmodded), roughly 4 min per sub. 130PDS on EQ5. 

This was the old version:

618934420_M8182.thumb.jpg.a95c65088c0b24c233937eb7389c07bc.jpg

John

Edited by JohnSadlerAstro
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello fellow 130PDS imagers :)

I've processed these subs of Pleiades taken during last country holidays.
It turns out much better than my previous successful try at it, more smooth, still good colors and much more structure.

My problem is I've developped two versions of it:
* One with moderate stretching, which IMO preserves colors better (especially that Pleiades' electric blue I like so much), and still shows structure on good monitors
* Another where I pushed streching more, to ease showing on less good monitors, but it find it faded colors a bit and eventually I have mixed feeling about it.
I'm looking for others' opinion/preference/advice about which one to keep, or is more generally acceptable, as myself having good monitors at home I prefer the first one.

Pleiades, moderate stretchingPleiades, aggressive stretching

 

Thanks for looking.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Masked stretch preserves colors better, but it creates donuts and artifacts around big stars. I have found it is best to mix with Pixel math (In Pixinsight) a 70% fro Histogram transformation and a 30% from Masked Strech.

After playing with masks you can increase the saturation on the nebula and dark the background.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M34 from last weekend very close to Madrid outskirts, I could save only 25 subs of 60s taken between the clouds.

Nothing brilliant indeed but another Messier to the count.

M34_dbe_be_pmcc_scnr_ht_curves_usm_cropped.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all made the most of the clear skies monday night  decided to shoot what I thought was a bit more of a difficult target of ngc6888 the creasant nebula in the clear dark skies of Northumberland so hear it is I do feel I need more data over the winter on this one. 

24x5 min lights 

10x5 darks 

20 flats 

10 bias 

Skywatcher 130pds

Canon 450d modded

Heq5 mount 

Guide camera zwo asi120 

9x50 guide scope 

_20181205_201652.JPG

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/12/2018 at 13:08, rotatux said:

Hello fellow 130PDS imagers :)

I've processed these subs of Pleiades taken during last country holidays.
It turns out much better than my previous successful try at it, more smooth, still good colors and much more structure.

My problem is I've developped two versions of it:
* One with moderate stretching, which IMO preserves colors better (especially that Pleiades' electric blue I like so much), and still shows structure on good monitors
* Another where I pushed streching more, to ease showing on less good monitors, but it find it faded colors a bit and eventually I have mixed feeling about it.
I'm looking for others' opinion/preference/advice about which one to keep, or is more generally acceptable, as myself having good monitors at home I prefer the first one.

 

 

Thanks for looking.

I very much like the right-hand image (harder stretch) as the extra detail for me is worth a lot more than the slight changes in colour. They are both lovely though!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my Monday night effort- M52 and the Bubble Nebula. 

20x 5 min lights + flats, darks and bias.

130pds / HEQ5pro / Canon 600d / IDAS D2 Filter

Stacked in DSS and Processed in Pixinsight

M52 Bubble 181203.jpg

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

I'm considering getting one of these bad boys (130pds) and modifying it over Christmas.

I'm looking at dewheater solutions, and wondering if a glued secondary mirror heater would be preferable to a dewshield.

Can any of you tell me the diameter of the secondary mirror stalk/mounting?

I was considering mounting an rca plug in the top of the ota for a more permanent solution instead of having a cable dangle lose up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By AstroRuz
      £180
      Selling a nice portable wide telescope with great glass and a great field of view
      I have two telescopes and I'm using the 80ED more currently and so this Telescope just isn't getting used anymore
      It has a longer dovetail (originally from the 80ED) so declination balance can be reached.
      Great performer for the price
      Collection only as P&P is like £40 (Northamptonshire - UK)
      Selling to fund a scope or mount upgrade.🤔
      Selling





    • By AstroRuz
      Skywatcher 150/1200 f8 planetary Newtonian.
      Bought this originally intending to set up a planetary rig but circumstances call for sale.
      Will come with eyepieces and a collimation eyepiece. Not used by myself and has seen very little use. Mirrors in good condition
      Collection only
      £50



