Is there a way to do this in MaximDL?

Frank

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "paulkccd" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Eddie,
>
> In CCDSoft, load your image, then select Research->Show Inventory menu. This
will find all the stars and put little dots in the center of each.
>
> Then, go to View->Cursor Information which will display a new information
window. Now, as you move your cursor over individual stars in the image, you
should see their FWHM values displayed in the information window. Note that FWHM
is shown in pixels, so you'll probably want to convert them to arcseconds.
>
> Regards,
>
>    -Paul
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "epavlu" <eddie@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello - I'm new to this group.  I've read "The New CCD Astronomy" and I want
to measure the seeing conditions where I image.  I use CCDSoft.  Is there a way,
by using images that I've taken, to measure the FWHM of a star in the image?
> >
> > I know all the details of my setup so I can calculate the image scale
(ST-402 9x9 microns, AP 155 f7 should be 1.7 arcsec/pix).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Eddie
> >
>

Frank and Jocelyn wrote:
> Is there a way to do this in MaximDL?

View menu Information Window - can show FWHM in pixels or arc-seconds.

See http://www.cyanogen.com/help/maximdl/HID_VIEW_INFORMATION.htm

Doug

--

Doug George
dgeorge@...

Diffraction Limited
Makers of Cyanogen Imaging Products
http://www.cyanogen.com/

100 Craig Henry Dr., Suite 202
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada, K2G 5W3

Phone:    (613) 225-2732
Fax:      (613) 225-9688

Eddie:
I own the STV (a now defunct SBIG guider). This setup can calculate optical
quality and also seeing conditions. Go to SBIG site and look in the download
section for the STV manual, on page 25 they explain the way it does it, but also
send you to an appendix where the formulas and calculations are.
Hope this helps,
Eric. (México)



--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "epavlu" <eddie@...> wrote:
>
> Hello - I'm new to this group.  I've read "The New CCD Astronomy" and I want
to measure the seeing conditions where I image.  I use CCDSoft.  Is there a way,
by using images that I've taken, to measure the FWHM of a star in the image?
>
> I know all the details of my setup so I can calculate the image scale (ST-402
9x9 microns, AP 155 f7 should be 1.7 arcsec/pix).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eddie
>

Hi again Marc,
I reprocessed the image to bring up the brightness a bit with curves.  You can
see the result by moving your mouse over the image.  Let me know if you like the
image better. http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
Ruben

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "marcjousset" <mj.astro@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ruben,
>
> Nice shot. Perharps the background is a little too dark. A brighter one could
revel more extensions.
> Yes, dithering is essential to smooth the background and also to eliminate the
lastest hot or dark pixels.
>
> Marc
>
> http://www.astrosurf.com/jousset
>
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Group,
> > Finally had a clear night up in New England, and took this shot of the
Monkey Nebula through a TEC 140 at F7, with a QSI-583wsg, Lodestar guider,
HaRGB. Dithering helps tremendously to smooth my background, almost eliminating
my "final cleanup" stage.
> >
> > http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> >
> > Enjoy,
> > Ruben
> > http://www.stardoctor.org
> >
>

Hi,

I rarely appear on this site, but sometimes I have to place an image of mine for
your comments, just to show I am still alive. :-)

Here is one I took recently:

http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php/photo/4536


I look forward to some comments, which could help me improve.

Thanks and clear skies to all.

Leonard E. Mercer.
(Malta - EU)

Hi Ruben



Yes, the fainter stuff has been brought up nicely, slightly too contrasty? Maybe
just me. A good improvement.

Cheers

John H



> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> From: stardoctor5@...
> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 03:12:03 +0000
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: Dithering the Monkey Nebula
>
> Hi again Marc,
> I reprocessed the image to bring up the brightness a bit with curves. You can
see the result by moving your mouse over the image. Let me know if you like the
image better. http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> Ruben
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "marcjousset" <mj.astro@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ruben,
> >
> > Nice shot. Perharps the background is a little too dark. A brighter one
could revel more extensions.
> > Yes, dithering is essential to smooth the background and also to eliminate
the lastest hot or dark pixels.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > http://www.astrosurf.com/jousset
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Group,
> > > Finally had a clear night up in New England, and took this shot of the
Monkey Nebula through a TEC 140 at F7, with a QSI-583wsg, Lodestar guider,
HaRGB. Dithering helps tremendously to smooth my background, almost eliminating
my "final cleanup" stage.
> > >
> > > http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> > >
> > > Enjoy,
> > > Ruben
> > > http://www.stardoctor.org
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Leonard
Great shot, nice tracking any problems with weight on the em-11?
Sonya

On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:46 AM, apolen2001 <lellulmercer@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi,
>
> I rarely appear on this site, but sometimes I have to place an image of
> mine for your comments, just to show I am still alive. :-)
>
> Here is one I took recently:
>
> http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php/photo/4536
>
> I look forward to some comments, which could help me improve.
>
> Thanks and clear skies to all.
>
> Leonard E. Mercer.
> (Malta - EU)
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks, Sonya.

No, I don't experience any weight problems on my em-11. It's a great mount
in my opinion, with my setup.
Here it is.

http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php/photo/683/ppuser/66

This telescope is now accomodated permanently in a new dome next to the one
in the picture:

http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php/photo/3725/ppuser/66

K. regards,

Leonard.




On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:56 PM, sonya ward <p3x249@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Leonard
> Great shot, nice tracking any problems with weight on the em-11?
> Sonya
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:46 AM, apolen2001
<lellulmercer@...<lellulmercer%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I rarely appear on this site, but sometimes I have to place an image of
> > mine for your comments, just to show I am still alive. :-)
> >
> > Here is one I took recently:
> >
> > http://www.astrophotogallery.org/showphoto.php/photo/4536
> >
> > I look forward to some comments, which could help me improve.
> >
> > Thanks and clear skies to all.
> >
> > Leonard E. Mercer.
> > (Malta - EU)
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Ruben,

Yes, it is slightly better. But it is possible to reveal more extensions by
playing first with the levels. Move the white point to 203 and the middle one to
1,7. I tried that and i think it emphasize more faints areas.
Let me know about your feeling.

Marc


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again Marc,
> I reprocessed the image to bring up the brightness a bit with curves.  You can
see the result by moving your mouse over the image.  Let me know if you like the
image better. http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> Ruben
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "marcjousset" <mj.astro@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ruben,
> >
> > Nice shot. Perharps the background is a little too dark. A brighter one
could revel more extensions.
> > Yes, dithering is essential to smooth the background and also to eliminate
the lastest hot or dark pixels.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > http://www.astrosurf.com/jousset
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Group,
> > > Finally had a clear night up in New England, and took this shot of the
Monkey Nebula through a TEC 140 at F7, with a QSI-583wsg, Lodestar guider,
HaRGB. Dithering helps tremendously to smooth my background, almost eliminating
my "final cleanup" stage.
> > >
> > > http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> > >
> > > Enjoy,
> > > Ruben
> > > http://www.stardoctor.org
> > >
> >
>

Adam, I echo the comment below. I've been struggling with processing the Iris
Nebula, which also has a narrow range of values in the dim zone. I was also
wondering why my histograms were turning into "picket fences" in PhotoShop, and
actually posted that question to a different group. Your explanation helped me
to find a solution, I think. I save from DeepSkyStacker in 32bit/channel TIFF
rational format then import this into PhotoShop CS2. Before I convert it to
16bit/channel, I apply a mild Astra Image - Digital Development Process stretch
(I found out by accident that the Astra Image plugin will work on 32bit images
in PS), then I convert to 16bits/channel and process with levels and curves as
usual. My dynamic range is much better after doing this, I think because the DDP
stretch increases the dynamic range before converting to 16bit/channel (but
please feel free to set me straight if this makes no sense, I'm no expert on
PS!) and the "picket fences" are now much smoother histograms. Seems to work,
and the quick process I did on the Iris showed MUCH more detail in the dim
regions -- I'm seeing all sorts of detail in the dust clouds that I had no idea
was there. Time to do a full reprocess...(again)...

thanks for the tip,
Keith

P.S. I bought a copy of your most recent video as a "Christmas present" to me
from my wife. I'm looking forward to learning more PS tips -- does the learning
curve ever start to level off?

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "richsmith79" <smithrb@...> wrote:
>
> Adam, you were not babbling at all.  You hit the nail on the head and solved
my problem.  Thanks so much.
>
> Rich
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Block" <ngc1535@> wrote:
> >
> > There is something else- but I don't want to confuse the matter- so ignore
this if it is not relevant.
> >
> > You can get the effect you describe when saving 16-bit INTEGER TIF files for
Photoshop. The original floating point file that you have created (presumably in
Maxim DL or CCDStack...etc) contains fractional values (values to the right of
the decimal). These fractional values are dropped in the creation of the 16-bit
integer TIF.
> >
> > This quantization artifact sometimes happens for me when dealing with Ha
data since the range of values is so small those fractional values can make a
difference. Scaling data (by multiplying by some reasonable number) before
saving as a 16-bit (integer) file can help pull some of those fractional values
to be expressed in the integer file.
> >
> > Nowadays if I am blending Ha data this happens naturally for me when I
normalize the Ha data to the luminance or Red information.
> >
> > Anyway, just felt like babbling a little bit.
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Adam Block
> >
> > ngc1535@
> >
> > http://skycenter.arizona.edu (NEW!)
> >
> > http://caelumobservatory.com/
> >
> > Caelum videre iussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.
> > He bid them look at the sky and lift their faces to the stars.
> > --Ovid, Metamorphoses 1. 85-8
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> > *-----Original Message-----
> > *From: richsmith79 [mailto:smithrb@]
> > *Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 03:35 PM
> > *To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > *Subject: [ccd-newastro] Where are my smooth levels going?
> > *
> > *I keep running into a problem processing my images.  I start out with what
looks like a nice smooth image, and as soon as I start stretching it, the
histogram starts looking like a picket fence (i.e., spikes) and the image goes
from smooth to just a few discrete intensity levels.  I'm supposedly working
with 16 bits per pixel, but it quickly looks like it goes to about 5 or 6 bits
per pixel after only a few very modest stretches.  What am I doing wrong?
> > *
> > *Any thoughts would be very welcome.  Thanks.
> > *
> > *Rich
> > *
> > *
> >
>

Thank you (all) for your comments.

I've been working with Tom Bisque over the past few days.  We are trying
to figure out why Research | Insert WCS is not working for me with
CCDSoft and The Sky6.

I also downloaded the SBIG STV manual - interesting reading about the
STV measures "seeing".

