10Micron GM2000HPS, 10Micron GM1000HPS, SW NEQ6 Takahashi FSQ106 EDX III, SW 190MN, TS Riccardi 130 f/5.2 SBIT ST-8300M, QSI 683wsg8 SX Wheel, Baader 2" filters, Baader 36mm filters, Astrodon QSI filters http://astro.frejvall.se
Quote:Crop, full res but JPG... Why can I not post images larger than 200KB when they are hosted on my own servers? Anyone know?/per
Ed Thomas Deep Space Products www.deepspaceproducts.com
Roberto Botero, Kent, UK
Quote: Why can I not post images larger than 200KB when they are hosted on my own servers? Anyone know?
-DannyMy warehouseMy Channel
My gear: --Celestron 8EdgeHD & 11EdgeHD | 80mm F/6 Triplet | Modified Canon T1i | QSI683WSG-8 | Celestron AVX mount | iOptron CEM60 mount | iOptron ZEQ25 mount --- My skies:
Quote: How does a galaxy of that size look with half an arcsecond per pixel? Not so pretty
Quote: Quote: How does a galaxy of that size look with half an arcsecond per pixel? Not so pretty When the mount is good and seeing is good and focus is good and guiding is good - for me I want the highest resolution possible. There is a recurring theme in CN for comparing optical/mount/guiding performance based on a "pretty" picture - when it is much more informative to use quantitative performance metrics such as fwhm. You can always show a pretty picture with whatever processing in addition - but the most information would come from raw linear sub-exposures at high res - and 0.5" per pixel is not small at all for a high end mount.Although people will say "I am at the limit of my seeing" - it doesn't really matter in terms of presenting performance results. All you can conclude is that the mount achieved 3" fwhm - and you have no idea what it is capable of achieving. If it achieves 1" fwhm in a 20m exposure - that's great and good info - but if it is 3" and you don't know if it is due to seeing, guiding - whatever - you just don't have good info.I am not clear on when I will get a high end mount but I am certainly considering the options, and I'm interested to hear comparisons of software and usability. But I also want to see high res unprocessed sub-exposures, along with fwhm's. And the fwhm's are most accurately measured, and the star sizes and shapes visually assessed, with very small pixels, in arc-seconds.For me, M33 looks nice in big wide field shots - but high res close ups of structures within the galaxy can look amazing - not just for what they are - but for being captured in detail, in the raw data, with good equipment and technique.Frank
Quote:I'm not demanding anything. I'm responding to the claim that a) high res images of galaxies are not pretty (I disagree) and b) processed images convey mount performance (I disagree). If someone wants to convey performance of a system - I am not asking for more work - I am asking for *less* work - by simply showing a raw sub-exposure rather than something processed. I don't think I'm unusual in requesting this - because people have been doing it for years.I am involved in free autoguiding software, so I need to convey that it is working well - and I do this with many images on the MetaGuide site. Show a processed image, state the fwhm in arc-seconds, and show a close up of a known region in a sub-exposure with a linear stretch.For some reason people are focused on processed final images to convey performance, and the key quantitative information compared and plotted is - periodic error. I think that performance should be conveyed by quantitative results from the sub-exposures since everyone ultimately relies on raw sub-exposures to build an image.There are many ways an image can have impact, and resolution is one of them - both in revealing structures within the objects, and in revealing otherwise blurred background details such as small galaxies. If you aren't interested in resolution, then a small, fast refractor on a mid-range mount guided by a guidescope will do very well.I'm puzzled that you think people don't regard detail and resolution as important, or that no one is interested in structures within M33, such as the NGC objects it contains. Resolution is a prime reason to get a high end mount in the first place - and the results they yield would then allow performance-based comparison.Of course if someone doesn't want to convey mount performance that is perfectly fine. But if they do want to - I'm just saying I prefer to see more raw information and at high-res.Frank
C14 EdgeHD, C11 EdgeHD Zhumell 8" f/6 Newt AP1200GTO, CGEM DX, CG5-ASGT Rob Miller Tri36M tripod Canon Rebel XS, Atik 314L+, DSI pro I,II, QHY5L-II SX 7 FW with Astrodon LRGB, Ha 5nm Hutech OAG5, Rainbow Optics Grating Scorpio Observatory
Quote:Ed, if someone has the final image, they also have the individual RAW sub-exposures. How exactly is that harder to post than the final image? It easier - no processing, no nothing just the RAW sub. You mention about the different variables that can make comparison and root-causing fwhm degradation difficult. Well, using RAW unprocessed images one is reducing some of these variables. The simple fact is without "measuring" the result in RAW images one cannot really quantify the quality of the data. And people buy high-end mount to improve the quality of the data. Mount manufacturers do show FWHM. Roland had posted a screenshot of the RAW sub-exposure and FWHM from his image with a Mach1 from the first batch to showcase the quality of the result.
Money can't buy happiness, but it sure makes living with misery a lot easier!
Quote:In the end, the result would have to have an asterisk next to them explaining what may have caused the differences.
Quote:Umm... I just realized you are a vendor of the subject mount - which I did not know. I'm not talking about vendors or what they should do at all - and again - I am not demanding anything. I replied to someone who has the mount who was making some effort to provide images to demonstrate its performance, who also made statements with which I disagree.I expect very little from vendors in terms of relevant information - but when they provide it I make note of it. Korborh has provided an example - and it scores points.My interest is as a user of mounts striving for good guiding results, and as a potential buyer of a high end mount in the future. There are many imagers who get great results in an image and are happy to show the raw information and the fwhm's achieved. I'm very puzzled that you appear to be unfamiliar with this because I consider it a well known practice that people are proud to do when they invest a lot and have good results to show for it. I encourage others to judge mounts by quantitative performance metrics when available - and when users want to convey how well their mount performs - quantitative measures from raw images have benefits.The OP asked about this particular mount, and in the same spirit I am asking for what I consider important ways to assess performance. If you as a vendor disagree with my criteria or my imaging aesthetics - that is perfectly ok with me.Frank
http://www.astrobin.com/users/orion69/ TS 150 mm APO Triplet, Feather Touch 3.5" focuser, Micro Touch Focusing System CGEM on custom made platform Atik 383L+ mono, Atik filter wheel, Baader LRGBC + narrowband filters SX Lodestar + TSOAG9 Dew-Not heater
Quote:I don't think offering software free should determine whether you are a vendor or not..
Quote: Free ain't selling.
Quote:How do you even measure fwhm.
Quote: Says who?
Quote:Quote:Quote: Free ain't selling.
Quote:Quote: Free ain't selling.
I lost count of my scopes. Now I just want mobility. I came, I saw, I bought some interesting accessories, and put names to faces: NEAF 2012, ASAE 2012, SWAP 2013, ASAE 2013.
6" Baby PowerNewt ES 152mm Achro iOptron iEQ30 QHY12 Lodestar & 50mm Borg guidescope Luck
Quote: opposed to some obscure Mongolian mount that had to be shipped by yak back to get fixed.
Terry Danks Photography: Birds, Scenery, a little astrophotography too. http://danks.netfirms.com/home.htm Equipment List: Too embarrassed to list it all. Roll-off-roof Observatory Constructed Fall, 2013
Quote:Quote: opposed to some obscure Mongolian mount that had to be shipped by yak back to get fixed.
Quote:To clarify a couple of points I made:
1. 10Micron has a 12VDC converter of their own (again: not a big deal, but good to know).
2. The larger 3000 & 4000 mounts have through-the-mount cabling. The smaller ones don't, but they do have their motor/etc. cabling inside the mount (Dec & RA motor cables).
There was a time I was thinking of getting a modded DSLR, one of them PC-less guiders (which I still haven't heard are that great) and head out to the wilds with a smaller battery and a solar charger, and voila: the ultimate survivalist rig.
I went the way of the PC, etc., but the 10Microns, aside from their other sterling points, would make really fantastic super-mobile setups that still gave unparalleled tracking (without guiding). That's pretty great if you need that (and I think there are quite a few that would like it).
Anyway, just some points on the points.
And, for Terry, I have tried to find a way to stabilize a yak to get some quick sub 5 minutes pics...no go. The yak ate the stabilizers.