Відео

Thank you so much!

Thank you for your report. It confirms the general feeling that this mount has problems that need to be worked on. I hope iOptron is able to fix some of these issues in software via a firmware upgrade…

Thank you so much for your support, it is greatly appreciated!

How do you combine the monochrome images? Which process do you use in PixInsight?

@@darkskygeek I just use pixel math, then try to debayer or use convert to RGB, and nothing works. I use channel extraction to get R, G, and B

In the PixelMath process window, you need to expand the settings panel and set the destination color space as RGB color. Otherwise, it won’t work. Hope this helps!

@@darkskygeek I tried that, it's still B&W!

Next, you have to make sure that you use a different expression for each channel (by default, the “use a single expression for all channels” option is checked)

Try another LED strip. It could also be a bad MOSFET.

@darkskygeek I changed the transistor and the LED strip is designed for 5 volts.

@darkskygeek The LED strip glows from two 1.5-volt batteries from 3 V perfectly, but through the circuit it does not want to, it glows very dimly.

@@darkskygeek Can you write what voltages should be at the transistor input and output so that I can measure them.

Not anymore, unfortunately (I did a crowdfunding campaign for it earlier this year) However, it is an open source DIY project, so it can be made by anyone. Clear skies!

I’m not sure which cover you are referring to. If you are talking about *my* open source telescope cover project, then what you observe is NORMAL. I did not write the ASCOM driver to support multiple devices connected to the same computer. The issue you are observing is therefore unrelated to the ASCOM switch hub.

@@darkskygeek Yes, it's your telescope cover project. Thanks for explaining. Any plans to write such drivers? If not, is there any other solution to make it work?

No plan to evolve that driver. The only other solution to control 2 rigs would be to use 2 computers…

@@darkskygeekit’s one rig, but with two servos. Anyways, thanks for confirming

I enjoy watching videos about Ferrari cars, and yet I’ll never own one. So, to answer your question, maybe because it’s … interesting (to some)? Clear skies 😉

Great question! The only time I bin with an OSC camera is with my planetary camera, which I use for NIR spectroscopy. In that case, I use a mode named “mono bin”, which behaves as you describe, i.e., you get a monochrome image (for spectroscopy, that’s perfectly fine). I suppose it is possible, however, to bin 2x2 with an OSC camera and get a color image. The binning algorithm has to be implemented slightly differently, but I don’t see why that could not be done. If someone reading the comments has some experience with OSC binning, please, don’t hesitate to chime in!

@darkskygeek I'd be very curious to know what will happen with LRGB filters. My camera is not high speed so even smaller files wouldn't help for planetary. Hopefully someone out there has tried this before.

That’s a thought-provoking question :) It is true that whether or not you bin, simply looking at the image on a computer screen without zooming in basically amounts to downsampling (unless you have a massive computer screen and you look at it from a short distance) which in turns is equivalent to binning, so you are right. However, most of us want to get the most resolution from our images, so we will want to inspect the image more closely. I don’t ever remember looking at an image on Astrobin without clicking through to look at some interesting feature. Let me know what you think, that’s an interesting point of discussion I had not thought about.

​@@darkskygeek quelle erreur! You'll never ask me again what I think 🙂 in my opinion, the basic unit of interest is going to be a feature that is characteristic of the subject and independent of the image capture. The size of the features of interest can be anything from the whole image to a few pixels, but it is never going to be an individual pixel, or an individual bin. Furthermore, bins and pixels represent different viewing areas; so, saying that binning improves SNR is similar to saying that widening the viewing area improves SNR: very true but not useful. Finally, shot noise is often defined as an inherent property of light, and therefore a characteristic of the light source. This goes a step further than dismissing binning as a meaningful way to improve SNR for shot noise. It also implies that the F-ratio is not a relevant number when discussing shot noise (F-ratio was estimates of light intensity on film). Aperture diameter on the other hand could be relevant to shot noise.

It’s the other way around. F/5 is faster than F/10. Watch the recent TAIC video where Ron Brecher talks about imaging with a 4 meter focal length and binning 2x2, and the impact on his imaging speed. Additionally, the rule we have in daytime photography regarding the change in imaging speed of an F stop is 1) theoretically slightly incorrect to begin with (that in itself is a big topic, especially because it also has some merit) and 2) most definitely does not apply to deep sky imaging where SNR is the most important metric. Clear skies!

​@@darkskygeek corrected it! The problem with night sky imaging, more precise long exposures telescope imaging, is that heat is also a factor to account for detail loses and the longer the times, the higher the heat. So, while an f/10 requires 4 times longer exposure than at f/5 to gather the same amount of photons, it does result in only 2 times lower SNR, or higher noise for photographers language. But f/10 is not half as fast as an f/5 in terms of exposure times required at the same gain, is a quarter as fast. And that is backed up by physics. For example, we have 1 meter FL F/10 and 1 meter FL f/5. The first will have a diameter of 10 cm and an area of ~79, the last will be 20 cm with an area of ~315. So roughly 4 time the area! 4 times the amount of photons. So it is the exposure times need that dictates the light intensity, not the resulting SNR based on the F ratio at same gain while ignoring exposure times. It is the added heat that resulting from longer exposure that accounts for roughly 2 X higher noise. It is not complicated math, it is all proportional. Even the heat factor must follow a proportion. So Ron Brecher is wrong and does not know photography, meaning optical principles that are the same into photography as in astrophotography no matter what. Of course, back in the film days we had to expose exponentially longer with film cameras because of the reciprocity failure effect that has nothing to do with the optics as with the chemistry. So it makes sense that in order to have the same SNR at f/10 as that at f/5, you have to take an exposure roughly 16 times longer, all while loosing dynamic range, which is impractical. 8 times the exposure time does not result in the same SNR because it still ads time and noise to it about 1.5 times. Now I am not sure about all this heat stuff, it sure isn't linear and it sure isn't the same for all the exposure times, all the cameras, CCD or CMOS, so that is hard to quantify. It also depends how low the cooling temps are and also depends on the sensor response at long exposures that might not be linear. I just wanted to say that you don't expose double the time for f/10 compared to f/5 to have the same SNR. You expose 4 times as much to have the same image luminosity, all while noise is added. How much is difficult to say with precision. The question is, would a double exposure time at f/10 comparted to f/5 result in the same SNR while rising up the image luminance in post, all because exposing longer results in no benefit? I would say no. The the advantage of an f/5 scope is really higher than 4 X of an f/10 when it comes to imaging and certainly not 2 X! Now would you be able to see 4X more detail in a scope that has double the FL at the same diameter? No! The FL of an F/10 is 2X the length of an F/5 at the same diameter, so the observed object would have 2X the angular size and 4X the area. It is then safe to say that an exposure time of 2 fold would give you the same detail at F/10 as half of exposure time at f/5, and I think this is where the confusion resides. This does not equate an f/5 is only 2 x as bright as an f/10 just because it only give you the possibility too capture (theoretically) the same level of detail with just 2x the exposure time, all while ignoring that a longer exposure adds noise too. These being said, for the same focal length, double the aperture, I am able to extract at least 4 times more detail out of the same exposure time in the brighter scope. How many frames of the same exposure time would I need to take with the darker scope to get the same detail out of it? I don't know, but I assume 4 exposures are not enough, probably 16, since for every 4 images staked, I get the SNR 2x better. The conclusion? A F/5 scope of the same FL, double the aperture of an F/10 is 16 times faster when it comes to imaging time required, all while being 4 X brighter! All while assuming my 2 scopes provide the same resolution, which is not the case mostly. Even if I double the exposure time in the slower scope, I would still need 8 images to come close to the brighter scope, and that if I don't account for the added noise resulted in the longer exposures, so multiple shorter exposure are better than fewer longer ones. Unfortunately, I am 100% sure about it! I would like it to not be like this.

Yes, absolutely! Pick the Star’Ex HR kit and you will be able to use it for both. Don’t forget to use my discount code. CS!

L’emballage n’est pas si mal que ça quand même 😉

Are you sure that wasn’t me? 😁

@@darkskygeek Yes, 😁, first I thought it was you, then 'Julien' and others confirmed that you had setup way back in dark zone.

I recommend you ask this question in the Mounts section of the Cloudy Nights forum. That software isn’t mine, it was developed by OzAndrewJ, and I am not sure whether the author is willing to spend time supporting many users. Maybe try reaching out to him directly. Best of luck!

Some people have had better luck with their sample, while others have experienced similar issues, which points to a lot of variability. I do think that the version of this mount without the absolute encoders looks fairly good. You may need to use teflon washers to make it easier to achieve good polar alignment, however. CS!

And does it matter if you use a monochrome or osc camera?

Your list correct. For the helical focuser, the ZWO version is more standard, so I recommend that. Other helical focusers may or may not work depending on their length. For the camera, a monochrome camera is recommended, but in a pinch, an OSC camera can do the job, especially if you already own one. Best of luck!

Nothing is impossible 😉

@@darkskygeek I take this message of yours as a challenge for me? Be careful I do it 🤣🤣🤣

Thanks! Check out the Arduino code of github.com/jlecomte/ascom-telescope-cover-v2, which provides an even better solution to the problem. CS!

You’re welcome! Glad you liked the project 😁

No, it cannot. However, there is a new product on the market: it is called Sunscan. It is an open-source smart spectroheliograph. More information at www.sunscan.net/. I suppose Azur3DPrint may soon sell it too. CS!

Yes, there is! Watch this more recent video for more information: ua-cam.com/video/_x5Ffyaj2PE/v-deo.html. Clear skies!

@ Thank you

I own two very well corrected refractors (Askar 151PHQ and Takahashi FSQ85) and this OAG focuser has been a god send. It has less to do with the telescope and more to do with the filters you are using. I covered all of that in the video, including the fact that it may not be for everybody. Clear skies!

Awesome!!!

I use an iPhone 14 Pro.

The driver would have to be rewritten as it would need to implement a different interface. Thanks!

I don’t understand what you are asking. Once you are all set up, you don’t need to change the settings inside the filter wheel proxy driver settings dialog.

Here is the link to the CCD suitability calculator: astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

Clearly, I was not and so I returned it to Agena Astro. If you do buy it, consider the version WITHOUT the high resolution encoder. Also, consider adding teflon washers for the altitude adjustment. With that, you should have a serviceable mount. CS!

If the ASCOM driver you use to control your dome implements the ISwitchV2 ASCOM interface, then the answer is yes. Otherwise, the answer is no. More than likely, the driver implements the IDomeV2 interface, and therefore the answer would be no, but only you can know for sure. CS!

The STL files are available at www.astrosurf.com/solex/sol-ex-presentation-en.html. Make sure to watch one of my recent videos (ua-cam.com/video/_x5Ffyaj2PE/v-deo.html) because there are other options than printing the spectrograph yourself that may be better. Clear skies!