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_ep34_banner.thumb.jpg.28dd32d9305c7de9b6591e6bf6600b27.jpg

Padraic M

Advice needed on perfect focus

Recommended Posts

I spent the full night out last night and got 6 hours of Ha lights on the Bubble and the Horsehead. Reasonably pleased with the results, but even though I followed my usual process and got good focus statistics in APT, I am slightly out of focus with roundy stars and some are even slightly donutty. Samples are attached below.

Problem:
- After getting close to spot-on focus, the APT Bahtinov Aid showed a focus distance oscillating from -0.02 to +0.02. Seeing seemed good to the inexpert eye. Not so sure about transparency as there was some thin, wispy cloud throughout the night. So, I started the night's imaging with focus 'Close' rather than 'On' focus.
- Different subs show different quality stars, ranging from small donuts to circles.

Background information:
- HEQ5 Pro Rowan; SW Esprit 80 with field flattener, SW stock manual Crayford focuser; ZWO EFW Mini; Baader 1.25" 3.5nm Ha filter; ZWO ASI1600MM Pro binned 1x1 @ -20c.
- AA Starwave 50mm guidescope with ZWO ASI290mm Mini guidecam binned 2x2.
- All subs are 300s, gain 139, offset 10.
- Polar alignment with Sharpcap to 17 arcsec ("Excellent"); capture with APT; guiding with Phd2. Focus with Bahtinov mask and APT Bahtinov Aid. Stacked in DSS with Darks, Flats and Dark Flats.
- Mount is well balanced in RA, but is very camera-heavy in Dec.
- PHD2 guiding was around 2"/px. Imaging pixel scale is 1.9"/px.

Questions:
- Do I put the round stars down to seeing, given that the Bahtinov Aid focus distance was bouncing equally above and below zero?
- Can poor seeing cause the donut stars?
- Would an electronic auto-focuser do any better in this situation?
- Would the Seeing Monitor in Sharpcap give useful information? I didn't think to use it last night.
- Could my guiding performance, and possibly the Dec balance, have affected the image quality in this way?
- What are my options in future - abandon imaging for the night? Bin all images in software 2x2 or 4x4 to sharpen the stars at the expense of lower resolution?
- Other suggestions?

Sample 1: Detail from a single 5-min sub of Bubble nebula at 100% showing round stars, and a blurred bubble.

1707805687_sub1bubbleround.jpg.fddb556cd70a77f2d5746b1fb860f7bc.jpg

Sample 2: Detail from a different sub of the Bubble nebula at 400% showing donuts

53163684_sub2bubbledonuts.jpg.fdd3dab9a0d1850d87cb57dbdaac87ad.jpg

 

Sample 3: Detail from a 5-min sub of the Horsehead nebula at 100%, showing both round and donut stars

488653130_sub3horsehead.thumb.jpg.8571146538da527e9a8d1cd61a2e2963.jpg

 

Finally, both images stacked, calibrated and stretched, scaled to 4x4 in Gimp. 28x300s Ha on bubble, 22*300s Ha on horsehead.

1439117254_Horsehead4x4.jpg.7020542eb796eaac01440fae5ee4f89e.jpg

631476436_BubbleNebula4x4.jpg.f23fcf78b7dc849c77d62c52ba087285.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Padraic M said:

Questions:

- Do I put the round stars down to seeing, given that the Bahtinov Aid focus distance was bouncing equally above and below zero?
- Can poor seeing cause the donut stars?
- Would an electronic auto-focuser do any better in this situation?
- Would the Seeing Monitor in Sharpcap give useful information? I didn't think to use it last night.
- Could my guiding performance, and possibly the Dec balance, have affected the image quality in this way?
- What are my options in future - abandon imaging for the night? Bin all images in software 2x2 or 4x4 to sharpen the stars at the expense of lower resolution?
- Other suggestions?

- Seeing: unlikely, the stars are very round, so that seems not to be the case.

- Donut stars due to seeing: only in the very rare event that seeing and poor tracking will cause the star to make a circle during your exposure. So, no, not possible.

- Better performance by electronic focuser: Yes, provided it is used in combination with proper auto-focus software (see below).

- SharpCap's seeing monitor: never used it, have no idea how useful it is.

- Guiding performance: no, poor guiding will not result in round stars.

- Future options: get a decent imaging package like SGP or MaximDL. There are some free packages as well that do fairly well, perhaps others can comment on that. I used the focuser routine of SharpCap myself, but was not impressed, especially when compared to the one built into SGP that I normally use.

- Other suggestions: wait for other SGL-members to respond. 😉

As far as I can tell your camera was not in focus. Please note that during the night your scope will cool down and as a result of it will loose focus. The imaging packages mentioned above will allow you to check focus every so many degrees, frames or minutes.

Nicolàs

Edited by inFINNity Deck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just soft focus. I've never felt the need to use software to interpret the Bahtinov mask image and when I check my visual B-mask focal point against an FWHM measurement I find it's right. I'm not a fan of software for software's sake.

I disagree with Nicolas when he says, '- Guiding performance: no, poor guiding will not result in round stars.' If the tracking errors are of the same magnitude on both axes then you will get round stars but they will be larger than they should be. We saw this when initially testing guide parameters on our Mesu mount. As we optimized the parameters the stars became significantly smaller. This is an unusual situation but not an impossible one. It also shows that round stars are not, in fact, reliable indicators of good tracking. 

Once you have robotic focus working it should give you the best result but I just do it by hand and check regularly.

Olly

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed you have a manual focuser. Is there any backlash? If so make sure any final adjustment is "in" i.e.  lifting the image train against gravity. Also make sure it does not move once locked down or shift when locking it down.

Regards Andrew 

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I noticed you have a manual focuser. Is there any backlash? If so make sure any final adjustment is "in" i.e.  lifting the image train against gravity. Also make sure it does not move once locked down or shift when locking it down.

Regards Andrew 

Very good point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I disagree with Nicolas when he says, '- Guiding performance: no, poor guiding will not result in round stars.' If the tracking errors are of the same magnitude on both axes then you will get round stars but they will be larger than they should be. We saw this when initially testing guide parameters on our Mesu mount. As we optimized the parameters the stars became significantly smaller. This is an unusual situation but not an impossible one. It also shows that round stars are not, in fact, reliable indicators of good tracking.

Hi Olly,

interesting, and you are absolutely right: if guiding fails by the same amount in both directions, you will get bloated round stars. I thought that would be as rare as donuts being created by seeing, but apparently not...

Nicolàs

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@inFINNity Deck, @ollypenrice and @andrew s thanks guys for the very informative commentary. I'm reassured that it's something that can be improved through more rigour and technique, rather than something I have to live with. On the next clear night I might pay more attention to the FWHM reading. Is it safe to say that FWHM should be in a standard range as long as I don't make material changes in the light-path, i.e. with experience I can say that I need to achieve FWHM of 1 or 0.5 or whatever, regardless of what (unsaturated) star I choose? So I can quantitatively say that I am near or in focus in every situation?

5 hours ago, inFINNity Deck said:

during the night your scope will cool down

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I just do it by hand and check regularly

I was happily tucked up in bed for the majority of this imaging session and unfortunately it looks like this may not be possible in future unless I move to automated focusing. That's a definite incentive for me to spend more money!

3 hours ago, andrew s said:

make sure any final adjustment is "in"

Good idea. There is certainly a big difference in tension between "in" and "out", as there's a lot of weight on the camera end. The focus also does change as I lock it down, so I have to adjust the focus lock and the fine focus knob together in very small increments.

I think for now I will treat focus performance and guiding performance as separate issues until I have got the basics right for focusing.

Many thanks all, knowledgeable, helpful and generous as usual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, inFINNity Deck said:

Hi Olly,

interesting, and you are absolutely right: if guiding fails by the same amount in both directions, you will get bloated round stars. I thought that would be as rare as donuts being created by seeing, but apparently not...

Nicolàs

I don't think donuts will be created by bad seeing. The stellar image may move around during the exposure but the central part of the star will surely still get the most light.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I've read your post correctly, you're using a 400mm scope with a 3.92um pixel camera, binned 2X ?

Imaging scale is then 4.04arcsecs/pixel.

Would that give fat round stars........?

Or dew due to the cooling?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the original post (under "Background information:") the camera is a "ZWO ASI1600MM Pro binned 1x1 @ -20c." The SkyWatcher Esprit 80 is f/5 (400mm focal length, 80mm aperture). This means that it will produce an Airy-disc (at green light) with a radius of 0.66 x 5 = 3.3 micron, so a full Airy-disc of 6.6 micron diameter. This is just under 2 x 2 pixels of the image. The other way around it is recommended to image with a f-number of at least 3 times the pixel-size, so around f/10. The images shown here are therefore slightly undersampled, but that would not cause these fat round stars (contrary even).

It would be great to see the original image at full resolution, but if I look at the noise in the first crop the stars seem to have a diameter of roughly 15 pixels, which seems to indicate a focus issue.

Nicolàs

Edited by inFINNity Deck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @michael8554  @inFINNity Deck yes I'm imaging un-binned so the pixel scale is 1.9"/px.

Here's the full Bubble Nebula stacked at full resolution. Only the worst 2 lights were excluded. Stars look approximately 12 pixels wide in the remaining 30 frames and in the stack.

 Bubble Nebula.tif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Bubble Nebula on Astrobin, imaged with a SkyWatcher Esprit 80ED and combination of a Canon and ZWO ASI1600MM Cool. Here is another one, imaged with same scope and ZWO ASI1600MM Cool only. So, clearly the scope can perform better at this pixel scale.

Nicolàs

 

Edited by inFINNity Deck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've no doubt the scope/camera combination can do better. Those are great photographs. I particularly like Rudiger's final Ha version.

Just waiting now for another clear night to try again, this time with more effort on focus and FWHM watching.

 

  • Like 1

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 Planetarian
      Hi, I've got a Skywatcher Heritage 130p reflector, and if i insert anything less than 10mm eyepiece, the image won't get crisp. I guess it's normal, but as I'm very new to astronomy, I'd like to know what the sharpness depends on exactly. 
      Is that the focal length (how fast the telescope is? ) or the size of the mirror and how much light it gathers? Or both affect it the same way?  
      Are things the same with refractors in this regard? Thanks. 
    • By Sidecontrol
      Hi there,
       
      So I've finally gotten round to setting up APT and Sterallium (via ASCOM) on my laptop for controlling my mount EQM 35 pro. (I got PHD2 working on it a while back).  I followed a tutorial on youtbe about doing this using simulators in Sterallium, when doing this pressing control + 1 on the keyboard moves the simulated telescope and everything seems to update in ATP and work fine.
       
      The (small) problem I'm having is when i successful connect my own mount in Sterallium (after doing the same in APT) I click on an area and then press the short cut Ctrl + 1, nothing happens, my yellow telescope icon doesn't move to the location, but when I do it in APT, sterallium obviously updates to show the new position.
       
      Any idea why the short cut in Sterallium isn't working when connected to my mount?
       
      Cheers,
      Mark
    • By AstroRookie
      Hello,
      I'm getting desperate over this hobby (but I refuse to give up); with every change new problems set in. I purchased a SVBONY SV106 (60mm - 240mm) guide scope to replace a 80mm - 400mm scope, I was using as a guide scope which was installed on the Orion 8 tube rings. I replaced the finder scope with the guide scope.
      First issue balancing but that one I sorted out. Then I tried to focus the ASI120MM with the new guide scope. For the old  one (80x400) , I needed 2 extensions (in fact the extensions are low cost barlows from which I removed the plastic lens) to get focus. To align the new guide scope, I used a 17mm eyepiece and that went ok while pointing at some far away trees. But I could not get the ASI120MM focused on the same trees, not with PHD2 nor with Firecapture; I turned the gain way down, but with or without extensions, no focus. As bad weather is (again) setting in and the scope is permanently outside I had to stop trying.
      So I take on this break to get some assistance.  Anybody any advice on this, for
      AstroRookie
    • By 3rkunt
      Hello,
       
      I am pretty new to this forum. Well, have been following it for quite a while but this is the first time I am writing something.
       
      I am selling my ASI 1600MM Pro that I bought from FLO on February 2020. It has been a great camera, and even with my Celestron NexStar 8SE scope and Bortle Class 8, it gave me great results. It doesn't have any mechanical or other problem, the reason I am selling this is to move to a new camera
       
      Let me know if you are interested in.
       
      The price I have in my mind is £1000.
       
      Here are some pictures I took with this camera ;





    • By SStanford
      Hi All,
      For what has seemed like forever, the clouds finally parted late last night and the Orion constellation was very clear from my balcony.
      I had a brief window of opportunity earlier this week and had difficulty focusing on stars at all using my DSLR (Canon 450D) and APT. 
      Last night was a breakthrough; I was able to capture starlight in APT liveview and even bring the stars into (significantly better) focus!
      I now face my next challenge; I am unable to focus sharply on any of the stars.  Using my telescopes focusing wheel I seem to get only blurry spots of light coming through, despite very carefully adjusting the wheel for quite some time.
      At the risk of embarrassing myself, I've attached the images of Rigel and Betelgeuse I captured last night (on both long and short exposures, details of ISO and exposure are detailed in the image titles). This is as sharp as I can them.
      Is there anyway I can fine tune the focus? I've seen AP videos on Youtube where jam jar lids have been glued to the focus wheel or motorized focusers attached. Are these gimmicky or do they make a significant difference?
      I should mention that I don't yet have a tracking mount:  I've eyed the Skywatcher AZ-GTI wi-fi as good candidate for my first meaningful mount (with the EQ wedge coming shortly after).  Having emailed a number of retailers it seems these are in very short supply, here's hoping stock replenishes post-Christmas! I think this will let me get to grips with the equipment I have right now, definitely would like to get a sharper image, even if I'm only capturing star trails.  
      to capture the images shown below I used:
       - Celestron 100AZ (100mm Aperture, 660mm focal length)
       - Canon 450d 
       - Barlow lens x2 (Celestron)
       - APT (connected DSLR directly to laptop via USB)
       - Stock Celestron Alt-Az Mount
      All the best.
      Single__0049_ISO400_0s4s__20C.CR2 Single__0034_ISO1600_30s__20C.CR2 Single__0027_ISO1600_30s__20C.CR2 Single__0012_ISO1600_1s__20C.CR2 Single__0011_ISO1600_30s__20C.CR2
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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