*** The Official Astronomy & Universe Thread ***

I wish I could get into a bit of astronomy but where I live is really heavy in light pollution.

You can get Pollution filters that filter out the wavelength of sodium street lights and let through other wavelengths....one of those is next on my list of many things to buy for my astronomy. Which seems to be getting longer and more expensive as the days go buy. Currently sitting at a Light Pollution Filter, 2" short extension tube, another thread adaptor, CCD camera for imaging, coma corrector (stops stretching of stars at edge of image), solar filter (may as well make most of bright suny days when they happen), eyepiece for image projection camera work.....for now :D:D:D
 
Looks good.

Can I ask which cam you are using and also which scope will you be fitting it to?

Amjust getting into astro imaging so am keeping my beedy eyes peeled for all interesting things on it and this deffo looks very interesting indeed.

Also, will you be making the software available to other backyard space image grabbers?

There's lots of great scopes and cameras out there.

First thing is normally - how much time do you have. Anything over about f6.5 is considered a slow scope for AP. A 20 minute image at f/12 takes only 5 minutes for the same image at f/6. f-ratio doubled, exposure time is squared - thus 4x the exposure time.

Next up - there's lots of cameras, naturally I'd say go for one of the English companies: Starlight Xpress (SX) or ATIK camera are both good. The new Lodestar X2 is using a very sensitive sensor and can be used as a video imaging and guide camera - have a look at Paul's Lodestar Live for example:

The difference here is that LL uses the CPU with a star mesh alignment, it helps with warped images but it takes longer to align.

I managed to get the algorithm to 30 frames/second without waiting for the camera:

The titan running at 10 fps (due to on thread doing usb I/O and GPU invocation) pointing at the bottom of the garden:


I have a range of ATIK cameras, although I don't work for them I wrote their OSX driver which is what you see here using an ATIK Titan guide cam. I also have a 383L (larger framerate) and 4000.

Solar - you'll need fast exposures, high framerate (with solar film)
Planetary - you need the same as the solar
DSO - you'll need long exposure low noise, the opposite of the above.
 
Thinking about buying my first telescope this week.
Doing a little bit of research, but feel's like im right at the deep end at the moment.

Would anyone recommend using a 'Astronomical Refractor'? or a 'Newtonian Reflector'?

And anything to be bout to view the sun with a special lens?

Thanks
 
Thinking about buying my first telescope this week.
Doing a little bit of research, but feel's like im right at the deep end at the moment.

Would anyone recommend using a 'Astronomical Refractor'? or a 'Newtonian Reflector'?

And anything to be bout to view the sun with a special lens?

Thanks

Refractors and reflectors are two different types of scopes. No scope will do it all.

Refractors = tube with glass lenses in (no mirrors). Use the refraction of the glass to bend the light.

Reflectors = tube with mirror to bend the light, sometimes they will have corrector plates etc made of glass.

Firstly, don't expect the pictures you see from astrophotography through the eyepiece. I have a refractor - with an eyepiece, I'll see grey blobs for some galaxies.. it's only with AP you'll get colours etc.

For visual, get a "fast" scope and with a larger aperture to provide as much light to your eye as possible. A "dob" (Dobsonian) is a good scope that basically is reflector on a basic simple base you move manually. it's the fastest to setup and start viewing. The simple base means you may be able to photo the moon with a webcam but not DSOs.
A Newtonian (ie a reflector) is usually the same thing but on an EQ mount, the two are usually interchangeable.
Refractors are less hassle as they don't need mirror alignment but large apertures get expensive and there's really two grades - Acro and APO-cromatic. This is how well the different colours are brought to focus at the right spot. Acrochromatic have some blue or red edges to the view, APOs have more glass and bring red,green and blue to focus at the same point and thus give a better view - but are much more expensive.

Planets require focal length

Astrophotography is obscenely expensive. (I'll let that ring..)


Solar.. you can use "solar film" on the end of your scope to reduce the light to give you "white light" views of sunspots. You can image with a camera too.
If you want proms etc on the edges - you will need a Hydrogen Alpha scope - these have a filter that's very very narrow band to distinguish the differences in light. A simple AP Ha filter will not do this (neither 30 or 7nm Ha).
Again you will see Ha proms an sunspots but you will need an EQ mount to really make images.


Both refractors and reflectors have focal length and focal ratio.

It's this you will need to understand.

Focal length - how zoomed in..
Focal ratio - zoom vs aperture. Slow being 8+, fast being ~4-5, super fast being 2-3. as f-ration = fl/aperture

Note that the more you zoom in, the less light you will get.. and dim things in the sky get dimmer the more you zoom.

I think the best thing todo is to read up first.. Plenty of astro mags have a beginner's section. There's a considerable amount of info, options and gadgets. Sometimes it's a good idea to start with something simple - a dob will do visual DSO (where possible), planets and solar (given solar film). The money will give you aperture (note the scope gets large quickly) and will give you exceptional views of the moon etc.

Bundled eyepieces aren't great.. and an aftermarket EP will be better and allow more light through.
 
I am in the stages of digging out my 10" LX200 GPS that has been in a cupboard for over 6 years!

Hopefully once setup I can get back to imaging stuff again.

This is the only thing I took using a Webcam in a city center.

saturnlx200d.jpg
 

Is faster always better? And what focal length do you really need to take pictures of the planets?
There's a second hand skywacher 250px 1200mm (f/4.98)
I think I'm right in saying you divide focal length by eye piece. smaller eye piece the narrower the field of view but larger the magnification. So using a 7.5mm eye piece would be 160x, but how does that correlate to how say mars or Jupiter would look.

What sort of planet pictures could I expect from that, tiny inconceivable dots. Or something half decent. Why don't adverts come with some pictures of what can be seen, to get an idea of size/clarity.

Also how do you connect a DSLR up, can pretty much any scope do that?
 
Last edited:
There's lots of great scopes and cameras out there.

First thing is normally - how much time do you have. Anything over about f6.5 is considered a slow scope for AP. A 20 minute image at f/12 takes only 5 minutes for the same image at f/6. f-ratio doubled, exposure time is squared - thus 4x the exposure time.

Next up - there's lots of cameras, naturally I'd say go for one of the English companies: Starlight Xpress (SX) or ATIK camera are both good. The new Lodestar X2 is using a very sensitive sensor and can be used as a video imaging and guide camera - have a look at Paul's Lodestar Live for example:

The difference here is that LL uses the CPU with a star mesh alignment, it helps with warped images but it takes longer to align.

I managed to get the algorithm to 30 frames/second without waiting for the camera:

The titan running at 10 fps (due to on thread doing usb I/O and GPU invocation) pointing at the bottom of the garden:


I have a range of ATIK cameras, although I don't work for them I wrote their OSX driver which is what you see here using an ATIK Titan guide cam. I also have a 383L (larger framerate) and 4000.

Solar - you'll need fast exposures, high framerate (with solar film)
Planetary - you need the same as the solar
DSO - you'll need long exposure low noise, the opposite of the above.

Nick, cheers for the info. For clarity already have my scope and mount...have an 8" Orion Newt at f3.9 sat on a Celestron AVX mount..and you are very correct in saying astro imaging is expensive

Am currently using my Nikon D7100 in prime to grab any images when I get the chance, but was wanting to get a cam on there too to give that a go....will have a look at the ATIK range and see what they have.
 
I am in the stages of digging out my 10" LX200 GPS that has been in a cupboard for over 6 years!

Hopefully once setup I can get back to imaging stuff again.

This is the only thing I took using a Webcam in a city center.

saturnlx200d.jpg

That's a great image. But then you'd hope to get one with that sort of investment :)
 
Is faster always better? And what focal length do you really need to take pictures of the planets?
There's a second hand skywacher 250px 1200mm (f/4.98)
I think I'm right in saying you divide focal length by eye piece. smaller eye piece the narrower the field of view but larger the magnification. So using a 7.5mm eye piece would be 160x, but how does that correlate to how say mars or Jupiter would look.

What sort of planet pictures could I expect from that, tiny inconceivable dots. Or something half decent. Why don't adverts come with some pictures of what can be seen, to get an idea of size/clarity.

Also how do you connect a DSLR up, can pretty much any scope do that?

Well for DSO - yes you need as much light as possible if you're visual. For planets and solar then you're looking at a brighter object and so a longer focal length and slower scope is usable. It's possible to add more focal length by using a teleconverter or a higher power EP.

I have a 670mm focal length native focal length refractor. It does DSO, solar with film that shows the full disk. Adding a 2x teleconverter gives me 1370mm or 5x giving 3350mm which I use for planetary and solar too (lunar too). However I wouldn't try DSO at f/32! Solar only at 6700mm (f/64!).
At native 670mm f/6.36 means you can see, visually, messiers but not in a massive amount in detail.

1200 f/5 would be able to see some detail.
I use a 670mm with a 10mm and 5mm (130x) EP for planets but I will also use a 2x teleconverter (5mm = 268x) for bright objects like moon and bright planets.

This is 3350mm (f32):
capture-2014-02-16 18:49:46 +0000-5 by Nick and Sandrine, on Flickr

The refractor is 105mm diameter, the larger mirror is more suited to give you much more detail (aperture = potential detail). This is why an SCT will provide more detail..
 
Last edited:
That's a great image. But then you'd hope to get one with that sort of investment :)

Yeah I know. I did start out with a little 114mm Newt, and got some good images of Jupiter. Ever since I was a lid, I wanted to get into astro imaging, so the day came when I had the funds to super size. And all I did was use it a few times and put it into a cupboard :-(

Anyways it is coming back out to play. I found some captures from 2005, so aligned and stacked.

Jupiter+5-15-05.jpg


Saturn+3-4-05.jpg


I am so out of the loop with the modern stuff!

All imaging is done with a Philips toucam, or 300D. Is there a newer HD webcam that is suitable in 2014? Or is the Phillips cam still the best?
 
Back
Top Bottom