Jump to content


Photo

75 minute guided exposure iOtpron ZEQ25

  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#26 Raginar

Raginar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Rapid CIty, SD

Posted 11 May 2013 - 09:55 AM

Astronewb,

He's right about it being a smoother curve with a simpler a guider and that you could really figure out your PE (guided and unguided) using a program like PEMPRO.

No biggie though; the smooth graph does mean that PHD wasn't having any problems with your mount. For instance, before the new firmware, many CGEMs demonstrated a 'sawtooth' pattern in the declination axis. So, you can see that the graph can tell you something.

I think it's pretty amazing myself. Looks like you got a good copy of it!

Chris

#27 Astronewb

Astronewb

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:00 PM

He's right about it being a smoother curve with a simpler a guider and that you could really figure out your PE (guided and unguided) using a program like PEMPRO.


I did convert the guiding graph using the PHD log file in PecPrep, this is the result (not compensated for DEC):

Posted Image
PecPrep 6 May 2013 ZEQ25 by Astronewb2011, on Flickr

Some night when I'm not after a dso, I should turn off PHD guiding and run a 30 minute log file to see what the mount's PE looks like.

CLear skies,

Paul

#28 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6090
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:01 PM

I'm not sure if I'm applying this correctly, but I think we can just take the Borg 50mm and Lodestar pixel scale to get 6.75 arcsec/pixel. Then multiply that by your measured PE of ~2, and we'll get a PE of 13.5.

Hey, smarter people... Did I do that right?

Either way, the mount is a performer at a good price. You don't need to look at a graph to see whether your stars look good. Now someone just has to see how far it can be pushed.

EDIT: BTW Great Iris nebula! My favorite target!

#29 dennilfloss

dennilfloss

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Ottawa, Canada

Posted 11 May 2013 - 07:44 PM

Impressive tracking. There's probably some software you can use to demotion-blur those stars. :) or just use Photoshop.

http://www.ehow.com/...-photoshop.html

Edit: just gave it a quick go with Focus Magic (I forgot this can also do motion deblur). Excuse my bad eyesight.

http://i.imgur.com/lRJQIhw.jpg



#30 vdb

vdb

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 426
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2009

Posted 12 May 2013 - 01:08 AM

I'm not sure if I'm applying this correctly, but I think we can just take the Borg 50mm and Lodestar pixel scale to get 6.75 arcsec/pixel. Then multiply that by your measured PE of ~2, and we'll get a PE of 13.5.

Hey, smarter people... Did I do that right?



Don't think so, this is guided en PecPrep asks pixel size and focal length, so this is the real error and means you have 2 arcsec P-P ...
Side remark, the seeing is in there as well ...

#31 Astronewb

Astronewb

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:05 AM

Edit: just gave it a quick go with Focus Magic (I forgot this can also do motion deblur). Excuse my bad eyesight.

http://i.imgur.com/lRJQIhw.jpg


Wow...that worked great, and so much easier than using layer masks to do it? With a flat applied to get rid of the reducer vignetting, that would be a great single exposure of M101. Going to look at 'Focus Magic' real quick...lol.

Thanks for showing me that, all the best,

Paul

#32 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6090
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:30 AM

I'm not sure if I'm applying this correctly, but I think we can just take the Borg 50mm and Lodestar pixel scale to get 6.75 arcsec/pixel. Then multiply that by your measured PE of ~2, and we'll get a PE of 13.5.

Hey, smarter people... Did I do that right?



Don't think so, this is guided en PecPrep asks pixel size and focal length, so this is the real error and means you have 2 arcsec P-P ...
Side remark, the seeing is in there as well ...


Oh. If you enter your FL and pixel size then it already calculates that. I was assuming a default of 1arcsec/pixel. But is 2arcsecs peak to peak really possible? That's usually $10k mount territory.

One thing to consider is that you should be aquiring the PEC curve at a very long FL. I seem to remember barlowing my cpc-800 to get my PE.