Eddie


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "eroelmx" <eroel@...> wrote:
>
> Eddie:
> I own the STV (a now defunct SBIG guider). This setup can calculate
optical quality and also seeing conditions. Go to SBIG site and look in
the download section for the STV manual, on page 25 they explain the way
it does it, but also send you to an appendix where the formulas and
calculations are.
> Hope this helps,
> Eric. (México)
>
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "epavlu" eddie@ wrote:
> >
> > Hello - I'm new to this group. I've read "The New CCD Astronomy" and
I want to measure the seeing conditions where I image. I use CCDSoft. Is
there a way, by using images that I've taken, to measure the FWHM of a
star in the image?
> >
> > I know all the details of my setup so I can calculate the image
scale (ST-402 9x9 microns, AP 155 f7 should be 1.7 arcsec/pix).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Eddie
> >
>

Hi Marc,
You are correct that the faint areas show up nicer with the shift in levels. But
that turns the background level up from about 10 to over 30.  That also tends to
wash out the contrast in the brighter parts of the nebula.  I think I would have
to go several steps back in processing to stretch the dim detail better without
saturating the brighter areas.
Also, some depends on the monitor.  When I process, I have 2 monitors, side by
side.  One is fully corrected by Photoshop and by my Spyder.  The second is set
to maximum brightness.  I work to have the image look good on both monitors,
because many of the people visiting my website will have their monitors set to
maximum brightness.
Ruben
http://www.stardoctor.org

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "marcjousset" <mj.astro@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ruben,
>
> Yes, it is slightly better. But it is possible to reveal more extensions by
playing first with the levels. Move the white point to 203 and the middle one to
1,7. I tried that and i think it emphasize more faints areas.
> Let me know about your feeling.
>
> Marc
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again Marc,
> > I reprocessed the image to bring up the brightness a bit with curves.  You
can see the result by moving your mouse over the image.  Let me know if you like
the image better. http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> > Ruben
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "marcjousset" <mj.astro@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ruben,
> > >
> > > Nice shot. Perharps the background is a little too dark. A brighter one
could revel more extensions.
> > > Yes, dithering is essential to smooth the background and also to eliminate
the lastest hot or dark pixels.
> > >
> > > Marc
> > >
> > > http://www.astrosurf.com/jousset
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Group,
> > > > Finally had a clear night up in New England, and took this shot of the
Monkey Nebula through a TEC 140 at F7, with a QSI-583wsg, Lodestar guider,
HaRGB. Dithering helps tremendously to smooth my background, almost eliminating
my "final cleanup" stage.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy,
> > > > Ruben
> > > > http://www.stardoctor.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hello Folks,
 
I'm posting this image of ngc281 as a collaborative effort between Jeff Haynes
and myself.  Jeff imaged this data from Elizabethtown, Kentucky with a 16" RC
and STL11000 using Ha, SII, and OIII filters.  I did the final reprocessing of
the image.  We hope you enjoy the finished result.
 
http://www.imagingtheheavens.com/Obs/JMSMO/2009/ngc281_Pacman_Nebula_11-29-09.jp\
g
 
Clear Skies,
Mike Sherick
 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello, I was just wondering if someone could explain the benefits between 2" and
1.25" accessories for Astronomy. All of my accessories I own are in the 1.25"
flavor, and I was planning to buy a Motorized Filter wheel, and I wasn't sure if
I should consider moving up to the larger size. I just hate to buy equipment
over the next couple of years and then come to realize I should have invested in
the 2". I have an 8" SCT, SSDSI-II plus a Canon 450D. I do own a couple of
filters sets, plus a few eyepieces, all in the 1.25" size. Beside costing more
would there be that much more of a benefit on the larger size for astro.?

I would like to buy a 14" SCT in a couple of years, not sure if that matters?

Thanks

Paul, I would definately go with the 2". You can use a reducer to 1 1/4" for now
and later if you need to get into the larger size, you already have the focuser.
rb
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paul
   To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 2:19 PM
   Subject: [ccd-newastro] 1.25" or 2" focuser?



   Hello, I was just wondering if someone could explain the benefits between 2"
and 1.25" accessories for Astronomy. All of my accessories I own are in the
1.25" flavor, and I was planning to buy a Motorized Filter wheel, and I wasn't
sure if I should consider moving up to the larger size. I just hate to buy
equipment over the next couple of years and then come to realize I should have
invested in the 2". I have an 8" SCT, SSDSI-II plus a Canon 450D. I do own a
couple of filters sets, plus a few eyepieces, all in the 1.25" size. Beside
costing more would there be that much more of a benefit on the larger size for
astro.?

   I would like to buy a 14" SCT in a couple of years, not sure if that matters?

   Thanks





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've been saving in 32 Bit Integer FIT format and doing an initial stretch with
Fits Liberator when opening in PS.  Getting really good results now.  Thanks
again.

