Photometry 'Poll'

[higginsdj]

For those who do serious/regular photometry (Stellar, asteroid, comet or other), what software do you use?

Cheers

[renormalised]

Iris, mostly.

[Merlin66]

I was going to use the photometry tools in AstroArt V4, this looked basic enough to meet my needs, but was recommended to buy Brian Warner's MPO Suite to assist with Photometry.
I've managed to aquire a set of UBVIR photometric filters and a ATiK USB filter wheel...
Results so far: Nil
Got caught up in spectroscopes before seriously attempting photometry.
Hopefully I'll get (or make ) the time soon.

[higginsdj]

Doubt you will get much use out of the U or I filters. Few cameras have enough QE at the U end of the spectrum - B is hard enough...

[Terry B]

I take my images with CCDSoft.
Reduction is done with Mira pro.
Measurements are done with both Mira and AIP4WIN
I then transform the data using excel.
BVRI are all fine with my set up. I have tried U and can get reasonable results down to about V mag 11 stars using my ST10XME

[higginsdj]

Why so many applications, surely Mira can do all the steps? (Canopus can)

[pvelez]

MPO Canopus for me

Pete

[Terry B]

Mira wont connect to my scope for capture and nor will canopus. They requires meade protocol and wont use ASCOM.
I use AIP4WIN simply because I am use to it and have had it for much longer than Mira. Mira doesn't produce as nice files to upload to AAVSO but it ix excellent at batch processing for preprocessing. It will only make AAVSO upload files1 filter at a time. I can generate all the upload files with AIP4WIN but I will modify the results after I have worked out the transforms with excel.

[higginsdj]

Sorry, I was just referencing Mira, AIP4WIN and Excel - the post capture stuff.

I just downloaded the Trial version of Mira Pro 7 and it seems like a lot of hard work - very similar to AIP4WIn and not even as good as MaxIm DL/CCD. I couldn't see how to use existing catalogues for Photometry it seems like pick a star and self assign a value to it process - but I did only toy with it for an hour or so before giving up.

In the end, I reckon stick with what you know and works for you. I'm comfortable with Canopus :)

Cheers

[Terry B]

I also have canopus but I found that the routines for transforms were not giving me correct results. I prefer to do it manually so I know that the maths is correct.
As for catalogues with mira- you are probably correct. Mostly any of the large catalogue value aren't accurate enough for transformed photometry and you need to enter standard known values for comparison stars.

[higginsdj]

They are getting close. Brian and Arne Hendon have put together a catalogue that Canopus uses in it's CSS differential photometry routine that is "+/- 0.02 - 0.05mag". My experience with it is that it is somewhat less precise BUT it does allow night to night alignment of lightcurve data without the need to shift each night to fit, particularly useful for the long period targets. He and Arne are waiting on the publication of a new catalogue which is even more accurate.

Richard Miles did some work on the CMC14 catalogue (also available in Canopus) using Astrometrica's 'precision' photometry option and found it was quite accurate (+/- 0.02mag) in V - but obviously only useful for the catalogues coverage (+50 to -30).

I rarely get photometric skies so have never bothered to transform my data, any attempt would not be any more accurate than the current catalogues.

Cheers