· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User You are not logged in. [Login] Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online FAQ · Calendar Equipment Discussions >> Video and Electronically Assisted Astronomy Previous   Index   Next   Threaded   Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all) Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5740757 - 03/18/13 01:47 PM Attachment (35 downloads) Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   M13 at f12. 200 frames stacked. Post Extras:       GlennLeDrew Postmaster Reged: 06/18/08 Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5741713 - 03/18/13 08:50 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Not to be a nitpicker, but I was under the impression that post-processed images are not permitted here; only single frames as would be seen 'live' are allowed. Unless software solutions which automatically do these tasks 'on the fly' are acceptable? (But then, how long would it take for 200 multi-second exposures to stack? Would this lie within the realm of semi-live viewing?) Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: GlennLeDrew]       #5741979 - 03/18/13 10:41 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   That is why I noted it. In this case it was NOT live or semi live. It is purely processed. The video was 15 seconds and after separating the frames I selected 200 of the best. I wasn't aware there was a rule. If so I will respect it. Thanks for the input. Post Extras:       Dragon Man Carpal Tunnel Reged: 03/07/06 Loc: Snake Valley, Australia Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5742410 - 03/19/13 08:17 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Yes Atl, it has been brought up many times in the past, but new people to This section wouldn't be aware of it. Stacking constitutes 'imaging' which is another section in Cloudy nights. The images people want to see in here are ones that show what the camera sees 'Live' (or what is actually Semi-Live). That way they can see how a Camera performs in a 'Live' viewing situation. Imagine having an electronic eye to look in your telescope with. That's what we show in here. The rule is probably buried a couple of hundred threads back EDIT: This will give you an idea: http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/4232772/page... Edited by Dragon Man (03/19/13 08:23 AM) Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Dragon Man]       #5742500 - 03/19/13 09:38 AM Attachment (19 downloads) Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   One interesting thing I have noted is that the videos actually look better than individual frames...even if the frames in question were extracted from the video. Maybe posting video is the truest representation. So to set things straight here is the "live" version of the same image like the other images taken with the C90. I am finding that the issue with the diminuative C90 is finding the object in the eyepiece. Compared to my dob it is like looking through an opaque piece of glass. Getting the image on video once I have it centered in the eyepiece is easy. The camera enhances things substantially. Post Extras:       mclewis1 Thread Killer Reged: 02/25/06 Loc: New Brunswick, Canada Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5742606 - 03/19/13 10:40 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Many folks will adjust an image slightly to make it more representative of what is seen on a high quality monitor (it's usually better than what shows up on a single image capture on a PC). Viewing the video stream often does look better to me too but many video hosting sites seem to impart additional compression which doesn't help the images. It's very clear that any more than slight tweaks can really make a substantial improvement in an image and this would now be something that isn't representative of the "live" image thus the comments about not posting images that have been extensively processed. ATL's great images show this progression very clearly as do many of Nytcam's images. I think the best course of action is to post as many details about an image as possible. That way folks can better understand, interpret, and compare the images. Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: mclewis1]       #5742621 - 03/19/13 10:46 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   The processed M13 is "slightly" more detailed. It only has about a billion more stars visible...lol. The other images are completely representative of what can be seen on the screen with a camera and a c90. It would be pretty awesome to get my 12.5" dob up on a driven mount...oh well... Post Extras:       Pharquart sage Reged: 11/11/09 Loc: Southwest Minneapolis Metro Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5754523 - 03/24/13 05:25 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Atl, Are you creating these images using prime focus, or are you using an afocal setup? Brian Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Pharquart]       #5754604 - 03/24/13 05:54 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   I used a focal reducer for the nebula and prime focus for the cluster. Roughly 45 and 90x respectively. Post Extras:       Pharquart sage Reged: 11/11/09 Loc: Southwest Minneapolis Metro Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5754717 - 03/24/13 06:47 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   How are you calculating the magnification? What is the equivalent focal length of the camera? Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Pharquart]       #5755019 - 03/24/13 09:33 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   The ccd is .5" and the FL is 1200mm. So actually it is 96x and 43x. I have been wanting to add some more images but the moon has been early and bright lately. Post Extras:       GlennLeDrew Postmaster Reged: 06/18/08 Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5755048 - 03/24/13 09:47 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   A magnification value ascribed to an image is arbitrary, for the result depends also on the angular size of the image on the viewer's retina. If you stick your face near your monitor, an image has a higher 'magnification' than when viewed from across the room. To first order, one can say a detector is equivalent to an eyepiece whose focal length equals the detector's width. And so a 6mm wide CCD is about equal to a 6mm eyepiece. But this is open to debate, for one can choose a longer f.l. eyepiece having a small apparent field or one of a shorter f.l. but larger apparent field and have the same field of view. Far better to simply state the field width, in degrees or arcminutes. This is unambiguous. Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: GlennLeDrew]       #5755091 - 03/24/13 10:13 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   That is definitely precise. Now for my newbie question: How does one determine and state the field width given the information I have provided? Post Extras:       GlennLeDrew Postmaster Reged: 06/18/08 Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5755196 - 03/24/13 11:21 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Find the CCD's actual imaging area's dimensions, then divide this by the scope's focal length and take the inverse tangent. Example, a 6mm wide chip with a 1,200mm focal length has a field width of: ARCTAN ( 6 / 1200 ) = 0.286 degrees = 17.19 arcminutes. Note that for such small angles it's valid to simplify like this. For larger angles, exceeding approximately 10 degrees, the correct formula is: (ARCTAN ((CCD width / 2) / focal length)) * 2 In other words, you first calculate the semi-angle due to the tangent function, the multiply this by 2 to get the full angle. Post Extras:       ccs_hello Postmaster Reged: 07/03/04 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: GlennLeDrew]       #5755304 - 03/25/13 12:31 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Also can try CCD Calculator: http://www.newastro.com/book_new/camera_app.php Clear Skies! ccs_hello Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: GlennLeDrew]       #5755520 - 03/25/13 05:18 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Nice! Thanks for the info! Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5768033 - 03/31/13 02:34 AM Attachment (21 downloads) Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   I got the C90 back in action. I am focal reduced to about F6. I thought I might try a dimmer target so here is m51 at 128x sens up. Post Extras:       mclewis1 Thread Killer Reged: 02/25/06 Loc: New Brunswick, Canada Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5768698 - 03/31/13 12:23 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   That's an absolutely great shot for 2.1s with a 90mm scope. That EXview HAD sensor is really impressive. Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: mclewis1]       #5768739 - 03/31/13 12:49 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   I'm dumbfounded myself. When you look through a C90 the views are very dim. The camera is doing most of the work. Even in my big dob I just see a big blob and a little blob. The whole point of my thread is that this tech is accessible at nearly any price point...and it gives me a reason to play with my little telescope. Post Extras:       Atl sage Reged: 04/13/12 Re: the ultra low end of video astronomy [Re: Atl]       #5769494 - 03/31/13 06:55 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   I implemented an upgrade. I ditched the C90. It seems to have a lot of internal reflections from bright stars. I replaced it with the 114mm Orion Imaging Newtonian today. It is F3.9...so I will probably be maligned for not using an f12.5 ...lol. It did cost me much less than the C90 so economically speaking I am even lower end than before. I am still using an eq1 with a 25$ drive. Post Extras:       Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all) Previous   Index   Next   Threaded   Extra information 7 registered and 8 anonymous users are browsing this forum. Moderator:  Undermidnight, knuklhdastnmr  Print Thread Forum Permissions       You cannot start new topics       You cannot reply to topics       HTML is disabled       UBBCode is enabled Thread views: 2418 Jump to *Announcements and News* -----   Cloudy Nights Announcements   Discussion of CN Articles, Reviews, and Reports   Celestial Events*General Astronomy* -----   Beginners Forum   General Observing and Astronomy   Outreach   Light Pollution*Equipment Discussions* -----   ATM, Optics and DIY Forum   Binoculars   Binoviewers   Cats & Casses   Classic Telescopes   Equipment   Eyepieces   Mounts   Observatories   Reflectors   Refractors    Video and Electronically Assisted Astronomy*Astrophotography and Sketching* -----   Beginning and Intermediate Imaging   Film Astrophotography   DSLR & Digital Camera Astro Imaging & Processing   CCD Imaging & Processing   Solar System Imaging & Processing   Sketching   Astro Imaging/Sketching Contest *Observing* -----   NEO   Planetary and Solar System Observing   Lunar Observing   Deep Sky Observing   Double Star Observing   Solar   Variable Star Observing and Radio Astronomy*Telescope Specific Forums* -----   Celestron NexStar    NexStar GPS / CPC Telescopes   Questar Forum   Meade ACF/RCX / LX / GPS    Meade ETX*Speciality Forums* -----   Arizona Science and Astronomy Expo   NEAF (Northeast Astronomy Forum) and NEAIC (Northeast Astro Imaging Conference)   AstroArt   Astronomy Clubs and Star Parties   Astronomy Software & Computers   AstroWebsites   Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others   Space Rocks   Stellar Media*Swap and Shop* -----   Shop and Swap Audio Components*CN Feedback and Vendor Announcements* -----   Vendor and Group Announcements*International Year of Astronomy 2009 - Forums are now closed.* -----   IYA Archive Info CN Forums Home

Cloudy Nights LLC Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics