Jump to content

The tadpoles in Ha. My first proper photo with the qhy183m


emyliano2000

Recommended Posts

Having some problems with my TS65 quad, I decided to send it to a telescope doctor and take the 130pds out of the cupboard and put it to use.

I'm so glad that I did because this is the first photo that I'm actually happy with since I bought the qhy183m at the beginning of December last year.

25x300sec at -20°C with darks and flats.LRM_EXPORT_832581841800173_20190220_194753776.thumb.jpeg.fcd243b70fd6abb02c4054d0990048b4.jpeg

Emil

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rickwayne said:

Fairly new ASI183MM owner myself -- does the QHY have that whacking great amp glow starburst on the right side? Obviously if it does, you've calibrated it out beautifully.

It does and it's frightfully bright but as long as you take good darks and don't calibrate them with bias it's removed completely. I've been advised to take dark flats but so far I didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/02/2019 at 19:58, emyliano2000 said:

Having some problems with my TS65 quad, I decided to send it to a telescope doctor and take the 130pds out of the cupboard and put it to use.

I'm so glad that I did because this is the first photo that I'm actually happy with since I bought the qhy183m at the beginning of December last year.

25x300sec at -20°C with darks and flats.LRM_EXPORT_832581841800173_20190220_194753776.thumb.jpeg.fcd243b70fd6abb02c4054d0990048b4.jpeg

Emil

 

Thats a nice image.

If you are having issues with getting satisfying results from the TS65 quad (apart from alignment) then it may be that F6.5 is just a little too slow for this camera to get optimal results due to the tiny pixels. 

The130PDS at F5 is actually a better match and at that pixel scale its actually reasonable to bin 2x2 in software to improve the image quality.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Adam J said:

If you are having issues with getting satisfying results from the TS65 quad (apart from alignment)

I was unfortunate enough to have a bird with a very upset stomach mistaken the front lens of the telescope with a bird toilet. It was so runny, it went all over the place and I opened it up to clean it and messed up the collimation. It's at the doctor's now, hoping to get it back as it was. I love that scope and I think it's a good match for the camera giving me a 1.18 arcsec/pixel resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, emyliano2000 said:

I was unfortunate enough to have a bird with a very upset stomach mistaken the front lens of the telescope with a bird toilet. It was so runny, it went all over the place and I opened it up to clean it and messed up the collimation. It's at the doctor's now, hoping to get it back as it was. I love that scope and I think it's a good match for the camera giving me a 1.18 arcsec/pixel resolution.

sounds horrific.

I get your point but at the same time the Daws limit of a 65mm aperture is about 1.8 arcsecond per pixel, while you can sample that, separation I doubt you would truly resolve anything down to 1.18 and so you can probably still make gains by resizing the image without losing much in terms of detail.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Adam J said:

sounds horrific.

I get your point but at the same time the Daws limit of a 65mm aperture is about 1.8 arcsecond per pixel, while you can sample that, separation I doubt you would truly resolve anything down to 1.18 and so you can probably still make gains by resizing the image without losing much in terms of detail.

Adam

Quite right, the camera is trying to image past what the actual optics can resolve with a 65mm aperture. Its much better suited to the 130pds - being just slightly oversampled, and you have 20MP to play with, so its quite possible to bin the image. Though if im not mistaken - its not true hardware binning with CMOS so the same effect can be achieved just by resizing with software.... which is handy becuase instead of cutting it to 5MP (as you would with 2x2bin), you could reduce by 0.5 instead and have a 10mp image to process.... which is still pretty big!

Though the image is a good example of both what the telescope and camera can achieve.

Just wait until galaxy season swings around, you can have some serious fun with the 130/183 combo ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Uranium235 said:

Quite right, the camera is trying to image past what the actual optics can resolve with a 65mm aperture. Its much better suited to the 130pds - being just slightly oversampled, and you have 20MP to play with, so its quite possible to bin the image. Though if im not mistaken - its not true hardware binning with CMOS so the same effect can be achieved just by resizing with software.... which is handy becuase instead of cutting it to 5MP (as you would with 2x2bin), you could reduce by 0.5 instead and have a 10mp image to process.... which is still pretty big!

Though the image is a good example of both what the telescope and camera can achieve.

Just wait until galaxy season swings around, you can have some serious fun with the 130/183 combo ;)

I think I'm gonna clean up my 200p today and give it a go with my qhy183c 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.