#33 Raginar

Raginar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Rapid CIty, SD

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:37 AM

Adam,

You're right about the long focal length too. But, you have to take into account the mount. The RC6 that he's using probably is about as close to the max weight of the mount as it can handle realistically anyways. Plus, that's guided. So, 2" PE is what you 'should' get it to (or smaller).

Knez, didn't realize you shouldn't have a normal graph with an OAG. Good to know.

#34 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6090
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:11 AM

Adam,

You're right about the long focal length too. But, you have to take into account the mount. The RC6 that he's using probably is about as close to the max weight of the mount as it can handle realistically anyways. Plus, that's guided. So, 2" PE is what you 'should' get it to (or smaller).

Knez, didn't realize you shouldn't have a normal graph with an OAG. Good to know.


I didn't take into account that its guided.

As far as fl, I belive the OP used his Borg to record this. Not the RC. The RC would give a better read on PE.

#35 Astronewb

Astronewb

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 12 May 2013 - 12:46 PM

I didn't take into account that its guided.

As far as fl, I belive the OP used his Borg to record this. Not the RC. The RC would give a better read on PE.


Yep, I was using a Borg 50mm as a guide scope, focal length of the Borg is 250mm. I entered the Borg's focal length into PecPrep, which is what you're supposed to do. The focal length of the AT6RC w/CCDT67 reducer is approx. 950-1000mm with my current spacing.

I assume that using a OAG, at the focal length of the imaging scope would result in a more approximate PE value?

It's still a pretty good result with a 10# mount on a 1.5" tripod, considering it took all of about 10 minutes from setup to imaging.

Regards,

Paul

#36 Raginar

Raginar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6138
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Rapid CIty, SD

Posted 12 May 2013 - 02:40 PM

Paul, I think you're doing pretty good :). Makes me want one! I was thinking about getting a GM8 but this might be a good portable alternative.

#37 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6090
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 12 May 2013 - 06:13 PM

All things considered, it seems like a very good mount. When you have great images, and have to critique PE graphs; you're typically paying thousands to split hairs. It's nice to be able to do that with a sub-1k mount.

#38 dennilfloss

dennilfloss

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Ottawa, Canada

Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:34 PM

Edit: just gave it a quick go with Focus Magic (I forgot this can also do motion deblur). Excuse my bad eyesight.

http://i.imgur.com/lRJQIhw.jpg


Wow...that worked great, and so much easier than using layer masks to do it? With a flat applied to get rid of the reducer vignetting, that would be a great single exposure of M101. Going to look at 'Focus Magic' real quick...lol.

Thanks for showing me that, all the best,

Paul


You can try it for free on 10 images. If you like it enough to buy it, it's $45US.

#39 psandelle

psandelle

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 12 May 2013 - 08:14 PM

Hadn't heard of Focus Magic - thanks for the info. Am going to test it in the future and probably buy.

Paul

#40 FishInPercolator

FishInPercolator

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:00 PM

Paul, would you recommend the ZEQ25? What's the total weight with counter and all. I'm considering it for either an 8" newt or 8" EdgeHD.

I was originally considering the iEQ30.

#41 FishInPercolator

FishInPercolator

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 660
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013
  • Loc: NYC

Posted 12 May 2013 - 09:13 PM

In addition, how do you think the ZEQ25 will hold up with a Celestron Advanced VX 8" f/5 Newtonian? It's about 27" long and weighs 14 pounds. My primary concern is the wind...

#42 Astronewb

Astronewb

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 12 May 2013 - 10:37 PM

In addition, how do you think the ZEQ25 will hold up with a Celestron Advanced VX 8" f/5 Newtonian? It's about 27" long and weighs 14 pounds. My primary concern is the wind...



The ZEQ25 weighs 33 pounds loaded.

Mount: 10.4
Counterweight: 10.4
C/w shaft: 1.5
Tripod: 11.0

Specs are here: http://www.ioptron.c...31ce45f-3778...

I've imaged with a payload of 22 pounds, with excellent results. I really believe the working capacity is greater than stated, but if your imaging rig, OTA and guider and camera is around this weight, I can highly recommend it.

