Jump to content


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Officina Stellare Veloce RH 200 First Light

  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#76 orion69

orion69

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 09 May 2010
  • Loc: Croatia

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:29 AM

Gleason,do you use OAG?

#77 orion69

orion69

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 09 May 2010
  • Loc: Croatia

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:45 AM

I just checked, focuser motor with all adapters is 750 Euro.
Maybe I'll just buy full configuration after all.

#78 Gleason

Gleason

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

No OAG. Standard arrangement is the STI guider and lens assembly mounted to the top plate. There may not be enough back focus for an OAG with this instrument

Attached Files



#79 orion69

orion69

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 09 May 2010
  • Loc: Croatia

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:13 PM

If I can't use OAG then there is no way I would buy this instrument.
Luckily, TS Germany says backfocus is 70mm so plenty of space for OAG, filter wheel and camera... :D

http://www.teleskop-...fficina-Stel...

#80 Harel_Boren

Harel_Boren

    Vendor-The Boren-Simon PowerNewt Astrograph

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1279
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Israel

Posted 18 January 2013 - 08:20 PM

If I can't use OAG then there is no way I would buy this instrument.
Luckily, TS Germany says backfocus is 70mm so plenty of space for OAG, filter wheel and camera... :D

http://www.teleskop-...fficina-Stel...


In fact, there's hardly any space to fit in OAG after the full imaging train is in place. We tried to use the TS OAG with it, and there was simply no place (which I could find) to fit in the guide camera (though the OAG took excatly the optimal space).

However, why is OAG so important? We have easily gotten to 10 min. guided frames with this instrument, using a setup which was built in 45 min. out in the desert, on a NEQ6... Actually I am sorry not to have gone up to 15 min. frames, as there was nothing really limiting me. Guiding was perfect.

You can view some images of that setup here:
http://www.pbase.com...148323004/large
and here:
http://www.pbase.com...image/148323006
and a non-processed stack of 22 images of 10 min. each here (no processing except for DDP):
http://www.pbase.com...357999/original

I will post a full report on that 2nd light tomorrow. Just to let you know that the scope sustained a 14 degrees centigrade drop with no change in focus (i.e. 2 micron accuracy of CFZ achieved and maintained, through a 14 degrees drop).

Cheers,
Harel

Attached Files



#81 orion69

orion69

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 09 May 2010
  • Loc: Croatia

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:16 PM


In fact, there's hardly any space to fit in OAG after the full imaging train is in place. We tried to use the TS OAG with it, and there was simply no place (which I could find) to fit in the guide camera (though the OAG took excatly the optimal space).


How is that possible if backfocus is 70 mm?
With my current reducer I have to maintain 55mm distance with OAG+filter wheel+camera and I have no problem with that.
I use TSOAG9 with Lodestar and guiding camera is not in the way. Can you post picture of your image train?

I had bad experiences with guiding through another scope and I will never do that again.

#82 orion69

orion69

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 09 May 2010
  • Loc: Croatia

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:28 PM

Just saw your setup, was RH200 in focus on those pictures?
I'll upload my setup tomorrow to compare...

Btw, your guiding was indeed perfect, and ability to maintain focus with large temperature drop is fantastic!

How precise is manual focusing (without motor) with bahtinov mask? Is there difference to motor focusing?

#83 Gleason

Gleason

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2013

Posted 18 January 2013 - 11:30 PM

Just saw your setup, was RH200 in focus on those pictures?
I'll upload my setup tomorrow to compare...

Btw, your guiding was indeed perfect, and ability to maintain focus with large temperature drop is fantastic!

How precise is manual focusing (without motor) with bahtinov mask? Is there difference to motor focusing?


Yes, the telescope was at focus in the photo. Distance between the flat field corrector lens and array is important. OS will provide the necessary camera adapter.
Motor focus provides a more precise method to achieving focus in very shallow depth of field at f/3.
I have never used a bahtinov mask.
OS is now offering special pricing on the RH200.

#84 Harel_Boren

Harel_Boren

    Vendor-The Boren-Simon PowerNewt Astrograph

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1279
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Israel

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:24 AM

Just saw your setup, was RH200 in focus on those pictures?
I'll upload my setup tomorrow to compare...

Btw, your guiding was indeed perfect, and ability to maintain focus with large temperature drop is fantastic!

How precise is manual focusing (without motor) with bahtinov mask? Is there difference to motor focusing?


Thanks Knez,

We use a pre-prepared Bhatinov Mask, which we've prepared to spec (focal length, etc.) and had laser cut from fiberglass.

We tried focusing without a motor focus, using the Bhatinov mask, and we find it near impossible to reach the required +/- 20 micron zone, which is the calculated Critical Focus Zone (CFZ) for this short focal length telescope.

With the motorfocus is was a walk in the park - took me about 60 seconds to reach perfect focus (+2.6 mircon).

Let's move this discussion to the 2nd Light post on this page, since it has much more measured data to rely on.

Cheers,
Harel

#85 Harel_Boren

Harel_Boren

    Vendor-The Boren-Simon PowerNewt Astrograph

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1279
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Israel

Posted 04 February 2013 - 11:00 AM

Hi John, Harel and All,

I'm Massimo Riccardi.
It's a real pleasure to see on the net a lot of beautiful images taken with my Veloce RH200.My compliments for your works.
I spent several years of my life for developing the Riccardi-Honders scheme so I'm very gratified to see fine images and satisfied users.
I just finished to design another Riccardi-Honders system slightly different from the Veloce RH200.
It is a 250 mm diameter with a longer focal lenght ,1400mm
operating at f/5.6 and with long backfocus (about 280 mm).
The performances are very high: diffraction limited from the center to the edge of a 60 mm diameter flat field.
So ,for those interested to longer focal lenght and high.performances , this new Officina Stellare "baby" will be available soon.

Regards.

Massimo Riccardi


Thanks Massimo,

First thanks for these kind words!
Secondly, it's very good to know you are working on another masterpiece... Please do let us know where does development stand, and when the product is indeed due on the market.
My many thanks again,
All the best,
Harel

#86 JJK

JJK

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2373
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 14 January 2014 - 07:18 AM

Hi John, Harel and All,

I'm Massimo Riccardi.
It's a real pleasure to see on the net a lot of beautiful images taken with my Veloce RH200.My compliments for your works.
I spent several years of my life for developing the Riccardi-Honders scheme so I'm very gratified to see fine images and satisfied users.
I just finished to design another Riccardi-Honders system slightly different from the Veloce RH200.
It is a 250 mm diameter with a longer focal lenght ,1400mm
operating at f/5.6 and with long backfocus (about 280 mm).
The performances are very high: diffraction limited from the center to the edge of a 60 mm diameter flat field.
So ,for those interested to longer focal lenght and high.performances , this new Officina Stellare "baby" will be available soon.

Regards.

Massimo Riccardi


Hi Massimo,

Is there an estimated price for the RH250, and will it have the same style OTA body as the RH200?

Best,
John

#87 rimassimo

rimassimo

    Vendor (OfficinaStellare)

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 17 Apr 2009

Posted 20 January 2014 - 03:22 PM

Hi John,

Yes, it's ready and it looks like the veloce RH200.
You can contact Officina Stellare for further information.

Massimo Riccardi

#88 Harel_Boren

Harel_Boren

    Vendor-The Boren-Simon PowerNewt Astrograph

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 1279
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Israel

Posted 23 January 2014 - 08:09 AM

Hi John,

Yes, it's ready and it looks like the veloce RH200.
You can contact Officina Stellare for further information.

Massimo Riccardi


... And I saw it live yesterday...
I will stop here, as describing this beauty is more than my heart can take :-)
Cheers,
Harel

#89 AlanP

AlanP

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 181
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Howell, MI

Posted 28 January 2014 - 06:58 PM

I am adding this information to this older thread, as hopefully it will help someone out there. I approached my Rhonders in a bit of a different direction. My skies aren't great. I paired the Honders with Apogee Alta U8300 with a Vixen DED 108S f5 Refractor with FLI ML-8300C.

With the standard Microfocuser, backfocus on the RHonders will allow for a TS Optics 9mm OAG and a Starizona Filter Drawer. This will allow me to NB on the RHoders or to run Luminance. The Vixen will do the OSC duty though a Orion Steadystar AO to eliminate flexure.

On a given night, one without Moon present, I can simultaneously capture Luminance and RGB [OSC] data. I have to manually load the NB Filter, a small task for me. But then i can skip the weight, cost and complications of a Filter Wheel.

Additionally, I have added a set of inner contact PVC tubes and an upper and lower cross strut system between the RHonders and a 10" RC. This system has really limited movement in both the RHonders and the 10" RC. Low tech, but it works very well. Images of the Equipment can be seen on my website, www.mystarrynight[dot]info . Note that as the Vixen is the latest addition, fewer images are posted for this Scope. The endless parade of clouds here has the Home Dome Project on indefinite hold....

The 8 foot ExploraDome is at the house. A SkyShed POD was installed at my Cottage, lakefront on Lake Michigan, last summer. The Pod will have a RHonders for Luminance and NB using a QSI 540wsg. A focal reduced AT6RC with Sbig ST-4000XCM + AO-8 will collect the RGB [OSC] data. The Mount is an AP Mach1. Again I can run NB or simultaneous Luminance + OSC there. That Project comes together this Spring. This is a very dark site. M31 is visible to the naked eye. Satellites and Iridium flares are easy for guest to spot.

Again I post this to help any that might want other options or additional Equipment input. AlanP

#90 JJK

JJK

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2373
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 29 April 2014 - 09:26 PM

Bert, something is wrong on your images.
Middle area, where signal is strong is OK, but most of the picture is too grainy. You either need more subs or more longer subs, or something is wrong with your processing.
And believe me, it really can be seen on 30" monitor...


Hi Bert, I tend to agree.
Check this 5 min. frame - all I did here was calibrate bias and dark (NO FLAT) and Digital Development.
Cheers,
Harel


Harel,

Bert's image looks fine on my 30" monitor. He likely stretched it further than you did on the Rosette Nebula. Frankly, I tend to prefer Bert's stretching (I'd perhaps tone it down a tiny bit).

However, I also agree with your philosophy of minimal processing. I don't like grossly overly-sharpened images that appear in the CN forum from time to time.

I'm impressed by the images both Bert and you are getting with the RH200. I've been seriously thinking about getting one.

Clear Skies,
John

#91 blueman

blueman

    Photon Catcher

  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2007
  • Loc: California

Posted 05 May 2015 - 12:32 AM

This is just a general précis of my thoughts on noise.

The only measure we really have is signal to noise to compare any sort of measurement. When it comes to images we do have a problem. In the real world our limited senses do record lots of noise along with the signal. Our brains are quite adapted to work out which is which. This of course is purely subjective as anyone who has seen delusional people ignoring the obvious and conversely educated people ignoring the subtle signals that do not fit in with their model of the world.
Why is it then when a painting done in the ultra realist mode looks unnatural? Why does ultra real computer graphics also seem unnatural? In the real world there is noise in all of our sensory inputs and our brains response expects it so it can sort out the real signal.
The basic take home message is by all means maximise the signal to noise but do not eliminate the noise as then it makes the signal far less real or look manufactured.

Bert

If you look at an object even with a very large telescope you will see no noise. Noise is an aberration and not data, it does not exist until you capture the frame. Removing it does not remove data if you do not remove more than just the noise.

Blueman



#92 JJK

JJK

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2373
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 05 May 2015 - 07:26 AM

 

In fact, there's hardly any space to fit in OAG after the full imaging train is in place. We tried to use the TS OAG with it, and there was simply no place (which I could find) to fit in the guide camera (though the OAG took excatly the optimal space).


How is that possible if backfocus is 70 mm?
With my current reducer I have to maintain 55mm distance with OAG+filter wheel+camera and I have no problem with that.
I use TSOAG9 with Lodestar and guiding camera is not in the way. Can you post picture of your image train?

I had bad experiences with guiding through another scope and I will never do that again.

 

There is no need for an OAG with the RH200.

 

FWIW, I've also imaged at 1,470 mm and 2,700 mm focal length with a guidescope, and not had flexure issues.



#93 JJK

JJK

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2373
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 05 May 2015 - 07:56 AM

Here is a single 20 minute 5 nm H-alpha sub (no bias or flat field corrections) I took with a friend's OS RH200 I tested this past Winter, my FLI ATLAS focuser and FLI ProLine16803 CCD camera in my heavily light polluted backyard (22 miles NW of the White House).  I'm not an expert at image processing either, so the image likely could be improved in a skilled PS person's hands.  The focus was set "by eye" (should have used FocusMax).  Keep in mind that the 16803 has a 52 mm diagonal and the scope is spec'd to an image circle of 42 mm.

 

During my testing, I discovered that the scope did not handle extremely bright stars (e.g., Betelgeuse) particularly well.  Specifically, there were spurious reflections that had nothing to do with light striking the filters or camera window multiple times (these were not your father's halos).  I worked with OS on the issue by taking methodical data, they quickly determined the source of the problem, and sent me a kit to fix it.  I installed the kit, and the problem disappeared.

 

Folks who have this scope may not have noticed the issue for several reasons.  First, it might only occur in a subset of the scopes.  Second, there are not many < mag 1.8 stars.

 

This scope is extremely fast, and as others have noticed, you really need to spend time getting the CCD square to the optical path.  That is easy to do (but it takes time), because the scope has 4 push-pull screws for that purpose, not 3.  I aligned the camera s.t. it was easy to figure out which screw moved a given corner.  I initially got the center of the image optimally focussed.  I then went to each corner and wrote down how many steps they were out of focus, with respect to the center.  A few iterations were needed to get them reasonably close to each other and the center.  The attached image was taken without getting the planarity perfect, but it was pretty good.  If you aren't methodical about adjusting the planarity, you'll waste a lot of time.  It isn't rocket science, but it requires doing things in a straightforward manner (I wrote down the focus positions, because I didn't want to trust my memory on a 6* F night with a -12*F wind-chill).

 

Later this month, I will do more testing on the CCD planarity adjustment to ensure that it is stable once set, and to determine whether a finer pitch push-pull screw would offer any improvement.


Edited by JJK, 05 May 2015 - 08:17 AM.


#94 JJK

JJK

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2373
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2008

Posted 05 May 2015 - 08:07 AM

Here's an image of the Flaming Star Nebula region I took with my friend's OS RH200 right after I took the Rosette nebula image.  The object wasn't well placed, but I wanted to see what it looked like with this very wide field astrograph.  It is the sum of only six 20 min 5 nm H-alpha subs and corrected with only 9 darks (no bias or flat field calibrations were applied).  The image obviously looks far better w/less JPG compression (it suffers here because of all the nebulosity in this region which can't be handled well when compressing it to less than 500 KB).

 

If you look carefully, you'll notice that M38 is a bit out of focus.  I forgot to tighten several lock screws on the CCD planarity adjustment!

 

The scope has potential, especially if you live in a light-polluted area, sub-optimal weather (i.e., you need to collect photons in a hurry), and less than perfect seeing (it is, after all, a 600 mm focal length astrograph).

 

Additional testing suggested that you have to be careful using dew heaters.  I cranked mine up very high (didn't want dew on my friend's scope at any cost), and that obviously would impact the image.  Bert's suggestion to use multiple dew heaters is a good one (to minimize the effects of changing ambient temperature on the focus), and easy to implement  (e.g., using a Kendrick DigiFire10 controller and several heater straps).

 

I will also suggest that owners of this scope consider using the rings and two Losmandy dovetail plates.  That makes for a more robust arrangement.

 

I saw the new AT version of the scope at CEDIC2015.  The new light baffles and thermal management system look very nice.  That said, the less costly version I tested can be used to very good effect.

 

I'll be further testing this scope later this month.


Edited by JJK, 05 May 2015 - 08:42 AM.


#95 Antonio Spinoza

Antonio Spinoza

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2014

Posted 05 May 2015 - 10:17 PM

 

This is just a general précis of my thoughts on noise.

The only measure we really have is signal to noise to compare any sort of measurement. When it comes to images we do have a problem. In the real world our limited senses do record lots of noise along with the signal. Our brains are quite adapted to work out which is which. This of course is purely subjective as anyone who has seen delusional people ignoring the obvious and conversely educated people ignoring the subtle signals that do not fit in with their model of the world.
Why is it then when a painting done in the ultra realist mode looks unnatural? Why does ultra real computer graphics also seem unnatural? In the real world there is noise in all of our sensory inputs and our brains response expects it so it can sort out the real signal.
The basic take home message is by all means maximise the signal to noise but do not eliminate the noise as then it makes the signal far less real or look manufactured.

Bert

If you look at an object even with a very large telescope you will see no noise. Noise is an aberration and not data, it does not exist until you capture the frame. Removing it does not remove data if you do not remove more than just the noise.

Blueman

 

 

That's an interesting perspective (Blueman's response).  I'd suggest that there are many sources for what we would call "noise" and they all exist, but in any particular context what we call noise must be defined relative to what we call signal.  In any real physical setting all contributions of what we would call "signal" and what we would call "noise" are convolved.  The only distinction between signal and noise is what it is we are actually focused upon and how one constructively correlates relative to the other over some frame of measurement (generally time).  A useful definition of "signal to noise" is really nothing more than the ratio of the likelihood of observing a particular set of measurements provided the hypothesized "cause" exists and is present vs the likelihood that the observed measurements could have been produced by random chance given the environment they were collected in (often expressed in dB).

 

With respect to Bert's comment, I think that is a very insightful observation.  Leonardo Da Vinci back in the 1400's advanced the notion of dissolving an image into the atmosphere to increase the appearance of realism - something he called "Sfumato".  His notion was the universe was inextricably linked and everything simply flowed together.  This would appear to be true at some level (the molecules of your body are intertwined with the atmosphere around you and you are taking in new matter and expelling old by the second (eating, drinking, breathing, urinating, excreting).  The brain is trained to expect and accept a characteristic pattern of convolution - the merging of "noise" with "signal".    




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.



Recent Reviews


Imaging/Sketching Contest






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics