Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Stuart <stuart.j.heggie@...>
Robert, these are both super shots but the Running Man is my favorite for sure. Stuart Heggie
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 16:47, Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
--
Stuart http://www.astrofoto.ca/stuartheggie/
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Robert Chozick
So, would you say the new advantages of the small pixel CMOS cameras is that they bring high sensitivity to small pixels?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I also got a shot of the Running Man with the 1600mm setup: I got M101 at 1600 but the seeing was worse and guiding not as good. Robert
On Feb 14, 2020, at 3:10 PM, uncarollo2 via Groups.Io <chris1011@...> wrote: You are running 0.6 arc sec per pixel, which to me is not oversampling for high resolution imaging. In fact, for galaxies i prefer 0.3 to 0.4 arc sec per pixel which really brings out fine detail. My 17"F8 astrograph and the QSI 683 has such pixel scale and really does a superb job on small faint galaxies, even here in Northern Illinois. You have to have good tracking, of course, and on the best nights I can get below 0.15 arc sec RMS with the 1600 encoder mount.
I see a lot of images that are way undersampled (3 to 4 arc sec per pixel) with poor guiding that produces thick stars and very little resolution. To me these images resemble Brownie camera snapshots versus images taken with an 8x10 view camera. (shows my age, doesn't it) :^))
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 2:14 pm Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Close up of M81 without CCDT67 Thanks Roland. My last dark sky outing was my first use of this scope and camera. I am really confused on the whole image scale question. I bought this camera because it has the largest pixels of any of the CMOS cameras. The image scale is .6 with this camera and 1600mm. My scale is about 1.8 with my FSQ 106 - 530mm. If the recommended guidance of a scale of 1-2 for image scale is used the 1600mm should be too small an image scale. Most CMOS cameras have only 2.5-3.5 micron pixels vs 4.63 on my ASI294. Is oversampling bad? The .6 scale in my image sure looks ok. What about .4 or .3? I intentionally did not get larger than a 1600mm focal length because of this issue (and yes, guiding issues are not as bad vs 2000 and over). Everyone asks why I got an 8 RC instead of a 10 or 12 inch RC. The above reason is why. Each new CMOS camera that comes out still has really small pixels. How good would 2.5 micron pixels look on a 2500 mm scope?
Robert
On Feb 14, 2020, at 1:18 PM, uncarollo2 via Groups.Io <chris1011@...> wrote:
That's really nice. Sharp and great color.
A question: do you think that 1600mm is a sweet spot for all kinds of deep sky imaging, especially for high resolution work? Especially since the newer Cmos cameras have such small pixels and would be able to take advantage of a high resolution optic for small faint galaxies.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 12:06 am Subject: [ap-gto] Close up of M81 without CCDT67 I got another shot of M 81 on the same trip as the M81-82 image, this time at f/8 1620mm.
Robert Chozick
|
|
1200GTO worm gear thrust washer?
Mike Shade
The flat washer, the one with two holes on it at the end of the worm shaft (under the little screw on cover) continues to loosen up causing some degree of backlash. It has done it for both RA and DEC. Any ideas how to tighten this properly and prevent it from doing this in the future?
Mike J. Shade: mshade@q.com Mike J. Shade Photography:
In War: Resolution In Defeat: Defiance In Victory: Magnanimity In Peace: Goodwill Sir Winston Churchill Already, in the gathering dusk, a few of the stars are turning on their lights. Vega, the brightest one, is now dropping towards the west. Can it be half a year since I watched her April rising in the east? Low in the southwest Antares blinks a sad farwell to fall... Leslie Peltier, Starlight Nights
International Dark Sky Association: www.darksky.org
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Roland Christen
You are running 0.6 arc sec per pixel, which to me is not oversampling for high resolution imaging. In fact, for galaxies i prefer 0.3 to 0.4 arc sec per pixel which really brings out fine detail. My 17"F8 astrograph and the QSI 683 has such pixel scale and really does a superb job on small faint galaxies, even here in Northern Illinois. You have to have good tracking, of course, and on the best nights I can get below 0.15 arc sec RMS with the 1600 encoder mount.
I see a lot of images that are way undersampled (3 to 4 arc sec per pixel) with poor guiding that produces thick stars and very little resolution. To me these images resemble Brownie camera snapshots versus images taken with an 8x10 view camera. (shows my age, doesn't it) :^))
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 2:14 pm Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Close up of M81 without CCDT67 Thanks Roland. My last dark sky outing was my first use of this scope and camera. I am really confused on the whole image scale question. I bought this camera because it has the largest pixels of any of the CMOS cameras. The image scale is .6 with this camera and 1600mm. My scale is about 1.8 with my FSQ 106 - 530mm. If the recommended guidance of a scale of 1-2 for image scale is used the 1600mm should be too small an image scale. Most CMOS cameras have only 2.5-3.5 micron pixels vs 4.63 on my ASI294. Is oversampling bad? The .6 scale in my image sure looks ok. What about .4 or .3? I intentionally did not get larger than a 1600mm focal length because of this issue (and yes, guiding issues are not as bad vs 2000 and over). Everyone asks why I got an 8 RC instead of a 10 or 12 inch RC. The above reason is why. Each new CMOS camera that comes out still has really small pixels. How good would 2.5 micron pixels look on a 2500 mm scope?