The mount is so well balanced, that with a 22 pound payload and 20 pounds of counterweights, you can adjust the latitude adjuster with two fingers easily. Perfect balance.

I've imaged in wind gusts up to 10 mph, the mount just shrugs it off. Typically, in a string of 15 images, I might cull 2 due to elongated stars...and I'm OCD about oblong stars, I check my images at 100-200% magnification and delete before stacking. Of course, that's with a AT6RC, which is not as much of a 'sail' as a Newt...:)

Hope the info helps,

Paul

#43 dennilfloss

dennilfloss

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Ottawa, Canada

Posted 12 May 2013 - 10:52 PM

Just played a couple of minutes with a Jupiter pic gleaned from the solar system imaging forum to see what Focus Magic could do for planets.

http://i.imgur.com/a8T3xy5.jpg

#44 Paulimer

Paulimer

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2003
  • Loc: Hong Kong

Posted 12 May 2013 - 11:41 PM

Paul,
Do you think it would work if I put a 10" F6 newtonian on it for visual only? The scope only weighs 9kg (carbon fibre truss), but its very long...

Paul

#45 Astronewb

Astronewb

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:17 AM

Paul,
Do you think it would work if I put a 10" F6 newtonian on it for visual only? The scope only weighs 9kg (carbon fibre truss), but its very long...

Paul


It would probably be okay for visual at that weight, but the momentum of a tube that long might be an issue..?

To wit, I can spin a 4" long pencil between two fingers and control it pretty easily. A 12" long pencil, not so much.

There will be larger versions of this mount available before the end of the year, I'm sure. And I'm pretty sure the next version will be able to handle a 10" or 12" Newt with no problems.

I would wait....

Paul

#46 Paulimer

Paulimer

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2003
  • Loc: Hong Kong

Posted 13 May 2013 - 01:29 AM

Thanks for the info. My first plan is to put my new Borg 125SD on it for imaging to replace my Tak EM11 (yes i'm serious)

The money I get from the difference may finance me a bigger version of that mount for my newt.

#47 Astronewb

Astronewb

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Connecticut

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:27 AM

Thanks for the info. My first plan is to put my new Borg 125SD on it for imaging to replace my Tak EM11 (yes i'm serious)


I'm pretty jealous, the Borg 125SD is what I'll eventually wind up with to replace my 80 and 90mm refractors, and my 6" Newt. Depending on what reducer you use, you've got all the FOVs covered, with an OTA that only weighs 9 pounds soaking wet.

Congratulations Paul, looking forward to some first light reports when you get that setup sorted out.

Clear skies,

Paul

#48 rkayakr

rkayakr

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 450
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2010
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:55 AM

dennilfloss
Nice improvement. Have you tried any other deconvolution methods like those in Photoshop "smart sharpen", Maxim DL, Images Plus or Raw Therapee?
Bob

#49 coinboy1

coinboy1

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 463
  • Joined: 03 May 2011
  • Loc: Tulsa, OK

Posted 13 May 2013 - 11:34 AM

I am totally amazed with this mount! For the price point and autoguided exposure lengths. My current mount, the celestron ASGT, I would be lucky to get 5 minute SUBS due to DEC guiding problems. And I also use an AT6RC and cant do narrowband photography because of this. This mount seems like an ideal solution. Any cons to this mount with the AT6RC? Does this mount seem to be an ideal match with this scope? This could be the answer to all my astrophotography problems and its cheap, lightweight, and accurate.

#50 dennilfloss

dennilfloss

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 409
  • Joined: 06 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Ottawa, Canada

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:40 PM

dennilfloss
Nice improvement. Have you tried any other deconvolution methods like those in Photoshop "smart sharpen", Maxim DL, Images Plus or Raw Therapee?
Bob


I don't do astroimaging. Never have as I'm strictly visual. I've been scopeless for a few years and plan to get a grab n' go ED refractor this summer to get back into astronomy. As for Photoshop, I don't think my Photoshop 5.5 has an option for smart sharpen. I got Focus magic recently to help restore some old pics for my vintage battleship photographs blog. Just took 2 minutes to see what it could do on the pic in the OP.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics