Posts Made By: Barry Simon

I have been doing a lot of "homework" the past few days figuring out just where (in the continental US) I can reasonably go to maximize viewing of the June 8th Venus transit.

I am in New Orleans and from here Venus is just beginning it's exit from the Sun's disc at sunrise. The Sun is just about 4 degrees up when that is over. Note that if the Sun happens to exit right in the line of sight of a nice prominence, that could be spectacular!

The best location in the U.S. in terms of height of the Sun and maximum transit viewing would be in the New England area. Unfortunately the weather prospects are worst for that area and the Sun climbs at a shallow angle, so while it eventually gets a bit higher, it takes some time. (The Sun is approx. 23 degrees high from the Boston area at transit end.)

By traveling about 7 to 8 hours from New Orleans to either the Chattanooga area or Atlanta (how about viewing the transit from atop the monolith known as Stone Mountain?) I can get the Sun almost 9 degrees high at transit end.

I found yesterday that viewing and photographing the Sun when it is just 6 to 8 degrees high just does not compare to the Sun at a higher altitude. Below 6 degrees and distortion becomes a real problem. (I took photos with my SolarMax 60 looking out over Lake Pontchartrain.)

The photo posted is a composite showing a major prominence on 9-30-03 in comparison to how large the Venus disc will look during the transit.

Comments?

Barry Simon

Here is an image of the full disc Sun taken on Saturday, 2-21-04. Equipment used was my SolarMax 60 with BF 15 thru a University 80 mm f/6.25 scope. Afocal projection using an Olympus 3000 at full optical zoom and shot thru a TeleVue 32 mm plossl. Images shot at both plus and minus exposures. This one has been enhanced. Using the Olympus Camedia software, my basic processing algorithm is as follows: Color - subtract out red (-100), add green (+100) and leave blue alone, then I add brightness (+100)I think, or scale all the way right, then I do the same with contrast (+100). Next step is to subtract brightness (-50) and then to add more contrast (+50). Note that I have learned that the order these things are done is very important. It would also seem that why add brightness and then subtract it? The brightness and contrast were originally added together yielding a result, then brightness was subtracted. This stuff seems to work much like mathematical equations in that it is very important where the parenthesis is placed. Anyway after the final brightness/contrast step, I add sharpness, usually +4, however this may vary. I also sometimes use the magic wand feature to selectively play with different parts of an exposure at a time. This would be the way to create a "black disc Sun" with just a limb of red with prominences.

I am continuing to experiment and improve technique. Hopefully I can post some better images in the future.

Barry Simon

What affect does dirty optics, or more correctly - "less than perfectly clean optics" have on telescope and binocular performance?

I am sure we have all seen the rapid dimming of stars and fuzziness that comes as optics fog/dew up. The degradation of seeing can be quite dramatic, however less than pristine optics can be much more subtle in respect to optical worthiness and magnitude reach. To what extent does typically slightly less than pristine, relatively dirty (maybe in need of a cleaning) and very grungy optics degrade optical performance?

Binoculars are the perfect test bed for us to check this out. I propose that we all identify our optically dirtiest pair of binoculars, clean one side only, and then evaluate the performance of one side vs. the other on a good night. Is it hard or impossible to see a difference, or is the difference dramatic? Please report your results back to the group.

Barry Simon

For those that are interested, I have just posted both a daytime and night-time assessment of this new binocular from Nikon. The 2 assessments can by found at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/binocularastronomy/

The Orion UltraView 10x50, Pentax PCF V 10x50, Carton Adlerblick 7x50 and 8x42 and Fujinon FMT-SX 7x50 were used as comparators.

The review is too long to post here but in essence the new Nikon is a better binocular and a better value than the Orion UltraView. I personally like the Pentax PCF V better, but others may find the features and the wider field of the Nikon more to their liking. See the complete review for more details.

Barry Simon

I took some photos of the Sun too on 2-27. About 4:15 PM CST the prominence that Paul Hyndman photographed took on a very eerie "skull-like" appearance. I bet if all those people who speculated on all the non-astronomical meanings of the "Face on Mars" could have witnessed the "Skull Prominence" on the Sun yesterday, there would be dire forecasts about the end of the world today. One of my photos (processed and rotated) is posted below.