Robert
On Feb 14, 2020, at 1:18 PM, uncarollo2 via Groups.Io <chris1011@...> wrote:
That's really nice. Sharp and great color.
A question: do you think that 1600mm is a sweet spot for all kinds of deep sky imaging, especially for high resolution work? Especially since the newer Cmos cameras have such small pixels and would be able to take advantage of a high resolution optic for small faint galaxies.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 12:06 am Subject: [ap-gto] Close up of M81 without CCDT67 I got another shot of M 81 on the same trip as the M81-82 image, this time at f/8 1620mm.
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Roland Christen
In my experience when I was using my 10" F14 Mak-Cass under very good seeing conditions I was able to resolve tiny doubles separated by 0.8 arc seconds in a deep sky image with a 7.5 micron pixel camera (ST10). If that's the case, then the same aperture at F7 could do this with a 3.75 micron pixel camera.
That's close to a 1600mm focal length. To me that would be a sweet spot for imaging at high resolution.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Ghent <daleg@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Close up of M81 without CCDT67 Perhaps... probably would be fine. The 2.5-5um pixel size range of the common CMOS sensors these days will demand good seeing at that kind of focal length, but it's workable. What I would do is always image at 1x1and bin in post-processing (PixInsight's IntegerResample process, for example) on an as-needed basis if the pixel scale needs to be worked up a little due to the conditions. 1600 would be great for detail studies of all kinds of nebula, too. For reference, Robert's camera sports 4.63um pixels. I have the same one, but QHY's version of it, and its Sony IMX294 is a really nice and super clean 4/3 format, 14 bit sensor with dual gain modes. > On Feb 14, 2020, at 2:18 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via Groups.Io <chris1011@...> wrote: > > That's really nice. Sharp and great color. > > A question: do you think that 1600mm is a sweet spot for all kinds of deep sky imaging, especially for high resolution work? Especially since the newer Cmos cameras have such small pixels and would be able to take advantage of a high resolution optic for small faint galaxies. > > Rolando > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick@...> > To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> > Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 12:06 am > Subject: [ap-gto] Close up of M81 without CCDT67 > > I got another shot of M 81 on the same trip as the M81-82 image, this time at f/8 1620mm. > > https://pbase.com/image/170419535 > > Robert Chozick > rchozick@... > > > >
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Dale Ghent
How good would 2.5um pixels look on a 2.5m focal length at 0.21"/pixel? Pretty good provided you have the extra time that will be required to expose the target and if "normal" seeing for you is also in the realm of "pretty good." You'll certainly have the roundest stars on the block, assuming your mount and other mechanics are also up to the task.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Oversampling isn't inherently bad if you're blessed with time and stability. Most people in that situation would start at 2x2 binning, maybe 3x3... at which point you must ask yourself if you're really using the right tool for the job because you would be paying for a lot of sensor real estate that is being used just to make up for the time and conditions.
On Feb 14, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Robert Chozick
Thanks Roland. My last dark sky outing was my first use of this scope and camera. I am really confused on the whole image scale question. I bought this camera because it has the largest pixels of any of the CMOS cameras. The image scale is .6 with this camera and 1600mm. My scale is about 1.8 with my FSQ 106 - 530mm. If the recommended guidance of a scale of 1-2 for image scale is used the 1600mm should be too small an image scale. Most CMOS cameras have only 2.5-3.5 micron pixels vs 4.63 on my ASI294. Is oversampling bad? The .6 scale in my image sure looks ok. What about .4 or .3? I intentionally did not get larger than a 1600mm focal length because of this issue (and yes, guiding issues are not as bad vs 2000 and over). Everyone asks why I got an 8 RC instead of a 10 or 12 inch RC. The above reason is why. Each new CMOS camera that comes out still has really small pixels. How good would 2.5 micron pixels look on a 2500 mm scope?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Robert
On Feb 14, 2020, at 1:18 PM, uncarollo2 via Groups.Io <chris1011@...> wrote: That's really nice. Sharp and great color.
A question: do you think that 1600mm is a sweet spot for all kinds of deep sky imaging, especially for high resolution work? Especially since the newer Cmos cameras have such small pixels and would be able to take advantage of a high resolution optic for small faint galaxies.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 12:06 am Subject: [ap-gto] Close up of M81 without CCDT67 I got another shot of M 81 on the same trip as the M81-82 image, this time at f/8 1620mm.
Robert Chozick
Robert Chozick
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Dale Ghent
Yeah, those are working out to be great sensors (the mono or color ~61mp IMX455, or the color-only 26.8mp IMX571, both with 3.76um pixels). I still keep dreaming that Sony (or someone) will release a mono, 16bit, BSI, APS-C format sensor. My 36mm filters would appreciate that because upgrading 3nm narrowbands to 50mm to suit a full-frame sensor such as the mentioned ones is a bit... oof.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Feb 14, 2020, at 2:52 PM, dvjbaja <jpgleasonid@gmail.com> wrote:
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
dvjbaja
I would look seriously at the new 16bit cmos cameras from QHY and ZWO. Jg
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 11:37 AM Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Dale Ghent
Perhaps... probably would be fine. The 2.5-5um pixel size range of the common CMOS sensors these days will demand good seeing at that kind of focal length, but it's workable. What I would do is always image at 1x1and bin in post-processing (PixInsight's IntegerResample process, for example) on an as-needed basis if the pixel scale needs to be worked up a little due to the conditions.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
1600 would be great for detail studies of all kinds of nebula, too. For reference, Robert's camera sports 4.63um pixels. I have the same one, but QHY's version of it, and its Sony IMX294 is a really nice and super clean 4/3 format, 14 bit sensor with dual gain modes.
On Feb 14, 2020, at 2:18 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@aol.com> via Groups.Io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Roland Christen
That's really nice. Sharp and great color.
A question: do you think that 1600mm is a sweet spot for all kinds of deep sky imaging, especially for high resolution work? Especially since the newer Cmos cameras have such small pixels and would be able to take advantage of a high resolution optic for small faint galaxies.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Chozick via Groups.Io <rchozick@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Fri, Feb 14, 2020 12:06 am Subject: [ap-gto] Close up of M81 without CCDT67 I got another shot of M 81 on the same trip as the M81-82 image, this time at f/8 1620mm.
Robert Chozick
|
|
Re: PEMProV3 error message
steven ho
Please disregard my last email it was sent to the wrong group. Late night and no coffee.
steve
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of steven ho <StevenHoffman53@...>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 9:41 AM To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] PEMProV3 error message
Two things....
There is no way to make the PDF file available, I converted the PDF to a "picture" so it could be posted.
I could put a button to forward them to our website where they could get the PDF (but the website is not working yet).
In other words they cannot "easily" print off the form to mail in.
Second, we could pay $5 to have facebook promote the event to 500 people in the state of NY (nothing more local than that).
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Ray Gralak <groups3@...>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 7:41 AM To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] PEMProV3 error message Ted,
> "Failure to write mount definitions: Access to path is denied" You might want to check permissions on the folders you mention. Here is a link to some other things to try: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2669244/windows-cannot-access-the-specified-device-path-or-file-error-when-you -Ray Gralak Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver > -----Original Message----- > From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Ted Mickle via Groups.Io > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 8:41 AM > To: main@ap-gto.groups.io > Subject: [ap-gto] PEMProV3 error message > > Ray, > > I've used PEMProV3 from with APCC Pro in the past without difficulty but now am encountering an error message > when attempting to access the CCDWare website, check for updates, etc from within APCC Pro/PEMProV3: > > "Unable to open browser: access to path "C:\Users\Documents\CCDWare\PEMProV3\temp.htm" is denied > > Also, when I attempt to acquire data, set the image scale, etc, I encounter this error message: > > "Failure to write mount definitions: Access to path is denied" > > My guess is that a configuration has changed somewhere in Windows 10 -- any suggestions to remedy are > welcome. > > Thanks, > > Ted >
|
|
Re: PEMProV3 error message
steven ho
Two things....
There is no way to make the PDF file available, I converted the PDF to a "picture" so it could be posted.
I could put a button to forward them to our website where they could get the PDF (but the website is not working yet).
In other words they cannot "easily" print off the form to mail in.
Second, we could pay $5 to have facebook promote the event to 500 people in the state of NY (nothing more local than that).
From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of Ray Gralak <groups3@...>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 7:41 AM To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] PEMProV3 error message Ted,
> "Failure to write mount definitions: Access to path is denied" You might want to check permissions on the folders you mention. Here is a link to some other things to try: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2669244/windows-cannot-access-the-specified-device-path-or-file-error-when-you -Ray Gralak Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver > -----Original Message----- > From: main@ap-gto.groups.io [mailto:main@ap-gto.groups.io] On Behalf Of Ted Mickle via Groups.Io > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 8:41 AM > To: main@ap-gto.groups.io > Subject: [ap-gto] PEMProV3 error message > > Ray, > > I've used PEMProV3 from with APCC Pro in the past without difficulty but now am encountering an error message > when attempting to access the CCDWare website, check for updates, etc from within APCC Pro/PEMProV3: > > "Unable to open browser: access to path "C:\Users\Documents\CCDWare\PEMProV3\temp.htm" is denied > > Also, when I attempt to acquire data, set the image scale, etc, I encounter this error message: > > "Failure to write mount definitions: Access to path is denied" > > My guess is that a configuration has changed somewhere in Windows 10 -- any suggestions to remedy are > welcome. > > Thanks, > > Ted >
|
|
Re: PEMProV3 error message
Ray Gralak
Ted,
"Failure to write mount definitions: Access to path is denied"You might want to check permissions on the folders you mention. Here is a link to some other things to try: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2669244/windows-cannot-access-the-specified-device-path-or-file-error-when-you -Ray Gralak Author of APCC (Astro-Physics Command Center): http://www.astro-physics.com/index.htm?products/accessories/software/apcc/apcc Author of PEMPro V3: https://www.ccdware.com Author of Astro-Physics V2 ASCOM Driver: https://www.siriusimaging.com/apdriver -----Original Message-----
|
|
Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Robert Chozick
I got another shot of M 81 on the same trip as the M81-82 image, this time at f/8 1620mm.
Robert Chozick
|
|
Re: Erratic parking of the mount
Dale Ghent
The built-in NTP client and their respective default servers in Windows and macOS (and any other modern OS for that matter) is more than sufficient for most needs, including practical and pedestrian astronomy needs. The Dimension 4 client I think is from a time when Windows didn't include a time client, and then later did but it was off by default.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The only reason to use alternative time servers is mainly for security reasons, where you have to trust the time source because it's utilized in part by security (authentication) systems or where transactional control must have a consistent, singular time references (many of the popular NTP servers aren't single servers; but pools of multiple servers, each with their own delay and jitter characteristics) and even then most systems use a completely different protocol called PTP (Precision Time Protocol) when synchronized resolution down to the picosecond is desired... but those usually employ local rubidium clock sources. If you want good resolution and without the reliance on external time services/network availability, stick a cheap GPS/GNSS receiver on your computer and use a NMEA 0183 client to synchronize the time from it to your computer's clock. Doing this on non-Windows is simple but, on Windows, one must use a 3rd party tool such as NMEATime2 from VisualGPS. I do this with a $15 USB GNSS dongle from Amazon (DIYmall VK-172). /dale
On Feb 13, 2020, at 4:49 PM, Brian Valente <bvalente@gmail.com> wrote:
|
|
Re: Erratic parking of the mount
We use Dimension 4 free/donationware to keep our computer clocks accurate it's easy to use, runs in background, and is free (though a donation would be nice) I think Ray Graylak originally turned me on to this clocks have been sub-second accurate since installing Brian
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:25 PM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via Groups.Io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
--
|
|
Re: Erratic parking of the mount
Roland Christen
Computer clocks by themselves are not accurate. You will need to update the time on your computer via one of the national time services.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2020 1:43 pm Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Erratic parking of the mount Thanks all for the advice and tips. I know my PA is very good and clutches are not slipping, so it sounds like it limits it to a re-alignment issue and possibly a clock issue. I need to confirm that as well.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:00 PM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via Groups.Io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
|
|
Re: Erratic parking of the mount
Bruce Donzanti
Thanks all for the advice and tips. I know my PA is very good and clutches are not slipping, so it sounds like it limits it to a re-alignment issue and possibly a clock issue. I need to confirm that as well.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:00 PM uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via Groups.Io <chris1011=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
|
|
Re: Erratic parking of the mount
Roland Christen
SkySafari has limited choices for initiating and unparking. They are actually working to change that and will have other park and resume options soon.
Rolando
-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Rudny <mkea13800@...> To: main <main@ap-gto.groups.io> Sent: Thu, Feb 13, 2020 12:20 pm Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Erratic parking of the mount Hi Bruce,
Just saw this and agree that it’s probably your re-aligning or recal when you are in different parts of the sky. I noticed that even when I use APCC to initiate. When I would start another session and pick start from position 3, alignment was off. What I needed to pick was “last parked”. I could see from the marks on the axes that the park 3 position was off a little. Once I used last park, it worked perfectly.
Unfortunately, SkySafari has limited choices for initiating and unparking. You would need to reset your park 4 position each new session unless you didn’t re-align during the prior one. One thing you could try is to realign on a star near the park 4 position before you shut down. That would be low in the southern sky. That should at least get the next startup closer.
Don Rudny
On Feb 13, 2020, at 7:54 AM, Bruce Donzanti <donza2735@...> wrote:
Great- good to understand what is probably causing this and that a solution is forthcoming.
Thank you
On Feb 13, 2020, at 12:05 PM, uncarollo2 <chris1011@...> via Groups.Io <chris1011@...> wrote:
|
|