Rich

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "astromfm" <eggerk@...> wrote:
>
> Adam, I echo the comment below. I've been struggling with processing the Iris
Nebula, which also has a narrow range of values in the dim zone. I was also
wondering why my histograms were turning into "picket fences" in PhotoShop, and
actually posted that question to a different group. Your explanation helped me
to find a solution, I think. I save from DeepSkyStacker in 32bit/channel TIFF
rational format then import this into PhotoShop CS2. Before I convert it to
16bit/channel, I apply a mild Astra Image - Digital Development Process stretch
(I found out by accident that the Astra Image plugin will work on 32bit images
in PS), then I convert to 16bits/channel and process with levels and curves as
usual. My dynamic range is much better after doing this, I think because the DDP
stretch increases the dynamic range before converting to 16bit/channel (but
please feel free to set me straight if this makes no sense, I'm no expert on
PS!) and the "picket fences" are now much smoother histograms. Seems to work,
and the quick process I did on the Iris showed MUCH more detail in the dim
regions -- I'm seeing all sorts of detail in the dust clouds that I had no idea
was there. Time to do a full reprocess...(again)...
>
> thanks for the tip,
> Keith
>
> P.S. I bought a copy of your most recent video as a "Christmas present" to me
from my wife. I'm looking forward to learning more PS tips -- does the learning
curve ever start to level off?
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "richsmith79" <smithrb@> wrote:
> >
> > Adam, you were not babbling at all.  You hit the nail on the head and solved
my problem.  Thanks so much.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Block" <ngc1535@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is something else- but I don't want to confuse the matter- so ignore
this if it is not relevant.
> > >
> > > You can get the effect you describe when saving 16-bit INTEGER TIF files
for Photoshop. The original floating point file that you have created
(presumably in Maxim DL or CCDStack...etc) contains fractional values (values to
the right of the decimal). These fractional values are dropped in the creation
of the 16-bit integer TIF.
> > >
> > > This quantization artifact sometimes happens for me when dealing with Ha
data since the range of values is so small those fractional values can make a
difference. Scaling data (by multiplying by some reasonable number) before
saving as a 16-bit (integer) file can help pull some of those fractional values
to be expressed in the integer file.
> > >
> > > Nowadays if I am blending Ha data this happens naturally for me when I
normalize the Ha data to the luminance or Red information.
> > >
> > > Anyway, just felt like babbling a little bit.
> > > Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Adam Block
> > >
> > > ngc1535@
> > >
> > > http://skycenter.arizona.edu (NEW!)
> > >
> > > http://caelumobservatory.com/
> > >
> > > Caelum videre iussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.
> > > He bid them look at the sky and lift their faces to the stars.
> > > --Ovid, Metamorphoses 1. 85-8
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > *-----Original Message-----
> > > *From: richsmith79 [mailto:smithrb@]
> > > *Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 03:35 PM
> > > *To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > > *Subject: [ccd-newastro] Where are my smooth levels going?
> > > *
> > > *I keep running into a problem processing my images.  I start out with
what looks like a nice smooth image, and as soon as I start stretching it, the
histogram starts looking like a picket fence (i.e., spikes) and the image goes
from smooth to just a few discrete intensity levels.  I'm supposedly working
with 16 bits per pixel, but it quickly looks like it goes to about 5 or 6 bits
per pixel after only a few very modest stretches.  What am I doing wrong?
> > > *
> > > *Any thoughts would be very welcome.  Thanks.
> > > *
> > > *Rich
> > > *
> > > *
> > >
> >
>

Paul,

If you're using the filter wheel for the DSLR, the 2" version is the way to
go for sure. The filters will cost more but they will be large enough for a
wide variety of CCD chips out there if you decide to buy a dedicated
astro-camera in the future.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Ron Brant <brant.r.d@...> wrote:

>
>
> Paul, I would definately go with the 2". You can use a reducer to 1 1/4"
> for now and later if you need to get into the larger size, you already have
> the focuser.
> rb
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com <ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 2:19 PM
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] 1.25" or 2" focuser?
>
> Hello, I was just wondering if someone could explain the benefits between
> 2" and 1.25" accessories for Astronomy. All of my accessories I own are in
> the 1.25" flavor, and I was planning to buy a Motorized Filter wheel, and I
> wasn't sure if I should consider moving up to the larger size. I just hate
> to buy equipment over the next couple of years and then come to realize I
> should have invested in the 2". I have an 8" SCT, SSDSI-II plus a Canon
> 450D. I do own a couple of filters sets, plus a few eyepieces, all in the
> 1.25" size. Beside costing more would there be that much more of a benefit
> on the larger size for astro.?
>
> I would like to buy a 14" SCT in a couple of years, not sure if that
> matters?
>
> Thanks
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Ruben,

Yes, that tends to wash out a bit the contrast in the core and make the stars
larger. You can use severals masks, one to conserve the original shape of the
stars and one to preserve the density in the core.

Marc

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
> You are correct that the faint areas show up nicer with the shift in levels.
But that turns the background level up from about 10 to over 30.  That also
tends to wash out the contrast in the brighter parts of the nebula.  I think I
would have to go several steps back in processing to stretch the dim detail
better without saturating the brighter areas.
> Also, some depends on the monitor.  When I process, I have 2 monitors, side by
side.  One is fully corrected by Photoshop and by my Spyder.  The second is set
to maximum brightness.  I work to have the image look good on both monitors,
because many of the people visiting my website will have their monitors set to
maximum brightness.
> Ruben
> http://www.stardoctor.org
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "marcjousset" <mj.astro@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ruben,
> >
> > Yes, it is slightly better. But it is possible to reveal more extensions by
playing first with the levels. Move the white point to 203 and the middle one to
1,7. I tried that and i think it emphasize more faints areas.
> > Let me know about your feeling.
> >
> > Marc
> >
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi again Marc,
> > > I reprocessed the image to bring up the brightness a bit with curves.  You
can see the result by moving your mouse over the image.  Let me know if you like
the image better. http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> > > Ruben
> > >
> > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "marcjousset" <mj.astro@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ruben,
> > > >
> > > > Nice shot. Perharps the background is a little too dark. A brighter one
could revel more extensions.
> > > > Yes, dithering is essential to smooth the background and also to
eliminate the lastest hot or dark pixels.
> > > >
> > > > Marc
> > > >
> > > > http://www.astrosurf.com/jousset
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "stardoctor5" <stardoctor5@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Group,
> > > > > Finally had a clear night up in New England, and took this shot of the
Monkey Nebula through a TEC 140 at F7, with a QSI-583wsg, Lodestar guider,
HaRGB. Dithering helps tremendously to smooth my background, almost eliminating
my "final cleanup" stage.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.stardoctor.org/monkey.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Enjoy,
> > > > > Ruben
> > > > > http://www.stardoctor.org
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi,

