Mars 2003 Jul 09

Pete Lawrence wrote:
Hey that Oly is paying off - that's a nice shot to have as a first!

Thanks, Pete; coming from someone with your skills in these endeavours,
that is a real compliment! Decent seeing helped, but I am actually
disappointed not to have got more detail. I need to crack this
processing lark.


What eyepiece did you use?

25mm Ortho. It's a generic Japanese one, branded "Telescope House,
London" (i.e. BC&F). I like Orthos, especially for planetary.

I also tried with a 12.5mm Ortho (vignettes the field) and a x2 Barlow
but, although it looked like I could get more detail, the combo was not
satisfactory. I hadn't bothered with the anti-vibration pads when I set
up, but with the 12.5mm and the Barlow, and zoomed in (x3) for focusing,
I began to wonder if a tripod-mounted Vixen GP is an adequate mount for
a C5! (But then, I think you know how fussy I am about mounts g)


Did you use the remote control software or via the viewfinder to focus?

Used the LCD (unlike yours, the C20** series does not have an electronic
viewfinder). I wasn't bothered about noise from the CCD with such short
exposures, but I shall definitely try the computer when I start trying
DSOs once the nights are a tad longer.

Best,
Stephen

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:11:07 +0100, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:

Hey that Oly is paying off - that's a nice shot to have as a first!

Thanks, Pete; coming from someone with your skills in these endeavours,
that is a real compliment! Decent seeing helped, but I am actually
disappointed not to have got more detail. I need to crack this
processing lark.

Not so skillful at capturing Mars Stephen. Why do you think I haven't
posted an image yet ;-)

Biggest problem I've had to date is image scale and an problem getting
up at the required time to see the damn thing. Pollen levels seem to
be very high down here this year. My eyes constantly feel like I've
missed several weeks of sleep. Strangely my brain seems to translate
this as me requiring more sleep

What eyepiece did you use?

25mm Ortho. It's a generic Japanese one, branded "Telescope House,
London" (i.e. BC&F). I like Orthos, especially for planetary.

I also tried with a 12.5mm Ortho (vignettes the field) and a x2 Barlow
but, although it looked like I could get more detail, the combo was not
satisfactory. I hadn't bothered with the anti-vibration pads when I set
up, but with the 12.5mm and the Barlow, and zoomed in (x3) for focusing,
I began to wonder if a tripod-mounted Vixen GP is an adequate mount for
a C5! (But then, I think you know how fussy I am about mounts g)

I use a 20mm Plossl and now a 20mm Lanthanum. I'm using a camera
adapter from my old Orion Europa 250, with the necessary step ring
glued (why did I do that?) to it.

The arrangement needs a large eyepiece objective (is that the correct
term for the lens closest to your eye?) to work properly. The 20mm
Lanthanum gives a lovely, almost full frame image of the Moon on full
zoom.

I have a nice 5mm Lanthanum too. However, this one has an extra lip
on the main eyepiece body so I can't use it at the moment.

Did you use the remote control software or via the viewfinder to focus?

Used the LCD (unlike yours, the C20** series does not have an electronic
viewfinder). I wasn't bothered about noise from the CCD with such short
exposures, but I shall definitely try the computer when I start trying
DSOs once the nights are a tad longer.

I found that computer software very disappointing and erratic in use.
I may try again. My last attempt was trying to set up a time-lapse
session for lightning photography. I couldn't get consistent
focussing from the arrangement at all. In fact most of the time I
couldn't get focus, via the computer!

Can your camera take movies? If so, Mars is probably bright enough to
capture as a MOV file. Converted the MOV to an AVI and send the AVI
through Registax. The results can be quite good.

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 05:11:07 +0100, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:

Hey that Oly is paying off - that's a nice shot to have as a first!

Thanks, Pete; coming from someone with your skills in these endeavours,
that is a real compliment! Decent seeing helped, but I am actually
disappointed not to have got more detail. I need to crack this
processing lark.

Not so skillful at capturing Mars Stephen. Why do you think I haven't
posted an image yet ;-)

Biggest problem I've had to date is image scale and an problem getting
up at the required time to see the damn thing. Pollen levels seem to
be very high down here this year. My eyes constantly feel like I've
missed several weeks of sleep. Strangely my brain seems to translate
this as me requiring more sleep

What eyepiece did you use?

25mm Ortho. It's a generic Japanese one, branded "Telescope House,
London" (i.e. BC&F). I like Orthos, especially for planetary.

I also tried with a 12.5mm Ortho (vignettes the field) and a x2 Barlow
but, although it looked like I could get more detail, the combo was not
satisfactory. I hadn't bothered with the anti-vibration pads when I set
up, but with the 12.5mm and the Barlow, and zoomed in (x3) for focusing,
I began to wonder if a tripod-mounted Vixen GP is an adequate mount for
a C5! (But then, I think you know how fussy I am about mounts g)

I use a 20mm Plossl and now a 20mm Lanthanum. I'm using a camera
adapter from my old Orion Europa 250, with the necessary step ring
glued (why did I do that?) to it.

The arrangement needs a large eyepiece objective (is that the correct
term for the lens closest to your eye?) to work properly. The 20mm
Lanthanum gives a lovely, almost full frame image of the Moon on full
zoom.

I have a nice 5mm Lanthanum too. However, this one has an extra lip
on the main eyepiece body so I can't use it at the moment.

Did you use the remote control software or via the viewfinder to focus?

Used the LCD (unlike yours, the C20** series does not have an electronic
viewfinder). I wasn't bothered about noise from the CCD with such short
exposures, but I shall definitely try the computer when I start trying
DSOs once the nights are a tad longer.

I found that computer software very disappointing and erratic in use.
I may try again. My last attempt was trying to set up a time-lapse
session for lightning photography. I couldn't get consistent
focussing from the arrangement at all. In fact most of the time I
couldn't get focus, via the computer!

Can your camera take movies? If so, Mars is probably bright enough to
capture as a MOV file. Converted the MOV to an AVI and send the AVI
through Registax. The results can be quite good.

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:58:27 +0100, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:

Location in sig. It's my back garden; on the North Downs; the
significant "big lights" are Canterbury, Ashford, Folkestone, Dover,
Deal... (Not that this is a problem for planetary. What I am ruing at
the moment is a complete failure to even attempt Uranus -- once I was on
Mars, I was hooked and forgot all about Herschel's planet!

I've just been involved in a rather heated debate on two photographic
newsgroups about whether photographers should stick with film or move
over to digital. One filmy asked for examples where digital could
benefit the photographer due to it's immediate feedback.

Well, of course astronomy is one of those areas. It also makes the
whole image capture process 'fun' and can lead to serious obsession -
you are beginning to show early signs already! g.

When I added this point to the discussion, I was told that my view
wasn't representative as we astronomers were in a minority group.

What's makes me smile is the number of photographer's sites around the
web that have the usual "nature, building, portraits, etc." areas and
"astro-photography".


--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:58:27 +0100, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:

Location in sig. It's my back garden; on the North Downs; the
significant "big lights" are Canterbury, Ashford, Folkestone, Dover,
Deal... (Not that this is a problem for planetary. What I am ruing at
the moment is a complete failure to even attempt Uranus -- once I was on
Mars, I was hooked and forgot all about Herschel's planet!

I've just been involved in a rather heated debate on two photographic
newsgroups about whether photographers should stick with film or move
over to digital. One filmy asked for examples where digital could
benefit the photographer due to it's immediate feedback.

Well, of course astronomy is one of those areas. It also makes the
whole image capture process 'fun' and can lead to serious obsession -
you are beginning to show early signs already! g.

When I added this point to the discussion, I was told that my view
wasn't representative as we astronomers were in a minority group.

What's makes me smile is the number of photographer's sites around the
web that have the usual "nature, building, portraits, etc." areas and
"astro-photography".


--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy

Pete Lawrence wrote:

I've just been involved in a rather heated debate on two photographic
newsgroups about whether photographers should stick with film or move
over to digital. One filmy asked for examples where digital could
benefit the photographer due to it's immediate feedback.

A friend of mine was a phtographer of paintings (he takes the photos
that become the posters, postcards and catalogue pictures) In about
1960 he started using a Polaroid back for his plate camera - cost a
fortune to buy and feed with film - but paid for itself every time
because it provided instant feedback. The photos were still emulsion
professional development type, but he'd test the setup with polaroid.
He reckons his skill increased by an order of magnitude with the
instant feedback. If he was still working, he'd have gone digital as
soon as it was feasible - but still be using good old emulsion for the
actual finished product.

Cheers

Martin

--------------
Martin Frey
N 51 02 E 0 47
--------------

Pete Lawrence wrote:

I've just been involved in a rather heated debate on two photographic
newsgroups about whether photographers should stick with film or move
over to digital. One filmy asked for examples where digital could
benefit the photographer due to it's immediate feedback.

