Posts Made By: Jose Suro

Found a nice monitor calibration tutorial along with test calibration Tiff image here:

http://www.reedyphoto.com/art4.shtml

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

While researching the Canon 10D I ran into this website that offers prepackaged noise reduction routines, etc. for different digital cameras using Photoshop.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/actions

Don't see why they wouldn't work for astrophotos.

Take care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, FL

Interesting article. I think I'll shoot film for another year .

http://www.discover.com/dec_02/featphoto.html

Take care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

Hi,

I'm using a Nexstar 11 GPS and was wondering if anyone knows what Celestron means when they say F10/2800mm. I'm just starting in this astro-photography thing and it would help a lot. I know the F-ratio on SCTs is variable but I figure that the F10 ratio must have a defined focal plane somewhere, say maybe an Xmm eyepiece stuck into the diagonal holder on the visual back or something. Knowing where tha focal plane is would help me a lot in getting inside the ballpark for exposures. I can calculate the rest.

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

I'm just beginning to take some Astro-photos and have gotten pretty good results but I'm having trouble with scans of Jupiter. I'm using Fuji Provia 400F and when viewing the slides with a magnifier, there is plenty, albeit subtle detail on the planet. The problem comes on the scans - Jupiter turns into a big bright white ball with no detail whatsoever. The planet is small on the film, about 3mm. Nevertheless, I think the scanners should pick up the detail, instead they go high contrast on the images. I've tried the one hour photo lab close to me (they use a Fuji 2000 scanner, which does great on my other images) and an HP photosmart 20xi which does not compare to the big Fuji scanner at all.

Question is - are there any scanners out there that will record an image from slides without pushing the contrast way up?

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

This shot is circa 1975 in Tampa, Florida. Taken while in college with a Nikkormat EL, 200mm Nikkor lens, 125 ASA B&W Kodak Plus-X, developed and printed to 8X10 by yours truly, and finally scanned with no alterations whatsoever to JPEG format 28 years later. The chicks are cute .

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

Hi all,

I'm using a Nikon N50 so changing screens is out of the question - although the screen on the N50 is pretty much clear. The camera is not the mechanical shutter type but the battery will last forever because it's made to shoot a bunch of flash pictures so that's not an issue. I can focus well about 80% of the time at prime focus and so far never with eyepiece projection.

Looking at the alternatives, I'm considering either a Stiletto focuser or a Hartman mask of some sort for more precise focusing. I read the online manual on the Stiletto and it seems iffy on eyepiece projection.

Any comments on how to get better focusing without having to resort to opening a camera and placing a knife edge on the rails would be greatly appreciated.

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

Hi,

Is it theoretically possible to build a 48mm format field flattener for an 11-inch, F10 SCT that would not change the F-ratio of the scope? Would it have other side effects like vignetting? Would it work with eyepiece projection as well as prime focus?

Lastly, could anyone point me in the right direction as far as researching this issue?

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

Hi,

I’ve been reading this thread from top to bottom and I find it quite entertaining and amusing. I think these are the best threads of them all . The funniest thing of all is that there never seems to be a definitive conclusion reached through the use of an argument with any kind of scientific validity. The whole thing just breeds more and more confusion - all of this in light of the fact that it should be relatively simple to use science to establish the correct answer behind this “seeing vs. aperture issue”.

I will not take a side on the issue, preferring to be entertained by all the polite verbal jousting that goes on here but I would like to offer some suggestions:

1)I once saw a movie – Spielberg if I recall – where these scientists met every day at the CDC to try to solve an epidemic. The head of the group always started the meeting by saying: “OK, what do we think, what do we know, what can we prove”. Very wise indeed. A belief is light years away from an assertion based on proven fact but it is that speculation that seeds research into the facts in the first place.

2)There should be quantitative way to measure the differences in the resolution of an image in different apertures as they relate to seeing. Hint: Both seeing and telescope resolution are measured in arc seconds.

3)Aperture is just but one attribute of optical systems that encompass complicated optical trains, which by themselves will affect the results in any attempt to quantify results. Best to leave real telescopes out of it and concentrate only on theoretical ones, and aperture as it relates to resolution.

4)The maximum resolution for a given aperture can be easily calculated in arc seconds.

5)Seeing is not a constant. It can’t be because the atmosphere isn’t. Seeing will fluctuate from one microsecond to the next.

6)Finally, another saying: “The mind’s eye will see what it wants to see” Prejudice is the worst enemy of science.

Now please carry on .

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida

These are six images of Mars produced in Aberrator from six different popular scopes in perfect seeing at 400x. which one is close to yours?

I'll post the type of scopes later .

Take Care,

Jose Suro
Tierra Verde, Florida