    • By jadcx
      Skywatcher 80 ED DS-Pro outfit including matched flattener and motor focus. Now only £350
      This kit gives you a great introduction to astronomy and imaging, which is why it's so popular.  You can see details over at FLO but there is:
      80 ED Ds-Pro OTA (Objective Lens Diameter: 80mm, Telescope Focal Length: 600mm,  f/7.5)
      SW Eyepiece (2"): 28mm
      2”/50.8mm Di-Electric Star Diagonal
      9x50 Finderscope
      Dual-Speed 11:1 2” Crayford Focuser (Backlash-Free)
      Supplied with Tube Rings & Mounting Plate - please note there is a longer black vixen type dovetail fitted, not the fancy new green short one you will see on the FLO site
      SW motor focus and fitting kit - I've never used this, hence it's not fitted (more details over on FLO)
      Dedicated SW 0.85x reducer/flattener (see FLO for more details)
      Aluminium Carrying / Shipping Case
       
      The RRP is over £720, so grab a bargain while you can.
      Collection from Nottingham, or DHL for £20 (within UK)



    • By tooth_dr
      I scrapped all the Oiii and Sii data I previously took during a full moon (about 15 hours worth) and retook it all when the moon was a bit smaller at 76%.  Ha was taken during 98% and 67% moon.  All the lights were taken on the following nights: 12th, 19th and 20th September 2019.
      Integration times, all in 600s subs unbinned:
      Ha = 28.33 hours
      Oiii= = 5.67 hours
      Sii = 5.67 hours
       
      The Ha data is really nice, and unsurprisingly the Oiii and Sii is not as strong (or nice).
      I'm missing that (vital) step in my processing routine of getting the Sii and Oiii properly stretched to match the Ha, before combining.  I dont really know how to deal with the weaker data properly.  Any pointers would be appreciated.
      What I do currently:
      All the data is loaded into APP into separate channels/sessions.
      The data is stacked and registered against the best Ha sub
      This produces individual stacks of Ha, Sii and Oiii that are all registered
      Each channel is processed with DPP in APP and then saved as a 16bit TIFF
      Each is opened in PS
      Stars removed with AA and any remnants removed and tidied up
      I then open a blank RGB document in PS
      I paste Ha into Green, Sii into Red and Oiii into Blue
      Adjust the selective colour settings to get 'Hubble palette'
      Adjust levels, curves, saturation until looks ok
      All the Ha Sii Oiii data is then combined together in a single 'super' stack in APP using quality weighted algorithm to create a 'luminance'
      That luminance layer is adjusted using levels, curves, and NC tools such as local contrast enhancement and deep space noise reduction (using masks to apply as required)
      The luminance is pasted onto the above colour layer, and incrementally added using gaussian blur
      Cropped and saved.
       
       
      Here it is anyway   I haven't intended on any more exposure time for this one, but will consider it, if the expert opinion dictates otherwise!
       
      CS
      Adam
       


    • By GiovanniF
      Hi to everyone, I used to do some astrophotography in the past with a Celestron AVX and DSLR but after few month had to give up for several reasons, including light pollution (I'm living in zone 3 east London), and also working shifts. Now I want to start again, and this time more serious. I've been searching around for a couple of months to choose all the gear and I'm quite happy with the list so far although it's a bit over the price I planned at first.
       I will get an William optics Z73 with his 50mm guide scope, a flattener/reducer 0.8, light pollution filter IDAS D2 and as camera I will use a Canon 600D modded and I will buy a ZWO 183MC Pro, after so much research, I'm very happy with the scale and framing I will get with this combo, but I'm starting to get confused with the mount.
      My first idea was to go for an HEQ5 Pro, as my previous experience with the AVX has been awful, then I realized that the FLO, sells that mount with belt modification and also some cleaning and tuning if required, I heard that it's a big improvement over the stock one and the price it's ok, but another important factor for me it's portability. Unfortunately, my garden doesn't allow me to do much so I will need to carry around on trolley, for a km walk, I'm a strong person and been doing plenty of time with the AVX, so my confusion came recently when the iOptron mounts entered my radar. I start comparing the heq5 pro with belt, with the iOptron cem25EC and the CEM40 without encoders, and I'm so unsure of which to buy, the cem25 seem to be the equivalent of heq5 at least speaking of payload, but in some threads I read people saying it's a bit fragile so kind of remove it from the equation although the weight it's interesting for my situation, then the cem40, seem to be quite similar on weight to the heq5 but with higher payload and that's interesting too as I will buy a C11 at some point.
      Now it will all come down to the accuracy of tracking I guess, how the heq5 and cem40 would compare on tracking and guiding? If the cem40 it's better, I would probably go with that since it holds more and would last longer as I don't plan to get anything bigger than a C11, but if the skywatcher it's better, I could decide to go for that, and when I move to a place with better garden then get a second mount with higher payload.
      Apologise for the long post and my english.
      Kind Regards,
      Giovanni. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.