M42 image from Officina Stellare

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by avandonk

If it was tilt Peter the elongation would vary in the direction of tilt. At some point there would be a line of no elongation orthogonal to the tilt....

Bert

Indeed Bert. But I took the liberty of running CCDinspector over the data (attached) which is why it looks like tilt to me.

More the pity the exposure times were a fiddle. Doesn't help when you are trying to compare various pieces of gear with fudged data.

[avandonk]

Peter even any objective measure is merely conjecture with this image.

The RH200 has a simple three bolt collimation adjustment and a straightforward means to adjust/align the optic axis orthogonal to the imaging camera.

With an Atlas focuser this once set by pixel peeping should be very controllable.

Bert

[Peter.M]

Worth noting that any image imperfections such as tilt and collimation error may have been introduced into this image from the other scopes that were used to compose it.

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Peter even any objective measure is merely conjecture with this image.

The RH200 has a simple three bolt collimation adjustment and a straightforward means to adjust/align the optic axis orthogonal to the imaging camera.

With an Atlas focuser this once set by pixel peeping should be very controllable.

Bert

That's right Bert. That is totally not an issue with that tilt adjustment on the scope.

Greg.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Peter even any objective measure is merely conjecture with this image.


Bert

Indeed, as PeterM suggests the errors may have been from the other 'scopes .

But the fact remains that image shows 14% of focal plane tilt, which I wouldn't put down to Dec backlash which manifests as a very different plot in CCDinspector (typical example attached)

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Indeed, as PeterM suggests the errors may have been from the other 'scopes .

But the fact remains that image shows 14% of focal plane tilt, which I wouldn't put down to Dec backlash which manifests as a very different plot in CCDinspector (typical example attached)

When I get everything adjusted with the new system I will run CCD Inspector over a few images just for you Peter. It may lead to a final tiny reiterative tweak in collimation and sensor alignment.

Bert

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by avandonk

When I get everything adjusted with the new system I will run CCD Inspector over a few images just for you Peter. ...
Bert

You don't need to do it for me Bert.

CCDInspector is a terse tool. It really only provides relative data, but can clearly steer you in the right direction.

The flattest-field of of any scope I've ever used is that of the AP155 with 4" field corrector... and even it shows a shallow (6%) tilt with my 16803 Sensor based CCD. I found myself chasing my tail trying the shim the system, as gravity, as always, won.

CCDInspector results attached

[dvj (John)]

Has anyone outside of the Officina Stellari folks have the RH200? There web site gallery has inconsistant star shape quality.

I see the prices climbing on the RH200. Now almost $9000 in the U.S. And that's without the Atlas focuser. Add taxes and shipping and it's easily over $10K.

[gregbradley]

Especially as the US$ is 14% stronger against the Euro since April 11.

Greg.

[avandonk]

Here is CCD inspector run over my Canon F2.8L 300mm lens at f/3.6. FoV is 7.0 X 4.6 degrees.


The image used 3MB

http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.co...5_15s_SL_8.jpg

Results below

Bert

[avandonk]

I used this HA image from the Officina Stellare site taken with the RH200. FoV 3.4 X 2.3 degrees. 3MB


http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.co...ZRH001_Nat.jpg


Results below

Looks very good to me. If anything the field curvature seems to be slightly overcorrected.

The RH200 with the FLI 16803 has a FoV of 3.5 X 3.5 degrees.


Bert

[multiweb (Marc)]

That looks indeed excellent. An FSQ106ED will typically give you 11%. 13% for this aperture is incredible. Anyway the picture speaks for itself. It's a fantastic system. CCDIS results are only indicative and are affected but the DSOs in the field photograph used (you can see the central pattern in the color coded image follows the luminosity of the nebs in the shot). If you do a field test on Omega Cent you'll get a bulge in the middle of your field. The results are not 100% reproducible so don't rule out your system based on CCDIS only. Everything is relative also. The difference between the max and min FWHM is .5 "... C'mon! We're splitting hair here. I can live with a shot like that. Times over.

[LightningNZ (Cam)]

My personal feeling is that some of the mountings and some of the pre-processing has been less than Stellare...

Cam

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

That looks indeed excellent. An FSQ106ED will typically give you 11%. 13% for this aperture is incredible. Anyway the picture speaks for itself. It's a fantastic system. CCDIS results are only indicative and are affected but the DSOs in the field photograph used (you can see the central pattern in the color coded image follows the luminosity of the nebs in the shot). If you do a field test on Omega Cent you'll get a bulge in the middle of your field. The results are not 100% reproducible so don't rule out your system based on CCDIS only. Everything is relative also. The difference between the max and min FWHM is .5 "... C'mon! We're splitting hair here. I can live with a shot like that. Times over.

Totally agree with you Marc - a sane response

I really look forward to Berts efforts with this little Gem, I hope the Italians have her working like they do their Ferrari's.



Mike

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Good to see this is an Amateur website
The image looks fantastic.

You want perfect, buy Hubble!

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

........ I hope the Italians have her working like they do their Ferrari's.



Mike

Careful what you wish for!

Good to see some nice analysis here.

Focal plane tilt at *really* fast f-ratios can be a bugger....which was my original point and as it turns out.....Bert has demonstrated very well with his Canon F2.8 data

I'm sure his RHA will be a great scope

[cventer]

Originally Posted by multiweb

That looks indeed excellent. An FSQ106ED will typically give you 11%. 13% for this aperture is incredible.

Got me intrigued. I ran CCD Inspector over an image I took 3 nights ago with my fsq

Read it and weep!!!!

Mind you this is only 106mm and f5

[gregbradley]

It looks beautiful and your observatory looks like its in a stunningly beautiful environment.

Its very compact.

Greg.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by cventer

Got me intrigued. I ran CCD Inspector over an image I took 3 nights ago with my fsq

Read it and weep!!!!

Mind you this is only 106mm and f5

Not bad but you need a lot more than 190 stars for an accurate reading. Try a shot of 3000 stars, 1mn exposure in the milkyway region.

[astrojoe (Giovanni)]

Hi everybody!

I'm Johnny Paglioli from Italy and I'm the one who processed this image. I would like to give You some details about it since I've seen this post only recently and there are some doubts about.
The image is essentially an Ha image of about 100min exposure taken By Giovanni Dal Lago with the veloce RH200 using a Fli ML11002 with an Astrodon Ha5nm filter in bin 2x2. The color components where been acquired by me and Gino Bucciol on the Austrian alps last year, while testing the scope (still a prototipe) and where just 5:5:5 min in bin 2x2. Since the image still lack color saturation, I've used some contribution from my old image of that area and I've blended in just colors in a percentage of about 20%.
What You see here is the Ha data used as a luminance and the 5:5:5 min as colors + the 20% contribution of the old image JUST to better colorize the results. Since the luminance is 100% coming from the data acquired with the veloce, I think is quite indicative of what can be done with this scope in about 100min using Ha in bin 2x2.

Hope this help!

Ciao da JOE