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

Sh2-132 - Lion Nebula (with some rant)

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Salacious B Crumb

Salacious B Crumb

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 729
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Greater Atlanta Area, GA

Posted 15 November 2019 - 07:12 PM

This post is sort of continuity to the image quality thread below, post #101 where I wonder how the image analyzing programs won't detect what the eye sees. And part of venting too so bear with me...

 

https://www.cloudyni...-2#entry9770961

 

As I explain on the post, my TAK 0.73 reducer is defective resulting to odd looking stars and to some additional tilt to the optical system. Unfortunately, I didn't fully understand this before processing the first image. After finishing the processing my first thought was to just post the starless image but then I changed my mind and thought, I have nothing to be shame of. If anything, I'm slightly disappointed that I still have to deal with issues like this and if I wanted to see stars like these, I could have as well have kept my AT65. Trying to correspond with Takahashi USA is also painful (I'm hoping this gets better after the AIC ends) and the first comment from them was that they can check the reducer but not fix it. So at the moment my best option is to start to use the scope with the native FL and send it to Takahashi USA when the galaxy season starts in the spring for a full collimation check. And hope that they can fix the scope here and not have to send it back to Japan. After the minor optical tilt in the scope is (hopefully) fixed, I'll make my decision if I'm going to buy another 0.73 reducer or if I should aim even wider field with a 0.6 reducer.

 

That all said, here's the starless image;

 

get.jpg?insecure

 

And here's the wonky star image;

 

get.jpg?insecure

 

 

Thanks for letting me rant and as said, if someone knows another solution to my problem (or another place which collimates scopes), please let me know.

 

 

- Mikko

 


  • mikewayne3, sayitfast, lbim and 5 others like this

#2 kisstek

kisstek

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 375
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2018

Posted 15 November 2019 - 08:47 PM

I must need new eyes as I don't see what's wrong with your stars. I think it's a very nice image. With stars, that is. The one without the stars just looks like it's missing something. Like stars maybe? :-)


  • sayitfast likes this

#3 Salacious B Crumb

Salacious B Crumb

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 729
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Greater Atlanta Area, GA

Posted 15 November 2019 - 11:41 PM

Mike I agree, not a big fan of starless images. If you follow the link and look at the zoomed in photo, you'll see some ugly stars. 

 

 

- Mikko



#4 Cfreerksen

Cfreerksen

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2018
  • Loc: Tooele, Ut

Posted 16 November 2019 - 04:46 AM

Mike I agree, not a big fan of starless images. If you follow the link and look at the zoomed in photo, you'll see some ugly stars. 

 

 

- Mikko

They are a little wonky..when you zoom way in. Really think it's the reducer? Flexure maybe? No OAG right?

 

Chris



#5 Salacious B Crumb

Salacious B Crumb

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 729
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Greater Atlanta Area, GA

Posted 16 November 2019 - 08:59 AM

Yes Chris - OAG. I truly hope so as it's the only thing changed and when you google, people seem to have had issues with it. If you check the thread I linked, it has my CCDInspector data from native FL images. But I'll find out today when I removed it and go back to native, supposed to be clear... waytogo.gif

 

What I don't understand is the "pinched" appearance the stars seem to have.

 

 

- Mikko



#6 kisstek

kisstek

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 375
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2018

Posted 16 November 2019 - 11:27 AM

Mike I agree, not a big fan of starless images. If you follow the link and look at the zoomed in photo, you'll see some ugly stars. 

 

 

- Mikko

The blue fringe when you look at the pixels? If this is a narrow band image as the other thread implies with the mention of 30 Ha subs, could the blue channel be ever so slightly out of focus? At that pixel scale, it could be atmospheric distortion if the blue channel was shot closer to the horizon than the others.

 

I'm not expert but from my limited experience, you can always find some stars in every image that look "a little wonky" if you are looking at the individual pixels. With all of the analysis tools we have at our disposal today, sometimes we get caught up in the minutia and "can't see the forest for the trees" as the old saying goes.

 

I personally think your "forest" looks beautiful! And your "trees" aren't bad either!



#7 Salacious B Crumb

Salacious B Crumb

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 729
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017
  • Loc: Greater Atlanta Area, GA

Posted 16 November 2019 - 07:35 PM

Mike it can easily be a slight OOF and all I do is compare everything to my TEC. So yes, my sample size is small, just the other scope which does not show anything like this and which gives nice round stars.

 

And thanks, I didn't expect this many likes on AsntroBin.

 

 

- Mikko 




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 Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics