Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

the Bahtinov has just been improved !!!


Recommended Posts

whoah! thats a seriosly cool bit of software to help with the already spot on Bahtinov masks. Just added that to my software list, will try it with Maxim next time I get out... if ever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some way down the link provided above there is reference to a 'bahtinov-grabber'. This allows you to check any image, not just one captured by a webcam. For anyone interested in testing this out, the following three images may be of some assistance - the grabber worked very convincingly:-

Focusout.jpg

Focusin.jpg

okfocus.jpg

focusok.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right Steve, sorry I should have said, there are 2x apps available on the link;

Bahtinov Focus.zip and Bahtinov Grabber.zip (download the one available on Page 2 of the thread)

The grabber is for poor saps like myself that don't have live view with their DSLR's :cool:

The Bahtinov Focus Aid is for w/cams etc with live preview images.

Karlo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried this software out last night and it certainly shows promise - it does give different results with slightly different pixel error reports when you use different size selection boxes' and I noted that taking a continuous stream of images without changing the focus also resulted in varying error reports but in my tests it did accurately identify the focus sweet spot when within 0.5 - 0.8 of a pixel and if it is reporting accurately then I doubt the human eye could detect that amount of error quite as well!

Taking large images with my M25C did result in a bit of processor conflict on my oldish 1.8GHz Pentium based PC but I should have tried a reduced pixel count capture as this would have sped up the download times.

It certainly works, clever stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice idea, but doesn't this go against the idea of what the Bahtinov is about - ie simple, accurate, software-free focusing? If you're going to use analysis tools to focus, then why not use FWHM calculation in MaximDL et al? Is a perfect Bahtinov pattern more accurate than using FWHM?

Sorry if I'm being dense. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Peter, I used it last night and was very impressed at how very very quick it was to open up read, confirm focus and close !

DD, for someone like me, this quick, visual affirmation is just perfect-not as complex as the FWHM method. I feel "comfortable" with it.

Karlo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Peter, I used it last night and was very impressed at how very very quick it was to open up read, confirm focus and close !

DD, for someone like me, this quick, visual affirmation is just perfect-not as complex as the FWHM method. I feel "comfortable" with it.

Karlo

I agree Karlo, I don't like unnecessary faff. Was just trying to ascertain whether analysing the Bahtinov pattern was as much hassle as FWHM. I should stop being lazy and d/l the software. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing it did show up was how much the focus moves when you nip up the screw on the Megrez72...

It went from 0.06 pixel error to 0.62...

I like they way its works by processing an area of the screen so anything that can put an image on the screen can be "analysed"...

Peter....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get it D/l'd DD and give it a try :cool:

get it here, Michael Morris made some suggestions that were taken up.

Telescope Reviews: Bahtinov focusser: free software tool

Karlo

Apologies for being lazy, I downloaded the tool last night and gave it a try with my SXV-H9 running under MaximDL. It's a real cinch to use, you just draw a box round your Bahtinov pattern in your capture application and Bob's your uncle...only 32KB in size as well. I kept it open in the background, and just alt + tabbed it forwards when I needed to check the Bahtinov pattern. I got it a lot more accurate than I usually would by eye, though I did reach the point where I couldn't get within more than 1 or 2 pixels and thought "s-d it, that'll do!".

Obviously, it's going to be less use for anyone who doesn't use a laptop to capture their images but for those who do - essential stuff.

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.