Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· 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

Equipment Discussions >> Cats & Casses

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)
Phil Hosey
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 10/29/08

Loc: LaGrange, GA
Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform?
      #5818907 - 04/23/13 11:20 PM

It has been recommended that I wean myself from Hyperstar because it is a 'Crude' platform. I'm not saying it isn't, I would like to keep an open mind. If we put aside the difficulties in getting the collimation and focus correct at f/2 which can be quite challenging and if we use a camera that gives us a good image scale, what else technically is wrong with it? Just to be clear, I haven't gotten my Hyperstar system working well yet, it is currently at Starizona along with my C11 being setup. So, in the mean time, I would love to hear the arguments both for and against Hyperstar being a crude imaging platform.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David PavlichAdministrator
Transmographied
*****

Reged: 05/18/05

Loc: Mandeville, LA USA
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Phil Hosey]
      #5818935 - 04/23/13 11:38 PM

I'm not sure where that comes from, Phil. Yes, it can be fickle when it comes to getting the adjustments correct. I just had first light with mine. With no collimation and focusing with a Bahtinov mask, the stars looked quite good. The image wasn't worth a hoot, it washed out from the Moon being so close to the object, but the stars looked good. I guess everything is lined up pretty well.

One of the complaints is that using a mono camera with a filter wheel can't happen. Well, with the advent of the QSI cameras with their compact size and internal filter wheel, the 8300 based camera will work well with the C11 and really well with the C14.

It's limited to APS-C or smaller chips and it is hanging on the corrector. But I judge it by the images. For the widefield stuff, it's nice. And for a typical object, a 3 minute exposure sucks in a ton of photons.

Then there's the fact that with a proper reducer/corrector, you can remove the HS and get it down to around f7 and for planetary work, you have the native f10 or f11.

David


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Phil Hosey]
      #5818959 - 04/23/13 11:57 PM

What does "crude" mean in this instance?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
mmalik
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/13/12

Loc: USA
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Phil Hosey]
      #5819012 - 04/24/13 12:40 AM

Crude is a harsh word but I can't think of a better word for HyperStar; I am not against the creative design of HyperStar per se but I have my concerns about technical and mechanical validity of such a design (i.e., in conjunction with SCT's).

Here are some thoughts where I am coming from:

•SCTs inherently are herky-jerky design (here we go again with another not so optimal word) from collimation to mirror flop to focusers, etc.

•Corrector plate is not a rigid structure in itself and was originally designed to house just the light weight secondary

•HyperStar's fit, i.e., misfit, within the corrector plate gets mentioned quite often; stressing/flexing imparted by HyperStar is another cause for concern

•Nothing against Starizona, but I have my doubts about Starizona's HyperStar design, workmanship, & glass quality... expertise (e.g., consider a “hypothetical” HyperStar offering form Takahashi on top of a corrected Mewlon for a "hypothetical" comparison)

•HyperStar is limited to Celestron ONLY if I understand it correctly; not an SCT-wide acceptance as far as I know (in other word a proprietary offering, not an industry standard)

•Obstructed design of SCT further gets compromised by cumbersome and further obstructing imaging devices used with HyperStar

•Spiking/obstruction caused by traversing connections

•Rigidity of other designs, e.g., refractors, is just not possible in SCTs and HyperStar makes it even less rigid and more prone to stressing built-in tolerances of the SCT system

•Fastness or short circuiting of optical path ramifications of HyperStar are whole another subject that has been discussed at length in another thread...

•Uncorrected optics/folded design of SCTs


I could go on but I think you get the idea... what I am trying to get at is that we have not so optimal/rigid original design of SCT that gets further compromised by HyperStar and that's what makes it NOT so solid and/or sophisticated. HyperStar may suit video or casual still astro imagery, but high quality/high resolution still astro photography remains the domain of un-obstructed and corrected optics. Regards


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: mmalik]
      #5819129 - 04/24/13 05:07 AM

Malik, a definition of herky jerky is "spasmodic". That has nothing to do with the optical design of the SCT. Now, Celestron's & Meade's implementation of the primary mirror movement was poor because it led to spasmodic focus movement and mirror flop. However, anyone with decent technical skills can rework the focuser of C or M SCTs if they use a more sensible design (move the primary on a plane defined by three points).

I've been concerned about the stress on the corrector plate caused by a CCD camera. Do you have any data that illustrates this issue?

You also stated that the corrector plate is not rigid (in a non-Hyperstar mode). Please provide solid evidence for that claim.

Edited by JJK (04/24/13 05:10 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tapio
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/24/06

Loc: Tampere, Finland
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: JJK]
      #5819151 - 04/24/13 05:37 AM

(Certain) Meade SC-scopes can also be used with Hyperstar.
http://www.hyperstarimaging.com/compatibility.php


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bilgebay
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 11/06/08

Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmari...
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: mmalik]
      #5819185 - 04/24/13 06:00 AM

As an astroimager who has a very satisfactory Hyperstar experience of almost 3+ years I cannot agree with your statement that HS is a crude platform.

•SCTs inherently are herky-jerky design (here we go again with another not so optimal word) from collimation to mirror flop to focusers, etc.

( The new Edge series have mirror locks to deal with the mirror flop )

•Corrector plate is not a rigid structure in itself and was originally designed to house just the light weight secondary

( You don't have to hang a heavy camera to the HS lens. My Atik 460 is only 400 grams. When I used a T2i with my C11 HS, I haven't witnessed any deformation of the corrector by looking at the results the system produced.)

•HyperStar's fit, i.e., misfit, within the corrector plate gets mentioned quite often; stressing/flexing imparted by HyperStar is another cause for concern

( It's not the Hyperstar but secondary holder which is loose to the corrector plate. But this is easy to cure )

•Nothing against Starizona, but I have my doubts about Starizona's HyperStar design, workmanship, & glass quality... expertise (e.g., consider a “hypothetical” HyperStar offering form Takahashi on top of a corrected Mewlon for a "hypothetical" comparison)

( Again I haven't noticed any color aberrations. Sometimes, I get strange reflections but almost all systems have this problem, eg when shooting near Alnitak or Gamma Cass. )

•HyperStar is limited to Celestron ONLY if I understand it correctly; not an SCT-wide acceptance as far as I know (in other word a proprietary offering, not an industry standard)

(Nope, there are HS lenses for Meade SCTs as well)

•Obstructed design of SCT further gets compromised by cumbersome and further obstructing by imaging devices used with HyperStar

( Not necessarily, you can use Pepsi cameras, or make a donut mask to hide the silhouetteof a DSLR. See Samir Kharusi's website for the tips )

•Spiking/obstruction caused by traversing connections

( Not necessarily, there are ways to avoid this. But again, what about Newtonian and RC based astrographs ? )

•Rigidity of other designs, e.g., refractors, is just not possible in SCTs and HyperStar makes it even less rigid and more prone to stressing built-in tolerances of the SCT system

( Quite the contrary... how can you say this after we have discussed for so many pages about FSQ106's shortcoming on this front, which is a "dedicated astrograph" ? I had none of those flexure problems with C11 Hyperstar system )

•Fastness or short circuiting of optical path ramifications of HyperStar are whole another subject that has been discussed at length in another thread...

( This is the whole point... Speed... nothing can beat Hyperstar at this price! )

•Uncorrected optics/folded design of SCTs

( Irrelevant in the context of Hyperstar...I get full flat frame with an APS-C size sensor)

Please continue with your other arguments

Sedat


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
JJK
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 04/28/08

Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Tapio]
      #5819224 - 04/24/13 07:02 AM

Quote:

(Certain) Meade SC-scopes can also be used with Hyperstar.
http://www.hyperstarimaging.com/compatibility.php




I didn't suggest otherwise.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Da Bear
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 11/21/06

Loc: Kali-Forn-Ya
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: JJK]
      #5819283 - 04/24/13 08:21 AM

One of my favorite astro gear stories:

A guy was selling his very expensive, high end scope widget to me and complained endlessly in emails what a stupid design company X had realeased in to the market.

I finally asked about his set up and what he steps he used to get the widget working. After three email exchanges, I figured out he just failed to index the optics, as Company X laid out in the instructions, in bold red letters.

In less than one minute, he finally indexed the "stupid" widget from the "idiots" at company X and it worked perfectly.

Da Bear


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Phil Hosey
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 10/29/08

Loc: LaGrange, GA
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Da Bear]
      #5819299 - 04/24/13 08:47 AM

I for one have no complaints about the design of the Hyperstar and C11. I know my limitations and this time I could not get it working correctly. I do know it is possible though as I have done before with a previous C11 and Hyperstar. That is why I sent both the scope and Hyperstar to Starizona to have Dean set it up. It is now o n the way back to me and should be good to go. There are trade-offs everywhere in this hobby, and I sure love that f/2 imaging and when the Hyperstar is working properly I can accept it's other shortcomings.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rmollise
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: mmalik]
      #5819347 - 04/24/13 09:25 AM

Quote:



Here are some thoughts where I am coming from:

•SCTs inherently are herky-jerky design (here we go again with another not so optimal word) from collimation to mirror flop to focusers, etc.

•Corrector plate is not a rigid structure in itself and was originally designed to house just the light weight secondary

•HyperStar's fit, i.e., misfit, within the corrector plate gets mentioned quite often; stressing/flexing imparted by HyperStar is another cause for concern

•Nothing against Starizona, but I have my doubts about Starizona's HyperStar design, workmanship, & glass quality... expertise (e.g., consider a “hypothetical” HyperStar offering form Takahashi on top of a corrected Mewlon for a "hypothetical" comparison)

•HyperStar is limited to Celestron ONLY if I understand it correctly; not an SCT-wide acceptance as far as I know (in other word a proprietary offering, not an industry standard)

•Obstructed design of SCT further gets compromised by cumbersome and further obstructing by imaging devices used with HyperStar

•Spiking/obstruction caused by traversing connections

•Rigidity of other designs, e.g., refractors, is just not possible in SCTs and HyperStar makes it even less rigid and more prone to stressing built-in tolerances of the SCT system

•Fastness or short circuiting of optical path ramifications of HyperStar are whole another subject that has been discussed at length in another thread...

•Uncorrected optics/folded design of SCTs


I could go on but I think you get the idea... what I am trying to get at is that we have not so optimal/rigid original design of SCT that gets further compromised by HyperStar and that's what makes it NOT so solid and/or sophisticated. HyperStar may suit video or casual still astro imagery, but high quality/high resolution still astro photography remains the domain of un-obstructed and corrected optics. Regards




Collimation is neither herky nor jerky. A PROPERLY collimated SCT can hold collimation for months or even years. Mirror flop? I've had ONE image ruined by flop over the last 30 plus years. It's not much of a problem, frankly. With current Meades and Celestrons with mirror locks, it is no problem at all. The SCT focuser provides more focus range than any alternative.

There is no doubt you could break a corrector if you banged a camera into something with it mounted in Fastar position. And this has happened to a couple of folks. But not many and that is the bottom line.

The Hyperstars are collimateable.

They appear to have plenty of very satisfied customers. Not sure where you are going with Takahashi, but they don't offer anything like Hyperstar for the Mewlon.

So what? And it WAS offered (the secondary conversion) for Meades for some time.

The quality of Hyperstar images (within the guidelines established for camera/aperture) says otherwise.

These can be minimized. You'll get worse with a Newtonian.

You've mentioned this already, and it is still not a factor.

No idea what "fastness or short circuiting" means... sorry.

Uncorrected what? You do know the supplemental lens that goes in front of a camera in the Hyperstar/Fastar setup is a corrector, don't you?

Nope, I don't get the idea. Are you a Hyperstar/Fastar user? Fastar imaging is not for everyone, no doubt about that. But there is also no doubt it works and works fine as thousands of images taken that way demonstrate.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5819363 - 04/24/13 09:33 AM

"Crude" is a subjective term. It's certainly less sophisticated an an RH-200 or an Epsilon, both of which offer far less optical compromise and also permit the use of very large chips and arbitrary camera sizes/shapes. Both are thousands of dollars more than a Fastar-adapted C8, though. If it is crude only compared to those, it is hardly without value.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5819368 - 04/24/13 09:36 AM

Quote:

Not sure where you are going with Takahashi, but they don't offer anything like Hyperstar for the Mewlon.




They went in a different (and more Takahashi-like) direction by offering the Epsilon.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David PavlichAdministrator
Transmographied
*****

Reged: 05/18/05

Loc: Mandeville, LA USA
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: rmollise]
      #5819379 - 04/24/13 09:39 AM

This image isn't the greatest until you look at the fact that a total exposure time of 100 seconds and the fact that it was an unmodified Canon 40D is what produced the image. I wonder how it would have looked with 30 minutes of exposure using a modified 40D.

Like Rod said, HS isn't for everyone, but it seems to me that those that have used it successfully really like the fact that it takes relatively little time to take the pictures. Used within its limitations, it is a good imaging platform.

David


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starhawk
Space Ranger
*****

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: David Pavlich]
      #5819413 - 04/24/13 10:04 AM Attachment (37 downloads)

Mmalik, you're simply inexperienced with hyperstar. The original design came from the 60" scope on Mount Lemmon. The scope was originally a cassegrain and got a new front end built to allow deep sky searches for asteroids. It has found more than any other telescope. I've had a chance to use it- most galaxies wind up overexposed.

The same person at the University of Arizona here in Tucson designed hyperstar.

It makes it possible to get complete images of a half dozen objects in one night. And your objections just aren't based on reality.

-Rich


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Starhawk
Space Ranger
*****

Reged: 09/16/08

Loc: Tucson, Arizona
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5819419 - 04/24/13 10:07 AM Attachment (61 downloads)

And here's a detail from that frame:

Note the wee little background galaxies. This is a stack of 30 second images from a Pentax K-5. I was kicking myself for operating at ISO 12800 instead of ISO 51200.

-Rich


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Starhawk]
      #5819433 - 04/24/13 10:17 AM

Quote:

The original design came from the 60" scope on Mount Lemmon. The scope was originally a cassegrain and got a new front end built to allow deep sky searches for asteroids.




To be fair, that was a classical Cass with a paraboloid mirror at F/4 or thereabouts. All that would be required to switch to prime focus would be removal of the secondary and addition of a coma corrector. Takahashi offered a convertable classical Cass/Newt for years. Converting an SCT with a spherical F/2 primary is much more of a compromise and definitely not the same design.

It's OK to like Hyperstar but let's remain realistic.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Alph
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 11/23/06

Loc: Melmac
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: bilgebay]
      #5819610 - 04/24/13 11:54 AM

Quote:

As an astroimager who has a very satisfactory Hyperstar experience of almost 3+ years I cannot agree with your statement that HS is a crude platform.



Didn't you forget to mention that you don't image with the Hyperstar anymore? I see only beginners using the Hyperstar.
How about alignment? Do you expect everybody to go through the same process as you did?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bilgebay
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 11/06/08

Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmari...
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Alph]
      #5819630 - 04/24/13 12:06 PM

Nope, where do you get this idea?

I have, just last weekend, purchased a a brand new C8 Edge and a Hyperstar lense for it... Actually I have purchased them 3 months ago but was able to collect them last weekend when I was in US for NEAIC/NEAF.

Do you think I paid so much money not to use it ? You're funny

My problem was the size and weight of my C11 system. I have to tear down my system when I come back to Istanbul. I cannot leave my imaging setup out in the elements unattended for a week or two.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bilgebay
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 11/06/08

Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmari...
Re: Why do some consider Hyperstar a 'crude' platform? new [Re: Alph]
      #5819639 - 04/24/13 12:09 PM

Quote:

I see only beginners using the Hyperstar.




No problem, you can consider me as a beginner. I am not claiming that I'm a master in this art.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | (show all)


Extra information
22 registered and 14 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Starman27, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 6012

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics