Jupiter
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Noons on 24 Oct 2009 08:17 Troy Piggins wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 7:21 AM: > * Damn 35 F Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning Today wrote : >> * Troy Piggins wrote : >> >> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 11 lines snipped |=---] >>> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos/2009/2009_10_23/Jupiter091023_1.jpg Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland, eh? :) Sometimes I wish I could retire in a place like Maree or Oodnadatta and enjoy clear, cloudless skyes all year round. I do recall reading a newspaper in the campsite by starlight alone, no moon! Beer (Red Back) ain't half bad over there either... ;) > Yes, this image was stacked from around 2500 frames of an avi > file using Registax. Suspect that's the technique you're > referring to. Did you get that size image from the 8" scope and sensor alone or did you add a converter and/or digital resize? I'm toying around with the idea of a 8" or 10" dobsonian, want to get a feel for what's possible and what's needed. Kids have been bugging me to get back into this stuff...
From: Troy Piggins on 24 Oct 2009 08:58 * Jeff R. wrote : > Troy Piggins wrote: >> * Jeff R. wrote : >>> Cooled camera? >> >> Nope. This one: >> http://www.theimagingsource.com/en_US/products/cameras/usb-ccd-bayer/dbk21au04/ > >> I'm considering (don't tell my wife) a cooled CCD for longer >> exposure, deep sky stuff. They're the duck's nuts. But won't be >> getting the top of the line ones. They go for $10k or multiples >> thereof. Reckon something like this will do me: >> >> http://web.aanet.com.au/~gama/QHY8.html > > Long time since I knew much about them things. > ISTR colour didn't exist, and you had to use filters and three exposures > with a mono unit. > I have patience, but not that much. All of the high end, top astro imagers still use the mono sensor cameras with filters - the cameras are much more sensitive because each pixel is really a pixel, instead of divided into RGGB. > Waddy'a reckon that unit would retail for? It's around $3k for the one I want. > (Any point in asking if you've tried a DSLR ?) I've been using a 40D for deep sky stuff to date - galaxies, nebulae, globular and open star clusters. Much cheaper alternative to the above CCDs, but don't have the quantum efficiency, well depth, sensitivity, antiblooming, etc bells and whistles that the CCDs do. But coming from a photography background, much easier to translate over. My 40D is modified - they remove the UV/IR filter off the sensor and replace it with clear glass. Makes it much more sensitive to IR light spectrum which is what a lot of deep sky, esp nebulae, emit. If I get a chance to process and upload some of my deep sky images, I'll post links taken with 40D. That DBK21 camera I took Jupiter with, would never use it for deep sky stuff, only planetary or using it as a guide camera. >>> Hand or auto-guided? >> >> No guiding. Not for 90 secs or so. Mount was just tracking >> sidereal rate on its own. > > Fairy nuff. > >> This sort of stuff it's more about atmospheric conditions, the >> jetstream, and scope focus and collimation. I have yet to come >> to terms with tweaking all that. > > Even with all that, don't neglect widefield stuff. > Point your camera somewhere around Crux, and do a wide-angle shot for a few > minutes (piggy-backed, of course) and the results will astound! > > I couldn't believe how much I could see in a short exposure, even here in > the 'burbs where the clouds light up like fireworks from the streetlights. I've got some narrowband filters - Ha, OIII, SII (these refer to narrow bands of wavelengths of light emitted from certain nebulae). They cut out heaps of the light pollution because they only let extremely narrow band of wavelengths of light through. My intention is to shoot planetary or narrow band shots from home here, and when I get to "dark" sites (remote and no light pollution) I'll do the colour imaging. -- Troy Piggins
From: Troy Piggins on 24 Oct 2009 09:08 * Ray Fischer wrote : > Troy Piggins <usenet-0910(a)piggo.com> wrote: > [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 7 lines snipped |=---] >> >>The dark spot is the shadow of one of the moons, and you can just >>make out the Great Red Spot at the top. >> >>http://piggo.com/~troy/photos/2009/2009_10_23/Jupiter091023_1.jpg > > Pretty nice for an 8" scope. Single shot or composite? It's a stacked image from the best of around 2500 frames taken from a 90 second avi file. Not an easy answer :) -- Troy Piggins
From: Troy Piggins on 24 Oct 2009 09:06 * Noons wrote : > Troy Piggins wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 7:21 AM: >> * Damn 35 F Rain - Staying Warm Inside Is Winning Today wrote : >>> * Troy Piggins wrote : >>> >>> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 11 lines snipped |=---] >>>> http://piggo.com/~troy/photos/2009/2009_10_23/Jupiter091023_1.jpg > > Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear > 300 miles inland, eh? :) > Sometimes I wish I could retire in a place like Maree or > Oodnadatta and enjoy clear, cloudless skyes all year round. I > do recall reading a > newspaper in the campsite by starlight alone, no moon! Beer > (Red Back) ain't half bad over there > either... ;) I've been to a few dark sites this last year, at new moon, not a cloud in the sky. Got a sore neck from constantly gazing up at the sky. >> Yes, this image was stacked from around 2500 frames of an avi >> file using Registax. Suspect that's the technique you're >> referring to. > > Did you get that size image from the 8" scope and sensor alone > or did you add a converter and/or digital resize? The C8 8" f/10 schmidt cassegrain I have had a 2.5x powermate (like a teleconvertor) on it, which gave focal length of around 5000mm. Plus the image was slightly cropped to square it up from the sensor size of 640x480. > I'm toying around with the idea of a 8" or 10" dobsonian, want > to get a feel for what's possible and what's needed. Kids have > been bugging me to get back into > this stuff... "Aperture rules" - 10" lets in almost twice the amount of light the 8" does ;) Do you want it for visual observing or taking photos? If visual, all good. If photos, slippery slope. Dobs/Newtonians might be fine for planetary imaging, but no good unless you mount them on equatorial mount for deep sky, long exposure shots. If you're really keen, email me for more chats. -- Troy Piggins
From: Noons on 24 Oct 2009 10:23
Troy Piggins wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 11:06 PM: > I've been to a few dark sites this last year, at new moon, not a > cloud in the sky. Got a sore neck from constantly gazing up at > the sky. The dry air inland makes quite a difference: very little haze. Never cease to be amazed how clear the sky is in the desert: I've got photos of Mt Connor at nearly 30Ks that look like the blessed thing is just 5 away. > The C8 8" f/10 schmidt cassegrain I have had a 2.5x powermate > (like a teleconvertor) on it, which gave focal length of around > 5000mm. Plus the image was slightly cropped to square it up from > the sensor size of 640x480. Cool. Good luck with convincing the other half for the better camera! > "Aperture rules" - 10" lets in almost twice the amount of light > the 8" does ;) Yeah, I know. But it also increases the size and weight of the thing a lot! :( > Do you want it for visual observing or taking photos? If visual, > all good. If photos, slippery slope. Dobs/Newtonians might be > fine for planetary imaging, but no good unless you mount them on > equatorial mount for deep sky, long exposure shots. > > If you're really keen, email me for more chats. > Mostly visual to start with: can't afford all the imaging stuff at the moment. There are a few suppliers of eq mounts I can use later on once I can afford the photography side. Figured the Dobsonians are a good priced entry point for wide aperture visual and can be used as a base for more advanced stuff. Thanks, I'll definitely ping you later on. |