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.

stargazine_ep28_banner.thumb.jpg.b94278254f44dd38f3f7ee896fe45525.jpg

Recommended Posts

0hmmm. can't seem to get tight focus on stars; finally got hold of a bhatinov mask and took shot (see below). unless i'm missing something, this looks ok yet when i take mask off stars look like small indescript blobs. 

star used was rigel - panned over to orion nebula and well kind of meh sadly.  i tethered camera to laptop, zoomed right in 10x and still no better. used canon eos utility. should i upgrade to eos backyard or what else can i try? checked my collimation too and looks grand under high magnification. help!!

mask image.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you got an image you can upload so we can see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heres one. moon was very bright and close by tonight if that makes any difference. also scope was cooled very at least an hour

orion.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moon is the bane of RGB imaging, it destroys contrast.

There is some very slight blue fringing on the stars but nothing much, you may just be at the limit of seeing.

 

A while ago I posted a couple of shots with and without moon; https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/231826-what-a-difference-a-week-makes-ced-214/

And the target was nowhere near the moon either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm. so how do i get those nice pin sharp sharp stars though? really confused as i thought even at seeing limits wouldnt i just see dots of light but not blobs if you see what i mean? is my mask image out of whack or are there better stars than rigel to attempt to focus on when trying to get pictures of orion's neb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a stupid question, but what is your focuser like? And what scope is it - is the camera hanging off the focuser? Just wondering whether the focuser needs tightening to prevent it slipping when the scope is moved - a DSLR is a fair weight and I have read of slippage a few times over the years. Might just be worth a check - could be slipping over time and as you move the OTA?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just overexposure is it whereby your getting star bloat? If you reduce the exposure time do the stars then become sharp? Off course you will not then see the nebula but this is where you would need longer exposures for that and layer them in post processing. Your bhatinov mask image looks bang on focus BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lune lupine,

Did the temperature drop a lot during the night? If so then this shrinks the ota slightly and alters the focus. I have had issues with this in the past. After a couple of hours of imaging I normally put the bhatinov mask back on and redo the focus, this is annoying because I have to find and frame my imaging target again but at least I know t is in focus.

Also, regarding your bhatinov mask image, I use a lower ISO/sorter exposure - this will help you see the core of the diffraction pattern and make very precise focus adjustments.

Dan :happy7:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are using a dew shield? Your front plate could be dew which would give blobby stars.

Also did you sort out visual use and are now getting good star focus?

Edited by happy-kat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I think at that scale -assuming that's a full frame- you're doing fine. It seems that the longer the focal length, that fatter the stars. If you look at long focus snaps with e.g. celestron mirror telescopes (cassegrain?) , they always show stars as discs. HTH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have a canon 760d dslr and telescope is celestron evolution 8. I might be able to get access to a webcam and see if that makes any difference to the images getting. Is Canon EOS backyard worth getting as well?


@ alacant; would a focal reducer help me at all - seen them on the market. my telescope is f10 if i remember correctly

@happy-kat; no dew - was using dew shield but checked and was looking good

 

thanks for all the advice folks, really appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For inspiration on what you might image with your mount you might like to look at the No EQ DSO challenge thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, lune lupine said:

would a focal reducer help me at all

I always advocate the use-what-you-have approach. I'm not sure if a focal reducer would get you smaller stars but it would give you a wider FOV. One thing your telescope would be great for ATM is Jupiter. It's not necessary to have accurate guiding and you have the focal length to make it a decent size. Take videos instead of single snaps.

 

27 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

image with your mount you might like to look at the No EQ DSO challenge thread

To be realistic, I think it's gonna be tricky getting a dso at over 2000mm focal length, eq or not. But of course that's what challenges are for. 

HTH and clear skies to try...

Edited by alacant
of corse of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bahtinov mask image looks fine.  I think something else is going on here.  

You have obviously moved the scope a bit between Rigel and M42 (and yes Rigel is a good star to focus on).  I am wondering whether either the focusser is slipping or sloping.  I had a slipping focusser (with a refractor) when I first started and despite locking the focusser (are you doing that?) images still were not in focus, and it took me a while to fathom out that the focusser was slipping (the focusser had to be tightened up). 

Or the locking of the focusser is actually shifting the focus out of whack, are you re-checking focus after locking it? 

Something to consider.  

Canon Utility is basic but fine, should not affect focus, though there are focus aids with APT etc though I have never used them.  What you have already is quite sufficient to get you started.  

Carole

Edited by carastro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, alacant said:

To be realistic, I think it's gonna be tricky getting a dso at over 2000mm focal length, eq or not. But of course that's what challenges are for.

Absolutely, my comment was use the mount thinking with the dslr even if the kit lens to get going with the whole imaging process seeing as the equipment was already owned. There are at least two members using a similar mount on the thread just not with an sct or mak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, carastro said:

Or the locking of the focusser is actually shifting the focus out of whack, are you re-checking focus after locking it? 

+1 for this, I have to leave the star just out of focus then tighten the lock screw that brings the focus ok as I tighten. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with the mask picture..and indeed of m42.. id say your camera isnt modded so not picking up on the h alpha wavelength..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the advice. Really appreciated. One thing that puzzles me tho is advice is to lock the focus/tighten the focus. How do I do that with telescope? Also is there a better named star than rigel to focus on before panning over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any of the bright stars are suitable for focus.

I don't know what telescope you are using, but there should be a nut at the back of the focusser that you need to tighten.  

Refractor or Newtonian's normally have something like this, the focus lock is where the red arrow is.  No idea if you can lock Cassegrain/SCT  scopes. 

DSCF0564 (Small).JPG

Edited by carastro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, newbie alert said:

Nothing wrong with the mask picture  ..and indeed of m42..

+1. I think you're in focus; the telescope you are using produces stars like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I think your B mask pattern is bang on and you have resolved the Trapezium stars successfully. Nothing wrong with either of those. In deep sky imaging SCTs do sometimes tend to give large soft stars though they can resolve galaxy detail well. I don't know why this is.

Does your Celestron have a mirror lock? If so I'd use it.

There is another thing sometimes said about focusing an SCT: find out which way your mirror moves when you turn the focus knob. Which way pushes it up the tube and which way pulls it down? The old trick is to make the final focus tweak in the 'push the mirror up the tube' direction. If you focus by letting it come down the tube it may not come back quite all the way and then continue to settle downwards after you've focused.

Olly

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone. Lots to chew over. I took a few more blob star shots last night as it happens. On some of them was a slight blue tinge. Presumably if this was removed would sharpen them a little. Is this masking or similar technique.

All this is a bit ironic really as when I got telescope never really considered photos of nebula and now I'm obsessing about them!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to spend much cash StarTools has great tools for star bloat and blue bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

was able to get rigel focussed nicely last night I think  finally thanks to all the great advice above and panned over to orion again for another one shot wonder at 30s iso800...

think I'm ready to start thinking about this stacking business; if i'm sticking to single images like those below - would I best aim for similar time exposures when stacking or go for a mixture; say some at 30 - 20 and 10 for arguments sake.

 

orion8 (1 of 1).jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For now, go for the same exposure times.

As for your focus issues, sometimes the skies are just too poor to get decent results. A Bahtinov image will probably look allright, but when you exposure for a few seconds or more the distortions caused by the atmosphere will blob your stars all over the place, making them bigger in the process. An indication that this might be happening is the slight red/blue colour separation, an effect usually seen at high magnification on planetary views, even with top grade optics.

A good indication of the sky state is to take a look at bright stars, starting at the horizon, or as low as you can see. At the horizon, due to being viewed through a lot more atmosphere, the stars will be jumpy, flashing, colourful and twinkling. As you look higher they start to be less twinkly on good nights. Sometimes though, even at the zenith high overhead they are still blinking away, and those nights rarely produce anything worthwhile apart from practice.

Some capture software will give you a figure for star size/focus called FWHM  (Full Width Half Maximum).  If you have this, take note of the way it varies from night to night even on the same stars.  When you start stacking pictures, select the best ones, and use the very best as the reference image, this one will likely have the lowest FWHM figure.

At any rate, you are about to embark on a exciting journey :)  Steep learning curve and lots of frustration, but in the end the results are amazing and well worth the effort.

Hope you enjoy it!

Tim

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Nicola Hannah Butterfield
      First image from my new NEQ6 Pro driven mount, all other images before this were static.
      Sky Watcher 200P prime focus, 10x 60's lights, darks, bias and flats. ISO 200
      Bortle 6
      Yes I know there is a plane track through it.
    • By MarsG76
      The Orion Nebula imaged in RGB through a Celestron 8" SCT at F10 (2032mm FL) using a full spectrum modded and cooled Canon 40D. Tracked using a Celestron CGEM mount. Total exposure time was 1 hour and 24 minutes.
    • By MarsG76
      Hello All,
      I was wondering whether it's possible to image a DSO and capture any depth. Every 3D astro image online is faked so at the start of the year, I decided to image M42 six months apart.
      Back in March I posted a image of M42 imaged at f10, 2032mm FL through my 8SE on 28th February 2019. Than on 3rd September (setup and captured 15 second subs on 1 September) I captured M42 at the same focal length, same orientation and very similar subs for a total exposure of 1 hr 24 minutes. This was almost to the day exactly 6 months between the two images, so the earth was 300 million km away from the original position on the other side of the sun, furthest I could hope for imaging a 3D stereo pair.
      First attached is the image from September...

       
      I color matched the above image with the image from February, aligned them and below is the end result....

      As you can see there is no detectable 3D effect... There was a 3Dish effect but this was most likely due to the differences in processing of the two stacks and when I SCALE and rotate the two images to align them, and hence no 3D effect.
      Of course the stars and nebula are certainly not on a flat plain so I believe that the reason for the lack of any discernable depth is simply due to the distance of M42 resulting in  a very small angular shift in the stars, so small in fact, that it’s beyond the sensitivity of my 8” SCT, camera pixel resolution and tracking accuracy of the CGEM.
      Calculation of the expected motion of any parallax shift when the Orion Nebula is 1344 lightyears away and the distance of Earth being 149,600,000km from the Sun:
      1344LY = 1.2715e+16km
      Θ° = Tan-1(149.6e+6/1.2715e+16)
      Parallax Shift Θ” = 2 x 3600 x Θ
      Parallax Shift Θ” = 0.0048536712567150
      An angular motion of 0.005” was not picked up by my system that tracks with an average accuracy of about 1” RMS, with a camera sensor that has a resolution of 1.16”/pixel at 2032mm focal length with a 8” SCT. Even if I could get consistent tracking at the best accuracy that I have ever seen with my gear, 0.38” RMS, this is still well above 0.005” and well beyond the 40D sensor pixel resolution, and all this is without considering atmospheric distortion, obviously my setup is not even close to sensitive enough.
      This was a good project but unfortunately the distances of objects in the universe are too great, even objects classed as in our celestial “backyard”. If I didn’t try this experiment than I would be always wondering and curiosity would most likely make me try it eventually.
       
      Clear Skies,
      MG
       
       
       
    • By MarsG76
      This exposure of the Orion Nebula region is really just a quick and lazy session since I didn't want to waste a clear night by doing nothing and the scope was already setup and focused so I wouldn't be spending much time on setup. I also didn't have a plan for imaging another object it seemed like a good idea being a bright and easy object to image.
      I already imaged this object in the past, but by comparing the setup, procedure and improved tracking accuracy of the past together with the now cooled 40D, I know that the result would have been an improvement if I would have dedicated the necessary exposure time, through the necessary NB filters.
      This image all consists of RGB/OSC, IRCut filtered, 31x15s, 32x30s, 16x60s, 10x90s, 11x120s ISO1600 subs. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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