Go Back   IceInSpace > Beginners Start Here > Beginners Equipment Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 03-10-2022, 08:04 PM
Crater101's Avatar
Crater101 (Warren)
Mostly Harmless

Crater101 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Bathurst, NSW
Posts: 714
To Flatten or not to Flatten; That is the question!

Folks;


As a relative newcomer to the imaging side of things, I've started to experiment with a more careful approach to astrophotography, and I'm wondering if I need a flattener for the setup to get the best results.


The Telescope:
Williams Optics Fluorostar 91
540mm focal length, f5.9



The Camera
ASI 183 MC Pro
Sony IMX CMOS sensor



Most of the information for the Flourostar recommends either the standard flattener or the 0.8x reducer/flattener to get the best imaging results for full frame cameras. The ASI 183MC Pro has a sensor size of 13.2 x 8.8mm (5496 x 3672 resolution). The standard flattener is almost three times the price of the 0.8 reducer, and while that's not really an issue, I want to make sure I get the correct setup.



Obviously the reducer will flatten the image while also shortening the effective focal length.


So my question is, do I need the flattener or the reducer to get the best imaging from the scope, or is the camera sensor size capable of giving me a decent image without it?


Thoughts and opinons very much invited.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-10-2022, 09:23 PM
oska (John)
Illucid

oska is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Federal
Posts: 736
I have no idea really (newb!) but I'd go the flattener, then later if you feel the need the reducer. To mine, there are very few targets that need less than 500mm. And for the ones that do, mosaic

The least expensive question you can answer yourself: take a shortish (30s?) exposure of a reasonable starfield and look at the star shapes in corners and centre. Stars will be elongated in the corners and tight in the centre if you need a flattener. Please post your results I'm keen to learn whatever I can
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-10-2022, 03:33 PM
Crater101's Avatar
Crater101 (Warren)
Mostly Harmless

Crater101 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Bathurst, NSW
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by oska View Post
The least expensive question you can answer yourself: take a shortish (30s?) exposure of a reasonable starfield and look at the star shapes in corners and centre. Stars will be elongated in the corners and tight in the centre if you need a flattener. Please post your results I'm keen to learn whatever I can

You make an excellent point, and it's not a bad way to find out an answer to the question. I should have thought of that myself.


And don't worry - the photographic side of this is new to me too.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-10-2022, 04:00 PM
ChrisV's Avatar
ChrisV (Chris)
Registered User

ChrisV is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,760
I can't answer which will produce the flatter image. Both probably similar??

Then there's two things
1. The reducer will make the scope faster - good.
2. The reducer will lead to a wider field of view but less resolution - personal preference.

But as said below. Take some shots first to see if you need the flattener with a sensor which is much smaller than full frame
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-10-2022, 05:58 PM
Camelopardalis's Avatar
Camelopardalis (Dunk)
Drifting from the pole

Camelopardalis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 5,460
Either would be worthwhile, but I’d go for the reducer…it makes the scope photographically faster and the 183 likes photons. The small pixel size will make up for any sacrifice in theoretical resolution.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-10-2022, 06:08 PM
Crater101's Avatar
Crater101 (Warren)
Mostly Harmless

Crater101 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Bathurst, NSW
Posts: 714
Again, some good advice.



My thanks for the thoughts folks. Much appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 14-10-2022, 04:39 PM
agprasun (Prasun)
Registered User

agprasun is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Parramatta
Posts: 5
I would suggest the reducer as you get an overall faster system
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 14-10-2022, 08:09 PM
Crater101's Avatar
Crater101 (Warren)
Mostly Harmless

Crater101 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Bathurst, NSW
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by agprasun View Post
I would suggest the reducer as you get an overall faster system

Thanks again. Certainly leaning in that direction.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
camera, flattener, image, reducer

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 06:13 AM.

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