|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
I wouldn't use tape. It's prone to turning out to be a mess, has a high chance of not being perfectly circular, and yea the adhesive could have an effect on the coating.
I would have a mask 3D
I wouldn't use tape. It's prone to turning out to be a mess, has a high chance of not being perfectly circular, and yea the adhesive could have an effect on the coating.
I would have a mask 3D
|
By
Dale Ghent
·
#68361
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
If I were to attempt to mask the edge what kind of tape can you use that wouldn’t harm the coatings?
Robert
If I were to attempt to mask the edge what kind of tape can you use that wouldn’t harm the coatings?
Robert
|
By
Robert Chozick
·
#68360
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Can you start making some smaller RC’s😀Thanks for the suggestion. One of the problems is how sensitive the CMOS cameras are. It is very easy to blow out stars. With my FSQ at f/5 I can’t shoot
Can you start making some smaller RC’s😀Thanks for the suggestion. One of the problems is how sensitive the CMOS cameras are. It is very easy to blow out stars. With my FSQ at f/5 I can’t shoot
|
By
Robert Chozick
·
#68359
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
I like the resolution on that Running Man image. Very nice.
Try masking down the outer 1/8 inch of the mirror, see if that reduces the spray of light around the brightest stars. If that works, think
I like the resolution on that Running Man image. Very nice.
Try masking down the outer 1/8 inch of the mirror, see if that reduces the spray of light around the brightest stars. If that works, think
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#68358
·
|
|
Re: 1200GTO worm gear thrust washer?
Tighten it hand tight (do not apply too much pressure, we use between 10 and 15 inch-Lb.). Then add a drop of superglue on the outside of the threads.
If you ever need to loosen it for any reason, it
Tighten it hand tight (do not apply too much pressure, we use between 10 and 15 inch-Lb.). Then add a drop of superglue on the outside of the threads.
If you ever need to loosen it for any reason, it
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#68357
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
Robert, these are both super shots but the Running Man is my favorite for sure.
Stuart Heggie
http://www.stuartheggie.com/
--
Stuart
http://www.astrofoto.ca/stuartheggie/
Robert, these are both super shots but the Running Man is my favorite for sure.
Stuart Heggie
http://www.stuartheggie.com/
--
Stuart
http://www.astrofoto.ca/stuartheggie/
|
By
Stuart <stuart.j.heggie@...>
·
#68356
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
So, would you say the new advantages of the small pixel CMOS cameras is that they bring high sensitivity to small pixels?
I also got a shot of the Running Man with the 1600mm
So, would you say the new advantages of the small pixel CMOS cameras is that they bring high sensitivity to small pixels?
I also got a shot of the Running Man with the 1600mm
|
By
Robert Chozick
·
#68355
·
|
|
1200GTO worm gear thrust washer?
The flat washer, the one withtwo holes on it at the end of the worm shaft (under the little screw on cover) continuesto loosen up causing some degree of backlash. It has done it for both RA andDEC.
The flat washer, the one withtwo holes on it at the end of the worm shaft (under the little screw on cover) continuesto loosen up causing some degree of backlash. It has done it for both RA andDEC.
|
By
Mike Shade
·
#68354
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
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
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
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#68353
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
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
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
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#68352
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
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
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
|
By
Dale Ghent
·
#68351
·
|
|
Re: 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
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
|
By
Robert Chozick
·
#68350
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
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
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
|
By
Dale Ghent
·
#68349
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
I would look seriously at the new 16bit cmos cameras from QHY and ZWO.
Jg
I would look seriously at the new 16bit cmos cameras from QHY and ZWO.
Jg
|
By
dvjbaja
·
#68348
·
|
|
Re: 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
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
|
By
Dale Ghent
·
#68347
·
|
|
Re: Close up of M81 without CCDT67
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
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
|
By
Roland Christen
·
#68346
·
|
|
Re: PEMProV3 error message
Please disregard my last email it was sent to the wrong group. Late night and no coffee.
steve
Please disregard my last email it was sent to the wrong group. Late night and no coffee.
steve
|
By
steven ho
·
#68345
·
|
|
Re: 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
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
|
By
steven ho
·
#68344
·
|
|
Re: PEMProV3 error message
Ted,
You might want to check permissions on the folders you mention. Here is a link to some other things to
Ted,
You might want to check permissions on the folders you mention. Here is a link to some other things to
|
By
Ray Gralak
·
#68343
·
|
|
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@...
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@...
|
By
Robert Chozick
·
#68342
·
|