#1  
Old 26-04-2014, 08:19 AM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SE Tasmania
Posts: 4,532
Breakthrough at last

For quite some time I've been messing with my imaging setup in an attempt to get nice round stars and a flat field across the image. Last night I finally had a breakthrough where it all came together. The final piece of the puzzle was the spacing between the flattener and the camera. For months I've had it pretty much bang on the 55mm as per the manufacturers recommendations. In a passing conversation with Troy (who has the same flattener) he mentioned that his performed better at 65mm so last night I gave it a try at 65mm. after a single 10sec frame I could see I had gone too far so I backed it off to 63 and finally settled on 61mm. Here's the comparison of the 55mm (manufacturers spec) and 61mm.

I'm very happy to finally have this sorted!

The moral of the story is don't assume the publicised spacing is the best for your imaging train.

Thanks for looking!
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (QSI_20mm.jpg)
193.8 KB145 views
Click for full-size image (QSI_26mm.jpg)
182.2 KB147 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 26-04-2014, 08:32 AM
PRejto's Avatar
PRejto (Peter)
Registered User

PRejto is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Rylstone, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,397
Hi Peter,

That's nice and I can see the improvement.

I did plug your photos into CCDInspector. Ideally you need to use a star field and not have a galaxy centered, but the results show that you still have some curvature and you also might have some alignment issues.

If you don't have CCDInspector it's worth a download and try out of free trial. I've found it to be an indespensible tool. With this tool you can quantify your experimentation.

Peter
http://www.ccdware.com/products/ccdinspector/
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 26-04-2014, 08:59 AM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SE Tasmania
Posts: 4,532
Thanks Peter,

I do have CCDIS however I find it's KPI's can be misleading. Here are the curvature plots for the two images. This would have you believe the 55mm spacing is flatter and have less tilt than the 61mm however visually the 61mm is clearly flatter.

I must try this on a star field to see if the results tell a different story. In any case the elongated stars in the bottom two corners look a lot better to my eye!

Peter
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (CCDIS_20mm.JPG)
63.7 KB27 views
Click for full-size image (CCDIS_26mm.JPG)
62.3 KB25 views
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 26-04-2014, 10:58 AM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,584
Looks better to me too, Peter.

I found CCDInspector can give highly variable results, e.g. a series of subs of the same star field with the same filter will show big variations in curvature and tilt. The PixInsight FWHMEccentricity script also shows that individual subs vary widely. Maybe really good seeing is needed to get consistent (and useful) results? In the absence of that then an eyeball probably does a better job.

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 26-04-2014, 05:54 PM
strongmanmike's Avatar
strongmanmike (Michael)
Highest Observatory in Oz

strongmanmike is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,150
Great news Peter, who would'a thought ...and yes ultimately it is the eye that counts in the end, not a piece of software that is known to produce misleading results

Mike
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 26-04-2014, 08:04 PM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SE Tasmania
Posts: 4,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS View Post
Looks better to me too, Peter.

I found CCDInspector can give highly variable results, e.g. a series of subs of the same star field with the same filter will show big variations in curvature and tilt. The PixInsight FWHMEccentricity script also shows that individual subs vary widely. Maybe really good seeing is needed to get consistent (and useful) results? In the absence of that then an eyeball probably does a better job.

Cheers,
Rick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike View Post
Great news Peter, who would'a thought ...and yes ultimately it is the eye that counts in the end, not a piece of software that is known to produce misleading results

Mike
Cheers Rick and Mike. It's been a long time in the making - quite a relief the camera was not the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26-04-2014, 10:25 PM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
Moderator

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 33,156
well I know that you have been chasing this grail for a long time - congratulations on achieving your goal
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26-04-2014, 10:59 PM
allan gould's Avatar
allan gould
Registered User

allan gould is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,485
Well done Peter - enjoy your "new" scope
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 27-04-2014, 04:01 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
Certainly better star shapes mate. Awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 28-04-2014, 06:14 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,602
Good result.
I had to play around for ages to get my spacing correct.
I used a Varilock spacer which allows adjustment:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/247194...in/photostream
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-05-2014, 05:19 PM
DaveNZ's Avatar
DaveNZ (Dave)
Registered User

DaveNZ is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 217
Hi Peter,

I have a 10" GSO too and have the same coma issues. I have only tried 55mm spacing with my Baader MPCC3 /qhyl8 pro.

You have got me excited:-)

Which flattener were you using?

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-05-2014, 08:29 PM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,846
Dave I believe Peter is talking about his ED80 refractor, not his 10" newtonian.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-05-2014, 06:30 AM
peter_4059's Avatar
peter_4059 (Peter)
Big Scopes are Cool

peter_4059 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SE Tasmania
Posts: 4,532
Correct Troy - This was the Orion flattener with the Meade ED80. On the Newt I'm using a Parracor with the Televue IS spacer system. For that I found the combination of the 0.375" + 0.5" = 0.875" (22.2mm) spacing did the best job.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement