Used a plate solving website for the first time, its cool!

[endless-sky]

In this hobby, it seems we are always waiting for something.

Waiting for equipment, or waiting for clear skies... 😱😅

[gaz81]

So far so good....

first 200 second Goto++ PHD guided image in process of NGC7000 in process....

[gaz81]

I’m a very happy bunny right now!!!

[gaz81]

Not really sure if these numbers are good or not considering it’s an AZ GTI?

[gaz81]

Oh man...

Almost first light and still at it. 

32 x 200s of NGC 7000

20 x 200s of NGC 281

and now running 20 x 200s of M42... as it was just looking at me... and I couldn’t help myself! 

Will have to leave it running darks in the garage and get some kip after M42 🙂

[bottletopburly]

I believe the  total rms needs ideally to be under 1 your at 2.25 , check pa and balance ,  go east heavy on balance , run the guiding assistant before guiding on your target , post your phd2 guide log on another thread others may be able to help    Hone your settings , how do stars look if they’re round then yay 👍, try and stick to one target and get at least 4hrs of data your images will look less noisy try and get 12hrs on a target  , well done getting a clear sky 👍 and well done imaging a good nights work .

Edited October 17, 2020 by bottletopburly

[gaz81]

All packed up now... well, it’s running darks in the garage. Clouds rolled in during M42. 
 

Yeah, stars seems fine... will have a proper look later. Did a full calibration before I started. 

Did polar alignment in SharpCap first and set at excellent  

but yeah, limited time on NGC7000 as a tree got in the way 🙂

Hopefully we get another clear night at some point.  
 

Will try and find the logs as well, thanks! 

Edited October 17, 2020 by gaz81

[gaz81]

Not to bad for the limited time I had, I'm happy anyway.

[bottletopburly]

some anomaly going on with bright stars but a good start 

[gaz81]

Yeah, I asked a question in that in a separate thread. Seems to happen in the brightest stars. 

[Seelive]

19 hours ago, gaz81 said:

Not really sure if these numbers are good or not considering it’s an AZ GTI?

You are guiding at less than 0.2 pixels RMS and you are unlikely to get much better that. To decrease the error in arcsec you will need to increase the focal length of your guide scope or change to a guide camera with a smaller pixel size. The numbers shown suggest that you're guiding at a resolution of 11 arcsec / pixel which is very large. Have you entered the correct guide scope focal length and guide camera pixel size into PHD2?

[Seelive]

1 hour ago, gaz81 said:

Not to bad for the limited time I had, I'm happy anyway.

Are you using a filter of some sort?

[gaz81]

Yup, this (had some amazon vouchers to spend at the time):

Ѕkу-Wаtсhеr 2 Іnсh Ultrа Ніgh Соntrаѕt (UНС) Fіltеr:
Тhе nаrrоwbаnd UНС fіltеr, lіkе thе О-ІІІ fіltеr, іѕоlаtеѕ thе twо dоublу іоnіzеd охуgеn lіnеѕ (496 аnd 501nm) іn аddіtіоn tо thе hуdrоgеn-bеtа lіnе (486nm) еmіttеd bу рlаnеtаrу аnd mоѕt еmіѕѕіоn nеbulае.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by gaz81

[endless-sky]

Maybe internal reflections due to the filter. The only way of knowing for sure would be to try some test shots without (just pick a field with very bright stars, for example - perfect for this period - the Pleiades).

[gaz81]

50 minutes ago, Seelive said:

You are guiding at less than 0.2 pixels RMS and you are unlikely to get much better that. To decrease the error in arcsec you will need to increase the focal length of your guide scope or change to a guide camera with a smaller pixel size. The numbers shown suggest that you're guiding at a resolution of 11 arcsec / pixel which is very large. Have you entered the correct guide scope focal length and guide camera pixel size into PHD2?

I think so.

Its a SkyWatcher 9x5 with the 1st gen QHY5 mono camera.

I have the focal length set to 200mm and pixel size 5.2

It's an old camera I do plan to upgrade at some point. 

[Seelive]

9 minutes ago, gaz81 said:

I think so.

Its a SkyWatcher 9x5 with the 1st gen QHY5 mono camera.

I have the focal length set to 200mm and pixel size 5.2

It's an old camera I do plan to upgrade at some point. 

I don't understand that then, a focal length of 200mm and a pixel size of 5.2um should give a scaling of 5.3 arcsec/pixel rather than the 11 that your PHD2 screenshot shows (or is the camera 2x2 bining?)

[gaz81]

Ohhh... Just nipped the garage and plugged in to check. 

Yes, it’s 2x2 binning. 

Edited October 17, 2020 by gaz81

[Seelive]

That explains it! If you use no binning you'll get better guiding accuracy but the camera sensitivity will be reduced so you may find it more difficult to select a guide star. Swings and roundabouts comes to mind 😊

[gaz81]

5 minutes ago, Seelive said:

That explains it! If you use no binning you'll get better guiding accuracy but the camera sensitivity will be reduced so you may find it more difficult to select a guide star. Swings and roundabouts comes to mind 😊

Superstar 🙂 thanks!

I don’t remember telling it to bin, but maybe I did set it. 
 

Will give it a go next time along with another calibration, as I assume I’d need to if I change that