Thanks for the comments guys.
Quote:
|
i will take some time and digest. when you say raw, do you mean raw mode or simply a stacked image, no wavelets as bird was alluding to the other day.
|
In this case, I meant raw as in a single unprocessed frame from the avi. So imagine 3000 frames looking like the one in the bottom row. Although the one in the image is the *best* of the raw frames. I am using "normal" mode in the ToUcam, not raw/non-raw/optimised.
Quote:
|
on collimation, what alerted you to check when viewing it in the eyepiece? gut feel, or the view itself, or "****, i forgot and i better check"?
|
A combination of both of those.. I was looking through the eyepiece with my 15mm plossl and 3x barlow, giving 250x, and while the view was great and very smooth, I was expecting the cassini division to stand out more, to be sharper. Then it just popped into my head "oh bugger, collimation". So I put in the sight-tube/cheshire and found it was off. I corrected collimation and looked through the eyepiece again, the it appeared sharper to the eye this time, with the cassini division appearing crisper, and 5 moons easily seen scattered around the planet.
Quote:
|
The final test i spose is like a on the run visual on a planet, is there something about a planet in good seeing that can say "collimation is off a tad!"
|
Possibly, i'm not really sure. It's very hard sometimes to tell the difference between bad seeing, bad collimation or bad thermals in your tube/mirror.
Some more experienced people might be able to tell the difference between those 3 while looking through the eyepiece, but at this stage I can't.
Thanks again for your comments.