Solar Imaging

[wsteel33]

Hi everyone

Just taken this using the Explore Scientific Suncatcher Solar Filter I just received.

Is it just that the surface of the Sun is a bit quiet at the moment or am I badly out of focus?

I took this with my Orion 80ED and Canon 600D at ISO 400 and 1/500 sec exposure. Took about 300 shots using APT but this is a single un-stacked image

Just started imaging the Sun (done some DSO stuff, but still very much a novice and in the early learning phase of Astrophotography). I figured imaging the Sun doubles the time I can spend using my scopes.

I would like to invest in some filters (Poss, H-alpha first) to try and pick out more detail but thought it was wise to cut my teeth before I invest in more kit.

Any advice and constructive criticism from anyone with experience more than welcome.

Cheers 🙂

Wayne

[Nigella Bryant]

Hiya, the image looks like it's not focused to me. It looks ill-defined. I usually use sharpcap and focus looking at the edge of the solar disk.

[wsteel33]

Just now, Nigella Bryant said:

Hiya, the image looks like it's not focused to me. It looks ill-defined. I usually use sharpcap and focus looking at the edge of the solar disk.

Hi Nigella

Yeah.. I was wondering if that was the case.

It was a spur of the moment thing and so I didn't have shading for the laptop/camera and couldn't really see properly so was struggling. 

SharpCap 👍,

Cheers, I'll give that a go.

[david_taurus83]

Sharpcap won't work with a DSLR and that filter will only be good for white light, sunspots etc. Don't think an Ha filter will benefit as the dedicated solar equipment (Lunt etc) work with extremely narrow bandpasses.

[wsteel33]

Thanks David

I have a modded webcam and I guide my DSO stuff with a Lodestar Starlight Xpress which I could use as the imaging camera. I have also obtained a Watec Wat120n for EAA which I think I could use for capturing video (and possibly in SharpCap?).

I was planning to pick up an H-alpha filter for my DSO imaging, would this not work in conjunction with the white light filter on the objctive to bring out more detail? I know there are specific H-alpha filters for Sun work and suspected the filters for DSO imaging may not cut the mustard for solar imaging.

 

[Freddie]

A Ha filter designed for DSO will not help with your WL imaging.

[Nigella Bryant]

No a dedicated ha filter for DSO will not work, it's not the same as ha etchlons. Please don't attempt this. The sun is very dangerous and needs dedicated equipment. Your eye's aren't worth the risk. Always use proper solar filters.

[wsteel33]

Suspected as much, but thanks anyway.

Was never planning to "look" through it and have an objective WL filter for the Sun

👍

[Carbon Brush]

Hi Wayne.

First and most important. If you don't have proper safe filtering on a scope, you will without warning kill your eye. Simple as that.
You will put the energy that falls onto the scope objective, concentrated onto a small region of your retina.
In less time than it takes to blink or move your eye is damaged and won't recover - ever.
Sorry if I am preaching to the converted. But these threads get read by others who may not be aware.

A filter on the scope objective, as you have fitted, will cut down the energy into your scope to a relaitively safe amount.
By relatively safe, I mean the scope won't suffer glass fractures from heating further down the optical train.
This is one reason the eyepiece size solar filters sold by uscrupuous people are so dangerous.
I don't know the Explore Scientific filter material, having only ever used the Baader solar film, which is the same idea.
This is why I'm not sure if the filter will dim down the image enough for comfortable viewing.

Having done this, you are in with a chance of seeing sunspots. If there are any as the sun is very quiet at present.
You also need stable air to allow you to go for high magnification.

If you want to see prominences and detail of granulation, you need a 'hydrogen alpha' scope.
In very approximate ascending order of price you are looking at a Coronado PST, Daystar Quark, or Lunt Solar.

I had a PST for several years. As a quick 'go out and look', it worked very well. Sme can be problematic about bring a camera into focus.
I have never used any of the Daystar eyepieces or complete scopes so cannot comment.
Thse days I use a Lunt LS60. Not the 'grab n go' of the PST. But a better scope.

A secondhand PST is a good low risk foray into solar. £400 or a bit more. You can always resell at litte or no loss if you don't get on.

Keep asking and I hope at least some of the reply is useful.

David.

[wsteel33]

16 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

Hi Wayne.

First and most important. If you don't have proper safe filtering on a scope, you will without warning kill your eye. Simple as that.
You will put the energy that falls onto the scope objective, concentrated onto a small region of your retina.
In less time than it takes to blink or move your eye is damaged and won't recover - ever.
Sorry if I am preaching to the converted. But these threads get read by others who may not be aware.

A filter on the scope objective, as you have fitted, will cut down the energy into your scope to a relaitively safe amount.
By relatively safe, I mean the scope won't suffer glass fractures from heating further down the optical train.
This is one reason the eyepiece size solar filters sold by uscrupuous people are so dangerous.
I don't know the Explore Scientific filter material, having only ever used the Baader solar film, which is the same idea.
This is why I'm not sure if the filter will dim down the image enough for comfortable viewing.

Having done this, you are in with a chance of seeing sunspots. If there are any as the sun is very quiet at present.
You also need stable air to allow you to go for high magnification.

If you want to see prominences and detail of granulation, you need a 'hydrogen alpha' scope.
In very approximate ascending order of price you are looking at a Coronado PST, Daystar Quark, or Lunt Solar.

I had a PST for several years. As a quick 'go out and look', it worked very well. Sme can be problematic about bring a camera into focus.
I have never used any of the Daystar eyepieces or complete scopes so cannot comment.
Thse days I use a Lunt LS60. Not the 'grab n go' of the PST. But a better scope.

A secondhand PST is a good low risk foray into solar. £400 or a bit more. You can always resell at litte or no loss if you don't get on.

Keep asking and I hope at least some of the reply is useful.

David.

Hi David

Comprehensive and clear reply. Thanks buddy 🙂

I think I'll likely stick to WL imaging for now (in adidition to the night-time stuff I do) and try and get my focussing more accurate and see if I can pick up any sunspots when the sun is a bit more active.

I've used the Baader film before too (before the filter I made got damaged) and the Explore Scientific is very similar but gives a yellow tinge to the image rather thatn the true WL from the Baader and I thought I'd give it a go as it came pre-built.

Thanks again for your advice.

Wayne

[Freddie]

1 hour ago, Carbon Brush said:

If you want to see prominences and detail of granulation, you need a 'hydrogen alpha' scope.

You do not need a ‘Ha scope’ to see granulation. WL will show granulation.

 

[retret66]

I have seen filters which capture some slight surface details but it will never be as good as dedicated Ha scope

[Freddie]

26 minutes ago, retret66 said:

I have seen filters which capture some slight surface details but it will never be as good as dedicated Ha scope

I think you are a little confused over this. Solar “surface” Ha images and WL images capture two completely different things. So detail can be captured just as much in a WL image as in a Ha image.

[Stu]

On 05/07/2020 at 17:33, Carbon Brush said:

This is why I'm not sure if the filter will dim down the image enough for comfortable viewing.

Baader AstroSolar film comes in two flavours.

The ND5.0 is safe for visual observing although still benefits from either a polarising or continuum filter to manage the brightness and boost the detail in the granulation etc.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/solar-filters/baader-astrosolar-safety-film-nd-50.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/solar-filters/explore-scientific-solarix-a4-solar-filter-film.html

The ND3.8 film is suitable only for imaging

https://www.modernastronomy.com/shop/filters-wheels/baader-filters/solar-baader/baader-photo-astrosolar-film-nd3-8-telescope-quality/

[retret66]

1 hour ago, Freddie said:

I think you are a little confused over this. Solar “surface” Ha images and WL images capture two completely different things. So detail can be captured just as much in a WL image as in a Ha image.

what I mean by detail is two different things, as stated clearly here..
 

 

[Freddie]

44 minutes ago, retret66 said:

what I mean by detail is two different things, as stated clearly here..
 

 

You originally said you had seen some filters that capture 'some slight surface detail' but it will never be as good as a Ha scope. Don't under estimate the detail that can be achieved in WL as the details are far from slight with the correct setup. As the two setups are imaging two completely different things, you really can't make a direct comparison between the two.

To say the detail in WL will never be as good as in Ha is somewhat misleading. I don't think this image lacks detail. It just doesn't look the same as a Ha image but why would it.

[wsteel33]

4 hours ago, Stu said:

Baader AstroSolar film comes in two flavours.

The ND5.0 is safe for visual observing although still benefits from either a polarising or continuum filter to manage the brightness and boost the detail in the granulation etc.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/solar-filters/baader-astrosolar-safety-film-nd-50.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/solar-filters/explore-scientific-solarix-a4-solar-filter-film.html

The ND3.8 film is suitable only for imaging

https://www.modernastronomy.com/shop/filters-wheels/baader-filters/solar-baader/baader-photo-astrosolar-film-nd3-8-telescope-quality/

I am thinking that a continuum filter is definitely in my future

[wsteel33]

2 hours ago, Freddie said:

You originally said you had seen some filters that capture 'some slight surface detail' but it will never be as good as a Ha scope. Don't under estimate the detail that can be achieved in WL as the details are far from slight with the correct setup. As the two setups are imaging two completely different things, you really can't make a direct comparison between the two.

To say the detail in WL will never be as good as in Ha is somewhat misleading. I don't think this image lacks detail. It just doesn't look the same as a Ha image but why would it.

Blimey.. is that granulation acheived through a WL filter? If so, impressive!

There is far more possible than I originally thought (when I figure out how to focus on the Sun 😁).

[Stu]

4 minutes ago, wsteel33 said:

Blimey.. is that granulation acheived through a WL filter? If so, impressive!

There is far more possible than I originally thought (when I figure out how to focus on the Sun 😁).

You can get excellent granulation detail visually too with a wedge and continuum filter. Not to the level of Freddie’s amazing image of course but still pretty good when the seeing is steady.

[Freddie]

1 hour ago, wsteel33 said:

Blimey.. is that granulation acheived through a WL filter? If so, impressive!

There is far more possible than I originally thought (when I figure out how to focus on the Sun 😁).

Yes, most people under estimate what can be achieved with WL. In my experience, hi res WL is a lot harder to achieve than hi res Ha so you don’t tend to see too many hi res WL images, so don’t realise what is possible with the right kit, capture and processing. A typical image would be something more like that below (no false colour on this one) so that’s what people tend to think is all that is achievable in WL. To be fair it’s not particularly dynamic and interesting compared to a similar Ha image so I can understand why people have those opinions. It’s not however the full story as hopefully my images have shown.

[Davey-T]

29 minutes ago, Freddie said:

Yes, most people under estimate what can be achieved with WL.

Could you dig out one of your amazing WL sunspot close ups Freddie to show what's possible.

Dave

[Freddie]

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my images Dave. Here is one from last year.

[Nigella Bryant]

57 minutes ago, Freddie said:

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my images Dave. Here is one from last year.

Amazing and beautiful