I have had this scope for quite a while now but haven't had too many chances to use it.
Adapters, bushfires, smoke,cloud - you know the usual!
At my dark site recently I was able to get some lovely clear dark skies but the seeing was unusually bad. Lucky its only 630mm focal length.
Eta Carina. FLI Proline 16803. The flattener works well, the adapters are the correct length, stars seem fine when everything is tightly snugged up ( a feat in itself, I don't think there are many scopes with a 44mm corrected field at 105mm F6 - FSQ being the only one I know of, perhaps some AP's).
Manually focused as I haven't installed the electronic focuser yet, that's next so sightly sharper results can be expected from thermal compensation.
Feathertouch focusers though are the best and it wasn't hard to get it sharp.
HaLRGB. I like the starless version best but both are presented:
Like most starless versions I see (including the ones I have done ) while certainly quite a cool and interesting effect, don't fully do it for me aesthetically as they always look crappy when viewed up close but hey, apart from a slight out of focus in the top left quadrant, the stars-in version is most excellent with lovely colour
I think you will have some fun with this rig mate I look forward to seeing more
That starless version is absolutely gorgeous, a great shot!
Thanks. Yes, its quite dramatic isn't it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Looks like a superb piece of glass.
Well Done
Thanks Peter. You can tell a lot of care has gone into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Like most starless versions I see (including the ones I have done ) while certainly quite a cool and interesting effect, don't fully do it for me aesthetically as they always look crappy when viewed up close but hey, apart from a slight out of focus in the top left quadrant, the stars-in version is most excellent with lovely colour
I think you will have some fun with this rig mate I look forward to seeing more
Mike.
Thanks Mike.
The starless one is a bit divisive. Some like it some don't. It does leave little artifacts where some stars were. I can blur them out but it reduces the overall sharpness. Perhaps some selective blurring is the key.
The rotating focuser must not have been fully locked down as when I used the scope a day later stars were sharp in all 4 corners. I was expecting to handle some tilt but it was, I think, the rotating focuser or perhaps the camera was not fully on its adapter. It doesn't take much to show up.
Thanks Tim. A high quality small widefield refractor is an instrument I like to come back to occasionally. They have a character that is appealing and some objects really work with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir
Really nice first light Greg. Looking forward to more wide field star-rich images - have fun with the new scope
Thanks Suavi and thanks for your advice along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff45
Good first light Greg. The one with the stars works best for me.
Geoff
Thanks Geoff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by graham.hobart
that is pretty sharp and glorious. Lovely indeed.
Nice rich colours
Thanks for sharing
Graz
Thanks Graham. It turned out pretty well considering the seeing was the worst I had seen in quite a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrograde
Congratulations on first light Greg.
Gorgeous image - you must be pleased with the scope.
Thanks very much. Yes I am very happy with it. I have had 2 FSQs and a TEC110 fluorite F5.6 so its good to have a good wide refractor again.
I was expecting to handle some tilt but it was, I think, the rotating focuser or perhaps the camera was not fully on its adapter. It doesn't take much to show up.
Greg.
Hey the out of focus corner was pretty minor and I only commented on it because you were posting a test of performance first light, it was of little consequence to the overall appearance of what looks like a very nice astroimage I suspect due to the massive nature of your attached gear, you will notice very slight changes depending on the position of the object in the sky..?
As is usually the case with this technique, unless it is viewed at less than 50%.. and 33% is probably about right, the starless version looks very crunchy and grainy and artefact ridden and I can't help but think errr yuk, like someone has scrubbed it with steel wool Image processing/aesthetics aside, the starless effect can still look cool
Hey the out of focus corner was pretty minor and I only commented on it because you were posting a test of performance first light, it was of little consequence to the overall appearance of what looks like a very nice astroimage I suspect due to the massive nature of your attached gear, you will notice very slight changes depending on the position of the object in the sky..?
As is usually the case with this technique, unless it is viewed at less than 50%.. and 33% is probably about right, the starless version looks very crunchy and grainy and artefact ridden and I can't help but think errr yuk, like someone has scrubbed it with steel wool Image processing/aesthetics aside, the starless effect can still look cool
Mike
All good. I was checking corners carefully and did see evidence of tilt but I swapped cameras for a night then put the Proline back on and I tightened up the knobs for the rotating focuser and one went in a bit more. The stars in those subs were all good. So I am thinking it was merely a knob not fully tightened.
I usually run a noise reduction on the starless but it also blurs it a lot. So a decent workflow there is yet to be worked out.
Probably selective noise reduction with a mask.
Greg.
) while certainly quite a cool and interesting effect, don't fully do it for me aesthetically 
as they always look crappy when viewed up close but hey, apart from a slight out of focus in the top left quadrant, the stars-in version is most excellent with lovely colour 
I look forward to seeing more 
Image processing/aesthetics aside, the starless effect can still look cool 
