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_ep15_banner.thumb.jpg.34f8495864951c81ec35e285b4d7b2e0.jpg

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

I purchased a GSO 6" f/4 Newtonian "Astrograph" late last year and eventually found that stars on one corner were egg shaped while taking images. I narrowed it down to improper centering of secondary mirror from the factory and resulting tilt. 

Long story short, after numerous iterations, I used the Advanced Newtonian collimation technique by Astro Shed guy and ended up with the below pic of the optics. Does it look ok or do I need to do more? I will be checking with a Howie this weekend too.

final collimation 13082018.JPG

Share this post


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

Looks pretty good to my crooked eyes Sathya.

The best and simplest collimation technique that I've used successfully is this one by Gary Seronik, no tools required and it really works a treat.

http://garyseronik.com/no-tools-telescope-collimation/

Thanks Geoff, I will definetly use this method by Gary Seronik. Since its the monsoon season here I'll have to try it with my artificial star. I tried using a Cheshire and for the love of God I cannot comprehend whatever I see through it. The above was done using only a simple collimation cap and my eye. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure you have right. At f4 you would expect to see the secondary mirror offset. In your picture everything appears to be concentric but in a fast Newtonian set up there is a need to have the secondary offset to get full illumination. If you have re-centred the secondary on its mount and lined up all of the reflections you will have introduced tilt while through the Cheshire eyepiece everything appears lined up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Geoff Barnes said:

Looks pretty good to my crooked eyes Sathya.

The best and simplest collimation technique that I've used successfully is this one by Gary Seronik, no tools required and it really works a treat.

http://garyseronik.com/no-tools-telescope-collimation/

Ok for basic alignment Geoff, and ok for observing,  but imaging at f4 requires a more rigorous attention to collimation, in my experience.

Share this post


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

I'm not so sure you have right. At f4 you would expect to see the secondary mirror offset. In your picture everything appears to be concentric but in a fast Newtonian set up there is a need to have the secondary offset to get full illumination. If you have re-centred the secondary on its mount and lined up all of the reflections you will have introduced tilt while through the Cheshire eyepiece everything appears lined up. 

How do I offset the mirror correctly? There's a lot of stuff online and a lot of noise too. 

Share this post


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

I'm not so sure you have right. At f4 you would expect to see the secondary mirror offset. In your picture everything appears to be concentric but in a fast Newtonian set up there is a need to have the secondary offset to get full illumination. If you have re-centred the secondary on its mount and lined up all of the reflections you will have introduced tilt while through the Cheshire eyepiece everything appears lined up. 

Also, given that I have an oversized secondary mirror, would it really make a difference for imaging? In other words, is it really going to be worth it? When the scope was bought new and I tested it on HH, I found that the stars on the top right of the frame were egg shaped. I am going to do an artificial star test tonight to see how different it is now.

Share this post


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

Ok for basic alignment Geoff, and ok for observing,  but imaging at f4 requires a more rigorous attention to collimation, in my experience. 

Aah I didn't see Sathya is collimating for imaging. I am purely visual so his image would be fine for me at f5. ?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Geoff Barnes said:

Aah I didn't see Sathya is collimating for imaging. I am purely visual so his image would be fine for me at f5. ?

I read through the excellent article by Astrobaby and find that the patterns as seen through the cap, as well as the Cheshire are exactly as they should be for the offset secondary. I am quite certain now that the star test will confirm the same. Boy oh boy, this is so exciting. ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

I did the collimation one time again tonight using the webcam attached to the focuser with the lens on. Below are the results. 

Collimation final13082018.JPG

Collimation final13082018withoutcrosshairs.JPG

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 han59
      Probably an old discussion but lets review it with some measurements:


       
      The dark noise should only have a small influence on the total noise of the final image. Most noise is generated by the sky background. Under good conditions SQM = 20.4, I measure using my ASI1600MM-Cool the following noise (standard deviation) in a dark and in a light for an area where no stars are visible (local measurement using ASTAP):

      Dark 1 x 200sec, σ = 15 (range 0..65535)
      Light 1 x 200sec, σ = 130

      The noise in the dark is roughly 12% of the light, which seems acceptable to me. That would argue for about the same amount of darks as lights. With a worse SQM, you can probably do 2.5 times less darks for each (magnitude) step. So under light polluted sky you can do with much less darks than lights.
      If you are going to photograph with the H-alpha filter, it will be super dark. In a single H-alpha (7nm) light I measure a σ = 25r. Of these, 15 are self-noise and 10 of the incoming light. In good conditions and using an H-alpha filter, this is an argument to make much more darks than lights

      Above for a monochrome camera. To measure with an OSC (color) sensor I think it is better to first split the 4 Bayer pixels into 4 files and then measure them separately.

      Some measurements with my ASI1600MM-Cool, monochrome:
      DARKS noise:
      1 x 200 seconds, σ = 16
      1 x 200 seconds - master dark, σ = 15
      4 x 200 seconds combined - master dark, σ = 6.8    This is approximately 15 / square root (4)
      41 x 200 seconds combined, σ = 5
      90 x 200 seconds combined, σ = 3.8   This is a limit value that arises mainly from unevenness of the pixels. The noise will be smaller, approximately 15 / square root (90) is 1.6


       
      STACKED LIGHTS noise (lights corrected with darks and flats):
      11x200 seconds, σ = 70   (measured at a star free area, standard deviation in 0..65535 range, sky conditions could have been different)
      18x200 seconds, σ = 36
      18x200 seconds, σ = 40
      40x200 seconds, σ = 26
      42x200 seconds, σ = 30
      44x200 seconds, σ = 25
      58x200 seconds, σ = 20
      95x200 seconds, σ = 16

      Apparently the light noise decreases considerably while stacking more lights and I reach σ values up to 16 a 20. You do not want to stack these images with a single dark having a σ = 15. If you want to keep the dark noise added below 10% of σ = 16 then you need 100 darks because they give: 15 / square root (100) = 1.5 noise.

      So this confirms for a good suburban site (SQM=20.4) you will need about the same amount (or more) darks then lights. For a more light polluted area you can take less darks since the noise from the skybackground will be abundant. For H-alpha work you better take more darks then lights.
      Han
    • By RCRyan
      Hi there, I've recently jumped fully into the DSO side of astrophotography and have been having trouble with stars that aren't quite round. My last two imaging sessions have produced stars seemingly pointing in different directions across the field of the image. After the first image we collimated the scope and the problem has continued but we think our collimation may still be off.
      I use a SkyWatcher 130PDS with a Canon 6D Mark II and the Baader MPCC Coma Corrector. The problem persists regardless of whether or not the coma corrector is in the imaging train. It also persisted regardless of the exposure time.  I have uploaded processed images which show the problem, but if unprocessed files would be more helpful I can upload them also. The processed images have been cropped slightly. 
      If anyone has suggestions as to what the problem could be I'd really appreciate it.
      Kind Regards,
      Ryan
       
       
       


    • By astrosathya
      Finally I processed the Comet Neowise captured from Bangalore.
      Simple Set-up:
      Canon80D, Sigma 70-300 DG APOII @100mm F/4.
      ISO2000, 50x5s
      Stacked in Deep Sky Stacker
      Processed in Pixinsight.
      Lots of noise as I wanted to pull out both tails

    • By Abhinav
      Which one should I get I am little bit confused please help me out
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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