Don't ya HATE it when that happens?Posted By Donald Siwek |
I was setting up last night on M51 and I got this
Posts Made By: Donald Siwek
March 29, 2004 04:57 PM
Forum:
Deep Sky Observing
March 29, 2004 05:56 PM
Forum:
Deep Sky Observing
M51first attemptPosted By Donald Siwek |
Here's M51 first pass
C8, ST7, f3.3 unguided
This is 6 x 1 min exposures with 1/2 moon.
It doesn't seem to hit the mark....focus? s/n? Light pollution?
constructive suggestions please. Thanks
C8, ST7, f3.3 unguided
This is 6 x 1 min exposures with 1/2 moon.
It doesn't seem to hit the mark....focus? s/n? Light pollution?
constructive suggestions please. Thanks
May 15, 2004 10:32 PM
Forum:
CCD Imaging and Processing/Solar System
Help w/ techniquePosted By Donald Siwek |
Greets
I have a C8, JMI Smartfocus, Optec 3.3 reducer, SBIG ST7 w/CFW8 in that order.
The equipment train is prodigious and makes the scope look like a tadpole.
Imaging something lik M57 (Ring Nebula) with the reducer is straightforward enough, but take the reducer of and ...FUHGETABOUTIT. Finding the target is atime consuming thang.
I need guidance on simplifying getting the target on-chip. Off-axis? Flip mirror? The stuff hanging off the back is awful log now!
I have a C8, JMI Smartfocus, Optec 3.3 reducer, SBIG ST7 w/CFW8 in that order.
The equipment train is prodigious and makes the scope look like a tadpole.
Imaging something lik M57 (Ring Nebula) with the reducer is straightforward enough, but take the reducer of and ...FUHGETABOUTIT. Finding the target is atime consuming thang.
I need guidance on simplifying getting the target on-chip. Off-axis? Flip mirror? The stuff hanging off the back is awful log now!
May 20, 2004 07:21 PM
Forum:
Equipment Talk
Homeyer Instrumentation ResurfacesPosted By Donald Siwek |
Found this while looking for the Homeyer Flip Mirror. Got him on the phone. Nice Guy. Still building and selling, but in New Mexico now.
http://www.intint.com/andy/build.html
http://www.intint.com/andy/build.html
May 24, 2004 05:18 PM
Forum:
CCD Imaging and Processing/Solar System
Nexstar 8i and photographyPosted By Donald Siwek |
Need opinions on this scope as a CCD photo platform (autoguiding etc) See comments that it is not stable enough for photo work. Perhaps super long exposures, but what about shorter guided or unduided exposures?
July 14, 2004 12:19 PM
Forum:
Deep Sky Observing
WOW! They need flats on the Cassini probe!Posted By Donald Siwek |
Just to highlight the need for flat field exposeure. Check these RAW images from the cassini space probe! They are the latest narrow field images of Saturns south pole. Look in lower right quadrant. DUST MOTE! DUST MOTE! I suppose it's understandable. It is a quadrillion miles away. ;-)
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/raw-images-list.cfm?browseLatest=0&cacheQ=0&storedQ=0
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/raw/raw-images-list.cfm?browseLatest=0&cacheQ=0&storedQ=0
April 9, 2003 12:36 PM
Forum:
CCD Imaging and Processing/Solar System
Saturn Jupiter and Io, Apr.04th 2003Posted By Donald Siwek |
HOLY COW!
May 2, 2003 10:29 PM
Forum:
Equipment Talk
HELP.....Ronchi screenPosted By Donald Siwek |
www.stellar-international.com
They sell screens and knife edges for their focusrs
They sell screens and knife edges for their focusrs
May 26, 2003 02:44 PM
Forum:
Equipment Talk
EZ Star from EZ Telescope.comPosted By Donald Siwek |
Get a $10 led flashlight with a pinhole in a piece of foil and there's your artificial star!
July 14, 2003 05:09 PM
Forum:
Deep Sky Observing
Unencumbered by Knowledge IIPosted By Donald Siwek |
I LOVE this forum. Thank you all for the consensus opinion on this. To be sure lasy night was so light that the even the Groveland ClearSky Clock said that there was n darkness...
I am gratified to learn a bit about apparent magnitude. With a mag of 8 something I would have guessed that 101 would have been reasonably visible. Are magnitudes then a measure of the entire object as a function of area? Sort of an integrated optical density?
Thanks again, I am renewed in my determination!
I am gratified to learn a bit about apparent magnitude. With a mag of 8 something I would have guessed that 101 would have been reasonably visible. Are magnitudes then a measure of the entire object as a function of area? Sort of an integrated optical density?
Thanks again, I am renewed in my determination!
Funding Member