I don't currently have a usable setup to take a hands on approach to some of
the techniques in the book as I am still waiting for my dome to arrive. Is
there a place I can find some raw monochrome CCD images for practice? I'd
rather get really good at processing pre-collected data where all the other
work has been done rather than spend hours gathering data and only
practicing on one image at a time.

Kelsey


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings,
I am in the process of setting up a atrophotography platform currently
consisting of a C11 OTA on a G11 mount with a Moonlite 2.5" electronic focuser.

I've looked at Meade and Orion OAG's and the Astodon MOAG and so far it seems to
Astodon is way ahead in terms of quality,(and price), but I know very little
about these gadgets so I would appreciate some advice.

My criteria for setting up this system are that I want future proofing so I
would rather buy "up-market" than have to replace components as I grow. I am
currently playing with an Orion Monochrome camera but expect to upgrade to SBIG
in 2010.

Comments / Suggestions / experiences / reommendations all gratefully accepted.

Thanks everyone.

Rom

Kelsey and the group,

This is my first post to the group.
I have been a lurker for the last couple of months.

I am in a similar situation. No scope and no camera.
There is a lot of public raw data available on the net.

I have a small thread on Astronomy.fm forum that looks at what is available.
See, Working with Public Data
http://astronomy.fm/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=268

My flickr stream also with public data at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/umpnews/

DaveM


Kelsey Golden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't currently have a usable setup to take a hands on approach to some of
> the techniques in the book as I am still waiting for my dome to arrive. Is
> there a place I can find some raw monochrome CCD images for practice? I'd
> rather get really good at processing pre-collected data where all the other
> work has been done rather than spend hours gathering data and only
> practicing on one image at a time.
>
> Kelsey
>
>

===
David Mekelburg
mailto:dave@...

--
http://www.iknow8.com/
Computer Consulting for Small Businesses and Individuals
Serving Nassau County, NY and the surrounding area
Hardware -- Software -- Web Design -- Web Hosting

The AstroDon's certainly will hold up to 'upgrades' in the future but you could
also look at the OAG's from APM America and Hutech for more moderately priced
parts at a better build level than the Orion or Meade pieces.

Keith


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "el_draco_numero_uno" <starman00@...>
wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> I am in the process of setting up a atrophotography platform currently
consisting of a C11 OTA on a G11 mount with a Moonlite 2.5" electronic focuser.
>
> I've looked at Meade and Orion OAG's and the Astodon MOAG and so far it seems
to Astodon is way ahead in terms of quality,(and price), but I know very little
about these gadgets so I would appreciate some advice.
>
> My criteria for setting up this system are that I want future proofing so I
would rather buy "up-market" than have to replace components as I grow. I am
currently playing with an Orion Monochrome camera but expect to upgrade to SBIG
in 2010.
>
> Comments / Suggestions / experiences / reommendations all gratefully accepted.
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> Rom
>

I may be wrong, but it does not look like the MOAG allows the pickup mirror to
rotate independently of the camera, At least I cannot find any details on the
Astrondon website about this feature. If that is the case, then it certainly is
a pricey item
Olivier

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "el_draco_numero_uno" <starman00@...>
wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> I am in the process of setting up a atrophotography platform currently
consisting of a C11 OTA on a G11 mount with a Moonlite 2.5" electronic focuser.
>
> I've looked at Meade and Orion OAG's and the Astodon MOAG and so far it seems
to Astodon is way ahead in terms of quality,(and price), but I know very little
about these gadgets so I would appreciate some advice.
>
> My criteria for setting up this system are that I want future proofing so I
would rather buy "up-market" than have to replace components as I grow. I am
currently playing with an Orion Monochrome camera but expect to upgrade to SBIG
in 2010.
>
> Comments / Suggestions / experiences / reommendations all gratefully accepted.
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> Rom
>

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "olivierfp" <olivierfp@...> wrote:
>
> I may be wrong, but it does not look like the MOAG allows the pickup mirror to
rotate independently of the camera, At least I cannot find any details on the
Astrondon website about this feature. If that is the case, then it certainly is
a pricey item
> Olivier

Hi Olivier,
You are correct in that the system does not allow "free" rotation of the guider
port. MMOAG's use a dovetail system that allows you to set the guide
camera/imager orienation and then lock it down by tightening screws against the
dovetail.

Advantages are that the unit is very rigid. On the telescope side is another
dovetail that allows rotation of the guide camera/imager relative to the OTA,
which is then locked down the same way. The later is not an issue as my Moonlite
focuser has a rotating base that will be electronically controllable in the near
future.

Main features I see of value in the MMOAG from Astrodon are:
1/ Significant internal diameter catering for large CCD's
2/ Small backfocus requirement (25mm)
3/ Rigid and lockable
4/ Borg micro-focuser on the guide camera

Drawbacks, I'll probably have to get custom dovetail connectors made for my
particular configuration until I upgrade to an SBIG camera in about 6 months.

I compared the MMOAG to the Huteck / Mitsubishi OAG and the price comes out
pretty much the same when I fiddle with the options.

Bugger of a decision. I am looking at about Au$1k for the component. The
research I have done seems to indicate it is worth it when used in conjunction
with a SCT, but I am really keen to hear from anyone who has actually used one
of these things particularly on a SCT

Rom

Hello all,

Ever since I switched ISP's early in 2008, my web presence via a personal web
site has dropped to practically zero. I made do with on-line image galleries for
a while, but I felt bad using those to post work-in-process images. So I
resolved to build a web presence, and earlier this year went ahead and bought a
paid hosting site.

Months went by, and my web site development moved in fits and starts. I finally
resolved to get the site up and running by Thanksgiving.

Well, here I am, a week late, but ... the web site is up.

Please check out Http://www.skiesbyafrica.com

On a related note, the image on the home page is also my latest processed image,
M34 in Perseus. It's a "quick first light" of my not-so-new-to-me Vixen VC200L.
I bought that scope last year (late 2008), and a traumatic attempt to collimate
it put the kibosh on any plans of mine to use it. I finally decided a couple of
months ago to give it a patient go at collimation, and from the looks of it I
may have succeeded.

You may click on the main image to get to the page for M34, or the direct link
is here:

http://www.skiesbyafrica.com/Clusters/M34.html

Please let me know what you think about the site. I consider it (the site) no
more than a start for now. I hope to build on it over time and to place more of
my images out there now that I have some decent storage (and a certain degree of
maintainability) up and running.

Thanks,
Eric

Hi, All,

Rom is correct.  The dovetail adaptors are designed to align and lock while
eliminating tilt in the optical train.

Our first OAG product used a ROBO FOCUS motor/system to rotate the prism/OAG
relative to the imaging camera to help find guide stars. Worked great. However,
automation software, such as CCDAutoPilot, came out that made finding guide
stars easy, especially if you have a camera rotator. With the camera rotator,
your OAG/CFW/CCD is considered to be a single unit.  Now, I place my FOV
indicator in TheSkyV6 over my target, rotate it to put the OAG guide box over a
guide star while framing my object, and select GET in CCDAp.  It puts the RA,
DEC and sky angle into the program.  I then select SLEW TO TARGET and it slews
the scope, rotates the camera, takes an image, image links, and makes a couple
of finer adjusts.  I'm ready to image!  The guide star is ALWAYS in the guide
camera, even at my 3500 mm of focal length. Since the OAG is fixed relative to
the camera, CCDAp does one guider calibration and never needs to calibrate the
guider again even at a different rotation angle.  I can't emphasize enough how
efficient this makes target setup each night.  As a result, there is no longer a
reason to rotate the OAG guide camera relative to the imaging camera, so our
fixed OAGs quickly replaced our moveable OAG, which as discontinued.  I'm not
trying to slip in a commercial here. Rather, I want to explain the rationale of
why our OAGs evolved, and how OAGs can be used to make your imaging more
efficient.  Thanks for listening.

Don Goldman
Astrodon Imaging.

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "el_draco_numero_uno" <starman00@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "olivierfp" <olivierfp@> wrote:
> >
> > I may be wrong, but it does not look like the MOAG allows the pickup mirror
to rotate independently of the camera, At least I cannot find any details on the
Astrondon website about this feature. If that is the case, then it certainly is
a pricey item
> > Olivier
>
> Hi Olivier,
> You are correct in that the system does not allow "free" rotation of the
guider port. MMOAG's use a dovetail system that allows you to set the guide
camera/imager orienation and then lock it down by tightening screws against the
dovetail.
>
> Advantages are that the unit is very rigid. On the telescope side is another
dovetail that allows rotation of the guide camera/imager relative to the OTA,
which is then locked down the same way. The later is not an issue as my Moonlite
focuser has a rotating base that will be electronically controllable in the near
future.
>
> Main features I see of value in the MMOAG from Astrodon are:
> 1/ Significant internal diameter catering for large CCD's
> 2/ Small backfocus requirement (25mm)
> 3/ Rigid and lockable
> 4/ Borg micro-focuser on the guide camera
>
> Drawbacks, I'll probably have to get custom dovetail connectors made for my
particular configuration until I upgrade to an SBIG camera in about 6 months.
>
> I compared the MMOAG to the Huteck / Mitsubishi OAG and the price comes out
pretty much the same when I fiddle with the options.
>
> Bugger of a decision. I am looking at about Au$1k for the component. The
research I have done seems to indicate it is worth it when used in conjunction
with a SCT, but I am really keen to hear from anyone who has actually used one
of these things particularly on a SCT
>
> Rom
>

I have one of Don Goldman's OAG's and I agree with him totally about
having a fixed non rotating OAG.  Finding a guide star using
CCDAutopilot or similar software in the way Don described is the way to
go.  I am imaging at @2800mm and have no problems getting a guide star
on the chip.  Calibrate once and image all over the sky tonight or 3
months from now and everything works.  OAG's that allow for movement of
the pick off mirror to aquire a guide star serve no purpose when you set
up your system with automation software.  Every time you move the
mirror, you have to recalibrate your guider.  The MOAG does allow for
adjustment of the mirror, up-down-left-right, but that's just to get it
close to the edge of your chip and aligned with the optical axis of your
scope.  Once it's set, you forget it.


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "donclearview" <donclearview@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi, All,
>
> Rom is correct. The dovetail adaptors are designed to align and lock
while eliminating tilt in the optical train.
>
> Our first OAG product used a ROBO FOCUS motor/system to rotate the
prism/OAG relative to the imaging camera to help find guide stars.
Worked great. However, automation software, such as CCDAutoPilot, came
out that made finding guide stars easy, especially if you have a camera
rotator. With the camera rotator, your OAG/CFW/CCD is considered to be a
single unit. Now, I place my FOV indicator in TheSkyV6 over my target,
rotate it to put the OAG guide box over a guide star while framing my
object, and select GET in CCDAp. It puts the RA, DEC and sky angle into
the program. I then select SLEW TO TARGET and it slews the scope,
rotates the camera, takes an image, image links, and makes a couple of
finer adjusts. I'm ready to image! The guide star is ALWAYS in the guide
camera, even at my 3500 mm of focal length. Since the OAG is fixed
relative to the camera, CCDAp does one guider calibration and never
needs to calibrate the guider again even at a different rotation angle.
I can't emphasize enough how efficient this makes target setup each
night. As a result, there is no longer a reason to rotate the OAG guide
camera relative to the imaging camera, so our fixed OAGs quickly
replaced our moveable OAG, which as discontinued. I'm not trying to slip
in a commercial here. Rather, I want to explain the rationale of why our
OAGs evolved, and how OAGs can be used to make your imaging more
efficient. Thanks for listening.
>
> Don Goldman
> Astrodon Imaging.
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "el_draco_numero_uno" starman00@
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "olivierfp" <olivierfp@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I may be wrong, but it does not look like the MOAG allows the
pickup mirror to rotate independently of the camera, At least I cannot
find any details on the Astrondon website about this feature. If that is
the case, then it certainly is a pricey item
> > > Olivier
> >
> > Hi Olivier,
> > You are correct in that the system does not allow "free" rotation of
the guider port. MMOAG's use a dovetail system that allows you to set
the guide camera/imager orienation and then lock it down by tightening
screws against the dovetail.
> >
> > Advantages are that the unit is very rigid. On the telescope side is
another dovetail that allows rotation of the guide camera/imager
relative to the OTA, which is then locked down the same way. The later
is not an issue as my Moonlite focuser has a rotating base that will be
electronically controllable in the near future.
> >
> > Main features I see of value in the MMOAG from Astrodon are:
> > 1/ Significant internal diameter catering for large CCD's
> > 2/ Small backfocus requirement (25mm)
> > 3/ Rigid and lockable
> > 4/ Borg micro-focuser on the guide camera
> >
> > Drawbacks, I'll probably have to get custom dovetail connectors made
for my particular configuration until I upgrade to an SBIG camera in
about 6 months.
> >
> > I compared the MMOAG to the Huteck / Mitsubishi OAG and the price
comes out pretty much the same when I fiddle with the options.
> >
> > Bugger of a decision. I am looking at about Au$1k for the component.
The research I have done seems to indicate it is worth it when used in
conjunction with a SCT, but I am really keen to hear from anyone who has
actually used one of these things particularly on a SCT
> >
> > Rom
> >
>

For non SBIG users the Orion deluxe is a reasonable compromise. Although it
has the facility to rotate the prism, this can be locked. The T thread
adaptors on the inlet/ guide/ outlet allow many combinations. It can be used
before/ after narrow band filters and filter wheels. The pick off prism
(10mm in size) will cover the FOV of the guide camera like QHY5 (6.7 x
5.3mm) or DSI IIpro (5.6x 4.7mm) etc.

On 07/12/2009, kjcphoto2001 <kjcstudio@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I have one of Don Goldman's OAG's and I agree with him totally about
> having a fixed non rotating OAG. Finding a guide star using
> CCDAutopilot or similar software in the way Don described is the way to
> go. I am imaging at @2800mm and have no problems getting a guide star
> on the chip. Calibrate once and image all over the sky tonight or 3
> months from now and everything works. OAG's that allow for movement of
> the pick off mirror to aquire a guide star serve no purpose when you set
> up your system with automation software. Every time you move the
> mirror, you have to recalibrate your guider. The MOAG does allow for
> adjustment of the mirror, up-down-left-right, but that's just to get it
> close to the edge of your chip and aligned with the optical axis of your
> scope. Once it's set, you forget it.
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com <ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "donclearview" <donclearview@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi, All,
> >
> > Rom is correct. The dovetail adaptors are designed to align and lock
> while eliminating tilt in the optical train.
> >
> > Our first OAG product used a ROBO FOCUS motor/system to rotate the
> prism/OAG relative to the imaging camera to help find guide stars.
> Worked great. However, automation software, such as CCDAutoPilot, came
> out that made finding guide stars easy, especially if you have a camera
> rotator. With the camera rotator, your OAG/CFW/CCD is considered to be a
> single unit. Now, I place my FOV indicator in TheSkyV6 over my target,
> rotate it to put the OAG guide box over a guide star while framing my
> object, and select GET in CCDAp. It puts the RA, DEC and sky angle into
> the program. I then select SLEW TO TARGET and it slews the scope,
> rotates the camera, takes an image, image links, and makes a couple of
> finer adjusts. I'm ready to image! The guide star is ALWAYS in the guide
> camera, even at my 3500 mm of focal length. Since the OAG is fixed
> relative to the camera, CCDAp does one guider calibration and never
> needs to calibrate the guider again even at a different rotation angle.
> I can't emphasize enough how efficient this makes target setup each
> night. As a result, there is no longer a reason to rotate the OAG guide
> camera relative to the imaging camera, so our fixed OAGs quickly
> replaced our moveable OAG, which as discontinued. I'm not trying to slip
> in a commercial here. Rather, I want to explain the rationale of why our
> OAGs evolved, and how OAGs can be used to make your imaging more
> efficient. Thanks for listening.
> >
> > Don Goldman
> > Astrodon Imaging.
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com <ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "el_draco_numero_uno" starman00@
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com <ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "olivierfp" <olivierfp@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I may be wrong, but it does not look like the MOAG allows the
> pickup mirror to rotate independently of the camera, At least I cannot
> find any details on the Astrondon website about this feature. If that is
> the case, then it certainly is a pricey item
> > > > Olivier
> > >
> > > Hi Olivier,
> > > You are correct in that the system does not allow "free" rotation of
> the guider port. MMOAG's use a dovetail system that allows you to set
> the guide camera/imager orienation and then lock it down by tightening
> screws against the dovetail.
> > >
> > > Advantages are that the unit is very rigid. On the telescope side is
> another dovetail that allows rotation of the guide camera/imager
> relative to the OTA, which is then locked down the same way. The later
> is not an issue as my Moonlite focuser has a rotating base that will be
> electronically controllable in the near future.
> > >
> > > Main features I see of value in the MMOAG from Astrodon are:
> > > 1/ Significant internal diameter catering for large CCD's
> > > 2/ Small backfocus requirement (25mm)
> > > 3/ Rigid and lockable
> > > 4/ Borg micro-focuser on the guide camera
> > >
> > > Drawbacks, I'll probably have to get custom dovetail connectors made
> for my particular configuration until I upgrade to an SBIG camera in
> about 6 months.
> > >
> > > I compared the MMOAG to the Huteck / Mitsubishi OAG and the price
> comes out pretty much the same when I fiddle with the options.
> > >
> > > Bugger of a decision. I am looking at about Au$1k for the component.
> The research I have done seems to indicate it is worth it when used in
> conjunction with a SCT, but I am really keen to hear from anyone who has
> actually used one of these things particularly on a SCT
> > >
> > > Rom
> > >
> >
>
>
>



--
"Very funny Scotty... now beam down our clothes!"
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astronomical_spectroscopy/?yguid=322612425


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Ken,
This thread has been very infomative and I thank everyone for their comments.
One of the things I like about the MMOAG is the adaptor set up. Whilst there are
a number of adaptors for the SBIG series, the MMOAG does in fact have adaptors
for a range of imagers and accessories.

The MonsterMOAG as 3" male threads to connect to Apogee and FLI large CFWs for
example, and The ST / T-Threads connect to a host of cameras.   There is also an
AP part (ADA2003) that screws into the MMOAG and that accepts 2" or 1.25" nose
pieces, so the MMOAG is not primarily an SBIG component. Astrodon states pretty
clearly on their web site that there are a vast range of imager combinations and
they cater for the most common. They also recommend a company that custom makes
adaptors.

In my case, I've been able to get one of the very new Moonlite 2.5 inch focusers
and whilst it has a 2 inch adaptor, it seems pointless to have an adaptor for an
adaptor so I will probably get a telescope side adaptor made up locally. The
dovetail system looks pretty simple to duplicate so I dont see that as a major
issue.

I am also currently experimenting with a very basic camera that I'll upgrade in
the near future. Whether thats an SBIG or not, I am not sure but that wont be
the determining factor in the OAG choice.


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Ken Harrison <kenm.harrison@...> wrote:
>
> For non SBIG users the Orion deluxe is a reasonable compromise. Although it
> has the facility to rotate the prism, this can be locked. The T thread
> adaptors on the inlet/ guide/ outlet allow many combinations. It can be used
> before/ after narrow band filters and filter wheels. The pick off prism
> (10mm in size) will cover the FOV of the guide camera like QHY5 (6.7 x
> 5.3mm) or DSI IIpro (5.6x 4.7mm) etc.
>
> On 07/12/2009, kjcphoto2001 <kjcstudio@...> wrote:
> >

Even with the Canon DSLR the Orion deluxe seems to work very well. It has T
thread connections all round and a limited travel helical focus for the
guide camera; so you can use a SCT>T thread to connect it to the Lx and then
mix and match T thead extension tubes etc ( I use a prism diagonal sometimes
to hold the guide camera... reduces over hang)
What I like is it can be mounted either before or between the filter wheel/
flip mirror etc and the imaging camera, so it's still usable with narrow
band filters.
The chip size in my guide camera, a QHY5 is only 5.3 x 6.7mm ( DSI IIpro 5.6
x4.7mm, MX7c 6.5 x 5mm) and the pick off prism is 10mm square, that gets you
full chip coverage for guiding....( The prism in my Lumicon Cass OAG is even
larger.....)