A friend of mine was a phtographer of paintings (he takes the photos
that become the posters, postcards and catalogue pictures) In about
1960 he started using a Polaroid back for his plate camera - cost a
fortune to buy and feed with film - but paid for itself every time
because it provided instant feedback. The photos were still emulsion
professional development type, but he'd test the setup with polaroid.
He reckons his skill increased by an order of magnitude with the
instant feedback. If he was still working, he'd have gone digital as
soon as it was feasible - but still be using good old emulsion for the
actual finished product.

Cheers

Martin

--------------
Martin Frey
N 51 02 E 0 47
--------------

Pete Lawrence wrote:
[...]
Not so skillful at capturing Mars Stephen. Why do you think I haven't
posted an image yet ;-)

Leaving space for us mere mortals?


Biggest problem I've had to date is image scale and an problem getting
up at the required time to see the damn thing.

I've always been an erratic sleeper (other people worry about it; I
don't), and if I wake up, I look. If the seeing hadn't looked good, I'd
probably have just curled up with World Service.


Pollen levels seem to
be very high down here this year. My eyes constantly feel like I've
missed several weeks of sleep. Strangely my brain seems to translate
this as me requiring more sleep


I know what you mean! This is only my second year of hayfever -- after
more than half a century of immunity, why now?!?!?!?!?

[...]
The arrangement needs a large eyepiece objective (is that the correct
term for the lens closest to your eye?)

Eye lens. (The one at the other end is the "field lens")

to work properly.

I can get mine so that the camera lens touches the eye lens. I separate
them by a minuscule amount.

[...]
I found that computer software very disappointing and erratic in use.
I may try again. My last attempt was trying to set up a time-lapse
session for lightning photography. I couldn't get consistent
focussing from the arrangement at all. In fact most of the time I
couldn't get focus, via the computer!

I fix the camera focus to infinity, then focus the telescope. Must get a
motor focus. (Hint: I have a wanted ad for this on UK Astro Ads!)


Can your camera take movies?

No, but I'm thinking of upgrading (already) to one that does.


Best,
Stephen

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Pete Lawrence wrote:
[...]
Not so skillful at capturing Mars Stephen. Why do you think I haven't
posted an image yet ;-)

Leaving space for us mere mortals?


Biggest problem I've had to date is image scale and an problem getting
up at the required time to see the damn thing.

I've always been an erratic sleeper (other people worry about it; I
don't), and if I wake up, I look. If the seeing hadn't looked good, I'd
probably have just curled up with World Service.


Pollen levels seem to
be very high down here this year. My eyes constantly feel like I've
missed several weeks of sleep. Strangely my brain seems to translate
this as me requiring more sleep


I know what you mean! This is only my second year of hayfever -- after
more than half a century of immunity, why now?!?!?!?!?

[...]
The arrangement needs a large eyepiece objective (is that the correct
term for the lens closest to your eye?)

Eye lens. (The one at the other end is the "field lens")

to work properly.

I can get mine so that the camera lens touches the eye lens. I separate
them by a minuscule amount.

[...]
I found that computer software very disappointing and erratic in use.
I may try again. My last attempt was trying to set up a time-lapse
session for lightning photography. I couldn't get consistent
focussing from the arrangement at all. In fact most of the time I
couldn't get focus, via the computer!

I fix the camera focus to infinity, then focus the telescope. Must get a
motor focus. (Hint: I have a wanted ad for this on UK Astro Ads!)


Can your camera take movies?

No, but I'm thinking of upgrading (already) to one that does.


Best,
Stephen

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://www.astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:57:28 +0100, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:

The arrangement needs a large eyepiece objective (is that the correct
term for the lens closest to your eye?)

Eye lens. (The one at the other end is the "field lens")

Thanks - I must say that the anatomy of an eyepiece has always escaped
me.

I can get mine so that the camera lens touches the eye lens. I separate
them by a minuscule amount.

My lanthanum's eye lens is recessed in a fraction. There has to be a
small gap in my case.

I found that computer software very disappointing and erratic in use.
I may try again. My last attempt was trying to set up a time-lapse
session for lightning photography. I couldn't get consistent
focussing from the arrangement at all. In fact most of the time I
couldn't get focus, via the computer!

I fix the camera focus to infinity, then focus the telescope. Must get a
motor focus. (Hint: I have a wanted ad for this on UK Astro Ads!)

It may be that the software doesn't work properly with the C-2100uz.
It seemed to have real trouble even setting the focus to infinity.

Can your camera take movies?

No, but I'm thinking of upgrading (already) to one that does.

Oh dear ;-)

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
CCD/digicam astronomy