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_supernovae_remnants_winners.thumb.jpg.a13d54fa405efa94ed30e7abd590ee55.jpg

Recommended Posts

I'm new to astronomy, I got my first telescope in November (StarMax 90mm f/13), I was really happy with the view of the moon and double stars, but disappointed I could see but barely make out nebula (initially the ring nebula). I also tried to take a photo of the moon with my phone but trying to get a stable shot was too difficult, even with a basic smartphone adapter.

I did a bit of research, found about about Video Astronomy/Electronically Assisted Astronomy (EAA) and decided I needed a better mount and took the opportunity to get a faster telescope (StarTravel 102 f5/). I really like the Sky-Watcher -102 AZ GTe with the ZWO ASI 224MC. I've only used it for 4 nights as there is so much cloud about but it's allowed me to take images of things my eyeball wouldn't see. Although my setup is below the minimum specification most would consider for imaging and entry level for visual observations I think I've found a setup that seems to work for me. I like that with SharpCap I can get instant results and the day after when it's back to cloudy I can get a bit more out of the images with Deep Sky Stacker and Gimp. I have tried looking through the eyepiece at the Pleiades, that was a pleasure as well. I can see how observing with a big Dobsonian and amazing eyepieces would be great, but many objects seem better with a camera than eyeballs. The Horsehead nebula wasn't found until astrophotography came into being.

 5620581

The photo above was taken on my first night with the setup. The January 2019 issue of Sky at Night Magazine has a review of the Sky-Watcher StarTravel-102 AZ GTe and they give it 4.5 / 5. Combining it with an Explore Scientific UHC filter seems to reduce most of the chromatic aberration and increases contrast relative to the stars, and light pollution.

5716931

Video Astronomy/EAA seems to offer a great window into both the visual and imaging worlds of astronomy. As First Light Optics say "Your first telescope is arguably the most important because if the views do not amaze and delight, your interest in astronomy will crash and burn on the runway!" I understand cost could be an issue, but if the beginner had a suitable camera Video Astronomy could be as accessible as a Go-To visual setup, and seems more likely to amaze (especially in the skies of a typical house).

My question is why is video astronomy not the first suggestion for beginners interested in both visual and imaging?

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely captures!

I did some long exposure imaging with ST102 and similar camera - a bit wider FOV - ASI185. Also employed couple of tricks like aperture mask and yellow filter to control CA. It is interesting combination to play with.

26 minutes ago, JBracegirdle said:

My question is why is video astronomy not the first suggestion for beginners interested in both visual and imaging?

Probably because most beginners think of imaging as putting DSLR type of camera on the scope - usually most people who are interested in taking some pictures think of either that or holding compact camera / smartphone at the eyepiece.

Video astronomy is a bit more involved - one needs laptop computer (or even desktop, depending on their observing setup) and a dedicated camera for that - a bit higher costs than most people think of investing at the beginning. Not to mention software learning curve and there still is no dedicated software for EAA on the market - Sharpcap does the job but it is primarily capture application, rather than dedicated EAA suite.

Having said that, it is actually a wonder full idea - ST102 with low cost mount like AZ Gti, if it's capable of holding that scope, and guessing by your work - it can be done, and an astro camera like 178 / 224 or even 385 for more enthusiastic can be interesting combination to get them into both visual and video astronomy - and they can end up saving their VA sessions as proper images to share with friends and family.

I wonder how would Mak of let's say 102mm aperture fair in this role - no CA to fight, but long focal length requires big pixels (or heavy binning) to get to suitable resolution. Need to research that a bit more - suitable sensor and also corrected field of Mak and suitable reducers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi, I’m really glad that you are enjoying your EAA setup, it sounds like you are really appreciating its ability to reveal faint fuzzies. Your pics are great and that setup seems to be working really well. 

You ask why this kind of setup isn’t recommmended to those interested in both visual and imaging - I think that’s a really good question! I have found that EEA is like a ‘compressed’ version of imaging, which is less demanding on the person and the equipment. For example:

  • Tiny sensors mean less/no need to worry about elongated stars at edges even when really fast scopes are used - this can be a source of huge angst for full imagers.
  • Short exposure times means less accurate tracking is required, hence less expensive mounts are needed. Also altaz mounts are commonly used which are not acceptable for imaging. 
  • No need for guiding,  simplifying things considerably and reducing cost.
  • Seeing the images build up immediately is very educational in terms of understanding how capture and stacking works, and how tracking, hot pixels, darks, light pollution gradients, changing temperatures, etc can all affect the final image.
  • The ability to adjust the image quickly and easily in real time (depending on the software) is also a very good introduction to the basics of image processing. 

EAA in general is accepting of imperfect images because it has a different purpose. So blocky stars, noise, etc, are all perfectly acceptable. 

I would say that EAA is rarely recommended as you state for the following reasons (just my initial thoughts, I hope this won’t spark a massive debate!):

  • Many beginners want to skip visual observation entirely and start producing high quality images as fast as possible, so the benefits of EAA for real time views is not a requirement.
  • A low-cost EAA set up cannot easily be upgraded to produce high quality images, many or all of the components will need replacing should the imager wish to continue.
  • A starter setup for imaging is not THAT much more expensive than a low cost dedicated EAA setup, especially if DSLR is used which many people already have.

It was a good question though that made me think. I’d be interested to hear the views of others.

Keep posting your captures. 👍

Edited by RobertI
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

Having said that, it is actually a wonder full idea - ST102 with low cost mount like AZ Gti, if it's capable of holding that scope, and guessing by your work - it can be done, and an astro camera like 178 / 224 or even 385 for more enthusiastic can be interesting combination to get them into both visual and video astronomy - and they can end up saving their VA sessions as proper images to share with friends and family.

 I wonder how would Mak of let's say 102mm aperture fair in this role - no CA to fight, but long focal length requires big pixels (or heavy binning) to get to suitable resolution. Need to research that a bit more - suitable sensor and also corrected field of Mak and suitable reducers.

Hi Vlaiv,

I have two setups for EAA, an RC6 reduced to F4.5 and a 72 semi-apo frac reduced to 3.7 ish. The RC6 sits on an CG5 mount and the 72mm sits on a simple SkyProdigy altaz mount. I do all EAA with a Lodestar mono camera, but the images obtained with the RC6 are just so much better, it’s like a different camera is being used. The images are sharper and more detailed and the stars are more pinpoint. I think they are even less noisy and ‘smoother’. I’m guessing it’s a combination of better mount and more different sampling (2.5”/pixel as opposed to 6.5”/pixel). Sampling is where my knowledge becomes, hazy, would be interested in your thoughts (apologies to th OP in advance for hijacking the thread!).

 

 

Edited by RobertI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RobertI said:

Hi Vlaiv,

I have two setups for EAA, an RC6 reduced to F4.5 and a 72 semi-apo frac reduced to 3.7 ish. The RC6 sits on an CG5 mount and the 72mm sits on a simple SkyProdigy altaz mount. I do all EAA with a Lodestar mono camera, but the images obtained with the RC6 are just so much better, it’s like a different camera is being used. The images are sharper and more detailed and the stars are more pinpoint. I think they are even less noisy and ‘smoother’. I’m guessing it’s a combination of better mount and more different sampling (2.5”/pixel as opposed to 6.5”/pixel). Sampling is where my knowledge becomes, hazy, would be interested in your thoughts (apologies in advance for hijacking the thread!).

 

 

There are many reasons why images are so much better with RC6, let's go with resolution / sharpness first.

2.5"/pixel is much more suitable sampling resolution than 6.5"/pixel. In general, under most circumstances, good sampling resolutions are between 1.3 and 2"/pixel. In order to go higher than that (meaning higher resolution - lower number of arc seconds per pixel) you really need large aperture, very steady seeing and excellent mount.

Mount will not play significant role for EAA if you keep your exposures really short, but once you start with exposure longer than say 5-6s, mount starts to be important. It is not just unguided performance that counts, mount stiffness (resistance to wind and vibration) and smoothness (does not produce vibrations due to drive mechanics on its own) also become a factor.

Things that go into sharpness of the image:

1. seeing - nothing you can do about that one, same for both scopes, and RC6 can be even more susceptible to seeing due to larger aperture (but tiny differences on these scales)

2. aperture - this is important thing - larger the scope - smaller the airy disk. Size of airy disk and it's blur contribute to overall star size and sharpness of the image. If we keep all other parameters the same - scope with larger aperture will have tighter stars. There is quite a bit of difference between the two - almost x2 airy disk diameter as it depends linearly with aperture.

3. Obviously the mount performance - if your single exposures are anywhere longer than few seconds - larger, more sturdy and smoother mount will have an edge.

4. Sampling pixel size and sampling resolution. I made distinction between the two, because they work in slightly different way. Let's go with sampling resolution first - this one determines details in the image. Obviously if 72mm frac is giving you 6.5"/pixel and RC is giving you 2.5"/pixel - image made with frac will simply be smaller and less detailed. If you "zoom in" by resampling that image - you will not recover details present in RC image. There is additional thing - sampling pixel size. Regular sampling implies getting values at points that are equally spaced - when I say point I mean like real point with no width and height - only position/coordinates. Pixels are not like that - they are little squares or rectangles, and when we sample signal with pixels we are integrating light over surface rather than getting value at a single point. This has consequence of creating additional blur (so called pixel blur). Larger the pixel - larger the blur.  In case of RC we can look at sky as function in arc seconds and each pixel is 2.5" wide and high (actually your camera has rectangular pixels rather than square, right? it does not change anything, so I'll stick with square pixels). On same function in arc seconds - 72mm frac will have 6.5" wide pixels - or simply put almost x3 larger pixel and that will create larger pixel blur (on top of coarser sampling).

One more thing to note - those GSO made RCs have pretty good optics, and RC design has quite good spot diagram so stars tend to be tight.

On the matter of better SNR, well only explanation that I can offer is that you are using mono camera and reflector system and you probably don't use UV/IR cut filter with that, and you do use it with 72mm frac.

As you noted RC system is at F/4.5 and frac is about F/3.7. Since you are using the same camera, faster system should get you better SNR. Part of F/ratio myth is that slow scope is always slower than fast scope. That is actually true if both scopes have equal light throughput and you are using the same camera - you will gain SNR in faster system at expense of resolution (not true in general because "slow" scope can be faster than "fast" scope if used with different pixel size and there is difference in aperture in favor of "slow" scope). Since you are using the same camera here F/3.7 should be faster than F/4.5 (how much faster depends on bunch of things, but faster in general - better SNR for same imaging time). Only way that RC produces better SNR images than frac in mono under such circumstances, that I can think of is if you are not using UV/IR cut filter with RC. That will not pose problem for mirror system and there is a lot of signal in IR part of spectrum from almost everything up there in the sky. Using IR/UV cut filter simply removes that and lowers signal part of SNR.

Btw, what sort of exposure lengths do you use? For shorter exposures you would certainly benefit from low read noise camera. Have you considered switching to CMOS based sensor for EAA?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the information Vlaiv. With the smaller setup I tend to do 10 second exposures and with the larger usually 30 second exposures. I also have a filter wheel attached on the larger setup and use a Baader luminance filter even if just doing mono - sounds like I shouldnt? Given what you have said I think the better mount on the larger setup might be helping, I guess The way to find out is to put the small scope on the larger mount and try the same comparison. (again apologies to OP for diverting thread).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RobertI said:

Thanks for the information Vlaiv. With the smaller setup I tend to do 10 second exposures and with the larger usually 30 second exposures. I also have a filter wheel attached on the larger setup and use a Baader luminance filter even if just doing mono - sounds like I shouldnt? Given what you have said I think the better mount on the larger setup might be helping, I guess The way to find out is to put the small scope on the larger mount and try the same comparison. (again apologies to OP for diverting thread).

Longer exposure explains the smoothness and less noise. Lodestar has about 10e read noise. That is quite a lot (not for CCD, although there are very "quite" CCD sensors out there - half that at around 5e).

Read noise in short exposures makes all the difference. In 3x10s you get about 17e of read noise (10 times square root of 3) while with larger setup you get only 10e in that amount of time (all other signals add up, only read noise is fixed per sub).

You should try to remove lum filter from RC. I don't know how much CA will be introduced by focal reducer at IR and UV part of spectrum, so you might get slightly bigger stars. I'm guessing that it will not have very large effect, so I think it's worth a try, after all it's a simple thing to remove it and try out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My most successful video work was done with a 12" SCT operating at 0.33, 0.63 with focal reducers and the native F10. The camera was a Stellacam 120n+ that stacked 512 images in around 10 seconds or extended to around 1 minute using the infinite integration facility. The monochrome images showed far more detail without further post processing than could be seen visually by much larger telescopes. For lunar and planetary imaging with the same 12" I used a Canon mini DV camcorder attached afocally via a 15mm Plossl, again the real time images were more detaied on the camera screen than those seen visually through the telescope. The cameras were simply connected to a TV monitor as well as a VCR if the recordings were to be saved.   😀

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe its because EAA,IMO, tend not to be to OCD  👹 🙂 (but I do admire/ like the images they produce 🙂 ) on creating mega "Hubble" images but prefer to scan the sky - as they would using a visual eye piece - hence the EAA name. Having said that ultra fast EAA set up's can produce high quality images when post processed. 

In the UK we get small enough clear skies as it is and the idea of spending 254hrs of data on one subject would most likely wipe out my years "seeing".  

Why beginners are not pointed to EAA - dont know but guess we all start of with Bino's  which are the cheapest way of doing Star viewing and are probably enjoyed by all no matter what other kit they have/use now - because they are simple,quick and low Tech - nothing wrong with that either 🙂

And before people start moaning I "try" (and enjoy) to do all forms of Star Gazing . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All your setups sound interesting, reflectors, refractors, Maks. I agree binoculars are a fantastic way to start. I started with binoculars and they're still my favorite for visual use, as they're so quick and easy. The difference in light grasp between my eyes and binoculars are 51x more thanks to astronomy.tools. Observing the Andromeda galaxy through binoculars was fantastic.

I'd never thought of below 1 second images except for the sun, moon and planets. It may be interesting to test different settings one night. I tend to get excited when I can see an object and spend 5 minutes on one and go onto the next before the clouds roll in or my laptop stops working. I've not really worked out why that happens yet it's a Microsoft Surface (maybe dew).

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 alanjgreen
      I received the new ADM saddle for my AZ GTi this morning (direct from ADM). I have now fitted it to my AZ GTi mount and my Borg 107FL is now a million times more secure than it was before - its a great upgrade!
      Here are the parts received from ADM... The new saddle is longer and chunkier than the feeble standard offering.

      Here is the AZ GTi mount before I start the upgrade..

      Remove the centre circular cover which is stuck on with a sticky pad underneath. I used a small flat head screwdriver to lift the edge of the tin cover then pulled it off with some pliers (there are the remains of the sticky pad underneath to be cleaned off afterwards)....

      Remove the 4 black screws and then the standard saddle pulls off...

      Re-use the four screws to secure the ADM adapter plate to the mount...

      Use the supplied 2x 1/4×20 SHCS screws to secure the ADM dual dovetail saddle to the ADM adapter plate... (You will need an imperial Allen key)

      Test it out with the Borg 107FL...



      The leftover standard parts...

      This looks a great upgrade, my scope's ADM dovetail fits very securely into the ADM dual saddle and my peace of mind is restored!
      Alan
    • By masjstovel
      Hi,
       
      I am looking at buying one of these, and need some guidance.
      Celestron Nexstar 4 SE
      Sky-Watcher Explorer-130P Synscan AZ GOTO
      Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT MAK
       
      I ended up With these 3 Choices mostly because of the cost I am willing to do the first time, and it seems like they have some abilities (motorized with GoTo-options)
      Priority 1: I want to observe nebulas, and galaxies (i.e. Andromeda)  on a decent "zoom" and focus.
      Priority 2: I want to do astrophotography.

      I've read elsewhere on the forum than its preferable to have an equatorial mount for astrophotography. As far as i can see none of the above have that, even if Celestron Nexstar 4SE is promoting astrophotography on the product info. Or have i misunderstood here and one of the above has an equatorial mount?
      The Product info on the Celestron Nexstar 4 SE says it has Alt-Az, EQ North & EQ South. Does this mean it has both options, az-al and equatorial mount?.
       
      I think should add that i consider myself at least an "above beginner"-photographer, and Photoshop user. I use NIKON D810 - is this even mountable on one of the telescopes mentioned here?
      I also have the Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer mini. Can i setup one of the telescopes mentioned with this and call it a telescope with equatorial mount? 

      I guess some of these questions might seem stupid to you, but I just dont know alot regarding telescopes yet:)

      Thanks in advance for any replies.
         
    • By Bigwings
      I need my garage back so am selling my excess mounts.
      1. EQ5 motorised on both axis.
      No tripod this was mounted ony pier. Tracks well. 
      £100 Collect only because of weight .
      2. An older type Skywatcher AZ goto mount that came with my SkyMax 127. Good condition .
      £100 Collect please but might be able to send if you arrange courier.
      SOLDto Pitbull ...thanks
      3. AZ GTi  goto in excellent condition . Still have the box so can send at cost.
      The pic shows it with a telescope on it which is not included.
      £200
      Location just north of Newark on A1
      Clear Skies.
      Thanks for looking
       
       
       



    • By noah4x4
      I wasn't sure where to post this tip....it is probably of most use here....
      Many of us with observatories or indoor Mission Control use Windows 10 Pro Remote Desktop to control a scope side computer running camera and scope control software from a second computer indoors. This works superbly at 1080p resolution.
      However, I have struggled for a year trying to perfect a wireless solution that works with 4K UHD cameras terminating in a 4K UHD display.  Until now, whilst cat 6 cable does work fine, wireless even at 5Ghz 802.11ac has struggled with some lag and poor performance. I have spent a fortune upgrading wireless adapters and range extenders, but this isn't the issue!
      Here is a solution;
      1.  Seperate your dual band network into distinct 5Ghz and 2.4 Ghz channels.
      This is easy with  (say) a BT Home Hub. If you don't do this, it can be a bit hit or miss whether your 5 Ghz wireless adapters connect to the right channel. You will now see TWO channels, one at 2.4 Ghz with a suffix like <hub name> and another at 5 Ghz named <hub name -5>. Connect your 5Ghz adapters to the latter. If your internal adapters are merely 2.4Ghz, you can disable them via Device Manager and plug in a USB version costing around £5. Note that at 5 Ghz wireless range might drop. If so, a Netgear EX8000 wireless extender is recommended as it employs 'mesh' technology. 
      2. ONLY if you have a fast network, and powerful CPUs and quality graphics card, try DISABLE 'RemoteFX compression' in RDP.
      This allows uncompressed screen data to flow across RDP.  I have found this improves performance whether using 802.11ac wireless or cat 6 cable. What RemoteFX compression appears to do is limit effective RDP speeds to under 10Mbps (due to translation times). That is crazy if you have 433 Mbps adapters,  and an 802.11ac network (or catv6 cable). Unleash the beast! Send across uncompressed data! The issue is not with speed or bandwidth, it is an artificially imposed limit in RDP.
      To do this type 'Edit Group Policy' in the Windows 10 Pro search box (doesn't work in Win 10 Home). You need to drill down through about five levels of Windows Configeration Folders, and Administration Templates and Remote Desktop Services/Host folders to find a utility named <Edit RemoteFX Compression>. In that, your options are <disable> compression or <enable> a compromise mode.
      If you don't know how to do this try Googling 'Disabling RemoteFX Compression' to find a lengthy Microsoft tutorial. Or visit https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/performance-tuning/role/remote-desktop/session-hosts .
      I deliberately don't here state the quick route sequence to access this deeply embedded network utility command because you are delving deep into developer/administrator territory and do need to understand what you are doing and how to revert to your original RDP settings if your network can't handle these levels of uncompressed screen data. We don't want any novice attempting this on a cheap Compute Stick on an inadequate network!
      3.  When employing RDP from your computer indoors, select <WAN 10 Mbps> or <LAN 10 Mbps> as appropriate via <Options><Experience>. The default <auto-select my connectivity> often selects too low an option. The irony here is you can select this and still not enjoy faster speeds unless you have edited/disabled RemoteFX compression.
      I now have Atik Infinity plus CPWI software running in an end to end 4K UHD system terminating in a 4K UHD monitor. Over 802.11ac wireless it is now rock steady.  Over cat 6 cable my system is now turbo powered. If you don't need RemoteFX Compression, don't let it restrict your network performance. It is evidently set to ensure it works on lowest common denominator networks. If you have a fast network/CPU, disable RemoteFX compression and finally release the beast of 4k UHD over RDP.
       
    • By Cam1988
      Hi all, 
      First post on here looking for some telescope buying advise. I've searched and seen some similar topics which have been very useful but thought i'd summarise and see what the experts think.
      I'm looking at getting myself and my girlfriend a telescope as an anniversary gift. She's not scientifically minded at all but she really likes the aesthetic of the moon. The house is filled with 3D printed moon lamps, jewelry, cushion covers etc.. We're about to move into a new house in Forest Hill in SE London and the new house has a really large garden backing onto more gardens so quite sheltered from all street lights. We both said to eachother a telescope might be a nice thing to have in the new house and something we can enjoy together in the new garden. 
      I've got a budget of up to £200 but by no means want to spend that much if I'm paying for features we don't need or will use. 
      I've got some experience with a reflector scope that was my brothers. He got it years ago and we both obsessed over it for about a month and then once we'd seen the big planets and a few blurry distant clusters we got bored and it never got touched again. That was a 130mm DIA reflector (skywatcher I think). After the initial excitement, my overriding feeling towards it was it was not worth the faff! This was in dark Northumberland as well, not London. 
      I've tried to explain this to my girlfriend when we've talked about it and said if we don't want the faff we might have to invest in a Go to electric telescope. The logic being if its quicker and easier to see stuff, we'll use it more. I did get then quite excited reading reviews and trying to find second-hand goto scopes and it seems like something in my budget (or slightly pushed budget) is something like a Celestron SLT 127. (have seen second hand ones go for £250).
      However having then done a bit of reading on here I think i've worked out that those cheaper Go-to's are still not that quick and simple to use, ultimately i'm I'm still only going to see fairly blurry planets and smudges of deep space clusters. I honestly don't think the girlfriend will be impressed and I'll probably get bored after a while too.  
      So I think I've come to the conclusion that I want to get a much smaller refractor that would be much more accessible for viewing the moon and would allow us to see a smudgy Saturn and Jupiter on clear nights. A smartphone camera holder would be a bonus too as it adds a simple feature that would keep us entertained for longer. 
      Do you think that's a fair approach or am I being a little too pessimistic about what I'm going to see? If so then what scopes could anyone recommend? Stepping down to a slightly lower budget there are so many more options and it's a bit bewildering. 
      Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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