Rotate or Reduce F5 vs F3.6?

[Earl]

A dilema, I like automation, and plate solving with automated rotation would be a dream, but currently id loose my reducer as there are no comercial rotators that will fit in the spacings.

Any thoughts?

[Thalestris24]

Hi Earl

It would seem, as you say, that you'd have to get a different reducer that would give you the space required? Sorry, I've no experience with rotators though they look quite useful devices, in some circumstances.

Louise

[wuthton]

A dilema, I like automation, and plate solving with automated rotation would be a dream, but currently id loose my reducer as there are no comercial rotators that will fit in the spacings.

Any thoughts?

I'm sure there is a reason, but why couldn't you place the rotator before the reducer?

[Thalestris24]

I'm sure there is a reason, but why couldn't you place the rotator before the reducer?

It rotates the camera, I believe, so has to be in between.

[wuthton]

It rotates the camera, I believe, so has to be in between.

Yes, but there's no harm rotating everything.

[Earl]

there is no off the shelf rotator thin enough, there is around 40mm total backfocus including adapters with the 106 and reducer.

[ollypenrice]

What's the purpose? If you are working on two images at once and they don't fit nicely on the chip without rotating, then OK. But is that the case? Otherwise just stick to one camera orientation. I just go for landscape or portrait, orthogonal where possible (and only an image a year isn't...) and get on with it.

BTW Earl, did you see my PAIG post on how to use your full stack despite the bleed line on some subs?

Olly

[Uranium235]

Same as Olly here, I avoid rotation wherever possible. It also avoids the need to take new flats too.

I find it less hassle to mosaic, rather than rotate

[Earl]

What's the purpose? If you are working on two images at once and they don't fit nicely on the chip without rotating, then OK. But is that the case? Otherwise just stick to one camera orientation. I just go for landscape or portrait, orthogonal where possible (and only an image a year isn't...) and get on with it.

BTW Earl, did you see my PAIG post on how to use your full stack despite the bleed line on some subs?

Olly

I did oOlly, i just to work out how toad fits into PS now to try it.

[Earl]

Overall i see the point of a fixed orientation, just looking at furter options.

[Sp@ce_d]

I have wondered why one couldn't be put in front of the reducer. My Moonlites very nice but it's on the SCT so backfocus is not such an issue. Do you have any backfocus to play with at all? These need 12.5mm apparently.. http://tienda.lunatico.es/epages/Store.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/Store.Lunatico/Products/CENSF01

[Earl]

I have wondered why one couldn't be put in front of the reducer. My Moonlites very nice but it's on the SCT so backfocus is not such an issue. Do you have any backfocus to play with at all? These need 12.5mm apparently.. http://tienda.lunatico.es/epages/Store.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/Store.Lunatico/Products/CENSF01

You cant use the caa with the 106 reduced as it adds too much bacfocus, with the basic adapters from the OTA to the reducer there is only about 40mm when focused the draw tube stick out less than 20mm i think, id need to measure.

I do have the caa and the special adapter needed for the astrodon version already.

[swag72]

Personally I'd go speed over rotator. I like to keep my chip in the same place all the time and as already said, I'd rather do a mosaic than move the camera.

[ollypenrice]

You can download the free FITS Liberator from NASA to open them in Ps but I don't do that. I just convert my FITS to TIFFS in AstroArt and open them directly in Ps. You could also open your FITS in Pixinsight and save them as TIFFS for Ps.

Given that you only need 90 dergrees of rotation it would, in principle, be possible to motorize the Tak rotator. I dare say someone makes a gizmo? Really Tak should be offering their own motorized focus and rotator but they still think we are all using medium format film in Pentax bodies... And if they did make such things, would we want to pay for them? The best place for anglophone Tak advice is Texas Nautical Repair. The European importers are not very well informed at all in my experience.

I very much doubt that rotating the entire camera/wheel at the Tak rotator would need new flats. All sources of bunnies will be rotated together with the hardware. (Secondary mirrors don't show so neither does dust on the objective...) Because the Tak focuser is so well made there won't be any offset or assymetry in the vignetting. I've rotated and continued to use the same single flat (as you know I don't bother with separate flats per filter any more) and it workd fine.

Even the ultra-robotic Per doesn't have a rotator! (Well, he does have me on site I guess... )

When using the reducer (F3.6, holy smoke!) watch that focus like a hawk.

Olly

[Earl]

You can download the free FITS Liberator from NASA to open them in Ps but I don't do that. I just convert my FITS to TIFFS in AstroArt and open them directly in Ps. You could also open your FITS in Pixinsight and save them as TIFFS for Ps.

Given that you only need 90 dergrees of rotation it would, in principle, be possible to motorize the Tak rotator. I dare say someone makes a gizmo? Really Tak should be offering their own motorized focus and rotator but they still think we are all using medium format film in Pentax bodies... And if they did make such things, would we want to pay for them? The best place for anglophone Tak advice is Texas Nautical Repair. The European importers are not very well informed at all in my experience.

I very much doubt that rotating the entire camera/wheel at the Tak rotator would need new flats. All sources of bunnies will be rotated together with the hardware. (Secondary mirrors don't show so neither does dust on the objective...) Because the Tak focuser is so well made there won't be any offset or assymetry in the vignetting. I've rotated and continued to use the same single flat (as you know I don't bother with separate flats per filter any more) and it workd fine.

Even the ultra-robotic Per doesn't have a rotator! (Well, he does have me on site I guess... )

When using the reducer (F3.6, holy smoke!) watch that focus like a hawk.

I find that Tiffs saved in PI do not open correctly in PS and look as if another stretch has been applied, is there a certain format they need to be saved in PI to work in PS?

I have found focus rock steady over the session and motorisng it with auto focus routines was not needed however this could be down to the warmer summer evenings, ill have to wait until winter to see if that statment still fits

You are a man of many talents Olly LOL I am a little suprised Per does not rotate on plate solve, however with these 106's it does not quiet work as simple as it needs to be.

Until I get a custom made unit which attached irwect to the draw tube ill not be bothering, a Flip Flat on the other hand will be ordered as soon as I get the Pod out the way.

To digress from the thread, my roll of shed is fantastic for its original design, which was a HEQ5 and ZS71 howver a CGE and 106 is too large for it really.

I considered a Pulsar style, but the need to motorise the rotation to use it for imaging without popping out to shift it ever now and then made the Pod win and its much cheaper when you take that into account.

[Sp@ce_d]

Talking OAGs in another thread has reminded me why I went for rotator on the C925. With a smaller FOV it's hard to find a star to guide on. So that's why I primarily chose to use a rotator rather than framing of the target.

[Ace_Dante_Sparda]

ROTATOR it's really good