Barry Simon

I recently purchased a Bogen Manfrotto #516 Fluid Pan Head. I wanted something that would work well with heavier
payloads and would set up easily. I already had a Bogen 3063 fluid pan head, that head has about a 11 to 12 lb. payload capacity which is a great combination with the 6.6 lb. 20x77 Miyauchi. I have even tried it with the 12 to 13 lb. 20x100 Miyauchi, but that is really pushing it! The 20x100 is normally used with a "Light Speed Wagon mount, previously pictured with my 6" f/5 refractor; it, however, does not set up that quickly. The Bogen 516 mount has a 22 lb. capacity with minimum recommended payloads being 4.4 lbs. and the ideal balanced payload being 16.5 lbs. This mount has adjustable tension and a very hydraulic feel. If tension is released somewhat the head will return to a horizontal neutral position. Loosen it more and it will return faster. Playing with this feature you can actually "track" objects to a certain extent as the head slowly glides to it's neutral position. Jets are real easy and you feel like you are an anti-aircraft gunner.

This pan head sells for about $450 to $500 discount. The next step up from Bogen are heads that top $1000.00. Anyway this head has dual telescoping handles that can be rotated and adjusted to virtually any position. The handles have foam grips at their ends. The mounting plate is a dovetail and it comes with an assortment of mounting screws. The mounting plate is constructed so that a red spring loaded safety bar coming in from the side will prevent it from sliding out all the way if the locking lever is accidently loosened.

The pan head is set up on an old Davis & Sanford tripod via a half pier made from a solid bar of 2.5" diameter aluminum that is 10" long. This bar has 3/8-16 holes tapped into each end. This half pier allows for clearance of the handles and eliminates possible interference from the eyepiece end of either binoculars or a telescope. I am fabricating a circular eyepiece tray that will fit over the 2.5" diameter aluminum half pier. It was originally a 9" heavy aluminum and teflon coated "Martha Stewart" cake pan from K-Mart. (You can say what you want about Martha Stewart, but she sure makes good astronomical accessories!)

The pan head will also work on a Bogen 3036 tripod that I have. That may be the way to go some of the time and will give me the flexibility of the crank up head.

For those not particularly enthralled by parallelogram mounts and especially for those that have an existing tripod that they may be able to modify to work with this head, I believe it can be just what you are looking for with a variety of payloads when alt-azimuth is the way to go.

Bogen Manfrotto 516 Fluid Pan Head - highly recommended!

Barry Simon

It has been kind of quiet here lately so I thought I would post an image from this morning. The two images were taken at approximately 8:20 AM CST from New Orleans. The data is as labeled on the photo. Some radiation heat effect was noted as the Sun was not too far above my carport roof.

I have been working on my processing algorithms lately and my processed images are much better than they were when I started out with h-alpha solar photography about 16 months ago.

Regards,

Barry Simon

When I first started taking solar photos in late 2002 I generally took bright photos with a lot of blooming and flairing beyond the limb of the Sun. My post processing generally consisted of a lot of gamma subtraction, brightness subtraction, etc. Some pictures surprisingly turned out ok, but each one was a battle. Over the last 4 or 5 months I have learned that my results are more consistent if I go for underexposed to neutral exposure images and follow the algorithm outlined below.

This seems to be working ok for me with my setup (Olympus 3000 using the Olympus Camedia processing program supplied with the camera.) I am sure I will continue to discover new things as the months go by. If this is helpful to anyone that is good. If anyone else has advice to offer - even better!

The algorithm that works best for me (at this time) is:

1) Remote shutter release
2) Speed setting to 100
3) Highest resolution setting
4) Full optical zoom
5) Range of exposures from full under exposed to neutral
6) Manual focus on with camera set to infinity (focusing done with telescope)
7) Focus with camera at full digital zoom too, but that is typically turned off for the photos.
8) Black cloth over my head to help in getting a good focus.
9) I usually focus using a somewhat brighter solar image.
10) Focus is locked.

(Post Processing will be covered in Part II)

Barry Simon

Here is the 2nd part of my Solar Processing Recipe -

Post Processing (this basic algorithm works best most of the time)-

Select the brightest image that does not have any false color blooming on the surface of the Sun. With the "Magic Wand" feature (Olympus Camedia), select the Sun's surface; this should leave the complete limb of the Sun with prominences and the background out of the equation for now.

Then subtract red fully, subtract blue fully and add green fully. This will give the Sun's surface a more yellow appearance and will bring out any hidden surface detail. This may need to be repeated a second time based upon initial results. Experiment! Then I usually add both brightness and contrast in that order. I may save what I already had after color manipulation. I may box a smaller area of the Sun and experiment with both brightness and contrast individually on smaller areas to see what works best. After I see what is best I then go back and use the "Magic Wand" to highlight the Sun's surface again - all but the limb and prominences and manipulate both brightness and contrast in that order. Note: the order is very important. You could add or subtract the same things to the recipe, but if you do it in a different order you will get different results. Finally I increase "Sharpness" usually to 4 on a 1 to 9 scale, but sometimes more, sometimes less, sometimes not at all. I save these results. If I want to play with the blackness of the background or want to try to bring out the prominences a little more I can play with that doing essentially what is outlined above, but generally I do not adjust the photo beyond playing with the surface of the Sun.

Other digital programs, PhotoShop, etc. may work in completely different ways; my comments are specific to Olympus Camedia.

Barry Simon

After speaking to Wayne Parrish last night who called to discuss his new 22x71 Miyauchi binoculars, I did some additional eyepiece testing today.

The issue is "what other eyepieces may work" with either the 20x100 Miyauchi or the 22x71 that Wayne has. Both have barrel openings slightly larger than 1.25". Wayne has found that he can only get a very soft focus with the 115X eyepieces that he purchased to supplement the two lower power pair. The magnification jumps from 22x to 40x and then to 115x. The 115x is perhaps too much, and he cannot get those eyepieces to focus sharply. At 115x the exit pupil is down to 0.6 mm, so our thought was that something with a 0.9 to 1.2 mm exit pupil would be more reasonable. Eyepieces meeting these definitions could include a 7mm which would give 77x and a 0.9 mm exit pupil or a 9mm which would yield 60x and a 1.2 mm exit pupil.

I had tested numerous eyepieces in the past to see what might work with my 20x100's and found that nothing really worked except for a pair of older Brandon 7/8" fl (22 mm) eyepieces. As these give 22x there was really no advantage in using them as their larger field stop was cut down by the binocular eyepiece barrel field stop and the magnification was between the 20x and 26x eyepieces that I had.

Anyway, in talking to Wayne, I realized that many eyepieces will, when the lower barrel is unscrewed, retain all the optical elements in the upper barrel. Perhaps by dropping an eyepiece further in (that was the problem before, could not get the eyepieces close enough, something else may work. Another round of experimentation and I found that the one 19mm Celestron Axiom that I have would work. The 19 mm with the lower barrel removed would drop down just to the point where the rubber grip ring starts to disappear. Actually this grip ring matches the pattern on the Miyauchi focuser quite well. Dymo label tape could be used to firm it up in the eyepiece sleeve and an o-ring at the lower end of the grip ring slot could work as a stop. In my 20x100's, the 19mm would yield 26x which is the same as the wide field pair that I have, but perhaps with just a bit more field of view, which would be nice. I have to check at night to see if there may be a difference. The internal stop will likely preclude any additional field, but trying is free, so why not. The 15 mm Axiom may work too; it would yield 33x. In the 22x71 Miyauchi, the magnifications with these two would be 28.4 and 36x.

The Axiom eyepiece solution really does not help me but for someone who already has one, buying a second one would be cheaper than getting the 26x pair that Miyauchi offers.

We are still looking for an appropriate pair that would bump the magnification up to 60 to 70x with either pair of binoculars.

Barry Simon