5.76
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I inquired today, and heard from Josh at ASG that as of today they have a bolt-to version of the plate for the EFW, cost a bit extra, but seems (to me at least) a better idea. So I have one on order. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
Linwood Ferguson:Very interesting reading. My Stellarvue + the ASI6200 still seems fine some now many months after flattening with NINA. I do not breathe on the system, but if I have to flatten again looks like the Octopus is winning the horse race? |
|
5.76
#...
·
|
|---|
Ron Kramer: Another possibility is he called interested in buying, did not like the answers, and that made him decide to build his own. I have no idea. I am a bit torn on this idea of it being a copy. There are a lot of functional things in this business, such as flats panels, NUC(like) systems, even cameras (all using the same sensor with different packaging), that are arguably one vendor copying another. Does anyone ask who did the IMX455 first? Though I admit this as painted was a bit egregious. But only from one side. I didn't get a lot of difference info here, so posted the same question on CN. I got a dump of emails first, then a couple of edits later a bit of explanation indicating it was proof it was a copy. It was not helpful, more to the point it was not responsive to my question - it would have been nice to include his thoughts on how Octopi was superior or different. Instead it said there was a V2 coming "for refractors" with zero information. OTOH I asked ASG about an aspect that concerned me, got a quick answer that it was addressed and a decent CAD drawing of the solution. I can see how people might want to "cancel" someone based on a perceived wrongdoing, but I think it pays to be sure. I still don't know, so I judge only on what I can see - info on the web sites, and responses. I decided on features, not the back story. I'll know more in a few weeks how that works out. |
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| The market will decide—as usual. |
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Jason Cropper: Unfortunately the market deciding is rarely in favor of what's just. >>> it would have been nice to include his thoughts on how Octopi was superior or different. Unfortunately again, as that would paint another publicly stated roadmap for competitors to copy additional features there's no easy answer here. |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I used Hocus Focus recently with my W.O.FLT 100 refractor and ZWO ASI 2600 camera. Fixing the backfocus distance made all the difference. |
|
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Brian Valente:Jason Cropper: It’s not up to us to decide if it’s just. Our opinions matter not. If it is unjust then the laws protecting patents, copyrights, or trademarks can be enforced. I am an astrophotographer. I want a flat image. Rumor and speculation about competitor’s intents do not matter to me, and that is what has been unfortunately stated here in this thread—-rumor and speculation. |
|
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Jason Cropper: *It does matter what you decide, that's what it means when you say "the market will decide", but i would agree with you in that we as consumers are not in a position to really know what's just or not. hence my comment. it's a version of "i'm an astrophotographer, not a lawyer" If you've ever brought a product to market you know patents and lawyers are only protections for the largest companies who have lawyers on staff and huge budgets. Even then they are copied mercilessly. Look at Apple. Companies that do copy/counterfeit (not saying anything about this specific situation) can charge less because they don't have to invest in R&D. the expense is not the final product, it's the 999 other ones that didn't work right. |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Speaking of tilt and backspacing, the 700$ solutions are sure fancy, but if you want to save money and are willing to pay in time https://www.etsy.com/listing/1278396206/astrodymium-fine-tuning-spacer-rings-for https://www.etsy.com/listing/1214492351/astrodymium-rotating-tilt-adjusters-for The first one is for spacing, and quite good. However for tilt stuff it requires a few minutes of back and forth to get it just right esp since it also alters backfocus |
3.58
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Speaking of tilt and backspacing, the 700$ solutions are sure fancy, but if you want to save money and are willing to pay in time I think those would work for slower systems where a change as little as 0.4mm wouldn't make a huge correction in spacing or tilt. For those who are imaging with fast scopes (like the Epsilon), you definitely need something like the Photon Cage or Octopi. When imaging with a fast system, a change of microns can make a huge difference in backspacing or tilt. |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi everyone, Just a quick endorsement for the Octopi tilt and backspace adjuster. Yes documentation is not the best but the support is great. What I really like about the device is that it has four adjustment screws not 3. So for my QHY600M rectangular sensor I just align each corner with one screw. I used NINA Hocus Focus Aberration inspector and within 30 mins had my tilt down to one micron on the FSQ106. I then rotated the sensor (Moonlite Nitecrawler) through 360 degrees measuring every 90 degrees. The worse it got to was 3.5 microns at a 45 degree tilt. The FSQ106 doesn’t need back spacing adjustment so I just locked it all down with the four side screws. It has made an measurable improvement on my stars and images. Worth every cent. I’ll be putting a 0.72 reducer on over the summer (Southern Hemisphere) at 2 x Bin to help with the curvature so using the Octopi adjuster will be great to help the tilt at the faster speed. Matt |
20.43
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Speaking of tilt and backspacing, the 700$ solutions are sure fancy, but if you want to save money and are willing to pay in time It really depends on your gear. Printed spacer rings are not good when your system requires precision. I've measured all sorts of printed rings with a micrometer and the variance can be 50 to 80 microns in thickness. With the optical systems I'm working with (Epsilon and IMX455) I am making spacing and tilt adjustments of 30 microns or less. If you need spacers Blue Fireball and Baader make machined rings which are not much more expensive than the printed rings and my micrometer endorses them. The tilt shim you linked to is a pretty crude device. I really like the concept though. In theory if you could get one that allowed finer adjustments and more precision in the product it would be very usable even with fast systems. 3D printed stuff is not very good for fine tuning, even if you have forever and a day to spend on it. Its just too crude. If you want to shim with something on the cheap, just use aluminum foil. It will get you the precision you need... just takes time. |
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
Speaking of tilt and backspacing, the 700$ solutions are sure fancy, but if you want to save money and are willing to pay in time These can be fine for very slow systems, when you are using very large pixels that aren't as sensitive to tilt or backfocus issues. For faster systems especially those using very small pixels those will not be precise enough. |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
Linwood Ferguson:Ron Kramer: I didn't feel it was a copy when I saw the final product. For my the biggest drawback is that it doesn't replace the Rasa threaded ring problems. The biggest pro is that it appears easy to measure for a starting point. I mean Baader was working on their tilt adapter before I talked to Keith and theirs again is original. They were nice enough after we talked to often about the problem to send me a free beta... but my review back wasn't stellar and I ended up giving it away. Ron Kramer: |
|
20.43
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
|
Hello everyone: I have updated the article on tilt and spacing. PDF at the bottom. ***Version 2*** -Updated analysis in Part 1 to use current version Hocus Focus screenshots as well as analysis from a different telescope that more easily shows tilt issues. -Added a new section (Part V) to discuss decentered sensors and the impact on tilt analysis. (The old Part V, is now Part VI.) Let me know if you have any questions. -Chris 2023-04-29 (2nd Revision) A guide to fixing tilt and spacing with objective analysis- Chris White.pdf |
|
20.43
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| Apologies folks, I forgot to update the tilt device descriptions. I have uploaded a "fixed" version. See the previous post for the download. |
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thank you for writing this up - I have been scouring the internet for a guide as detailed as this. Will give it a try! Mike |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Has anyone here seen differences between Hocus Focus, ASTAP, CCDi, and FWHMEccentricity?? I am getting results from Hocus Focus on my FSQ106EDX4 with ASI6200MM that I am within 2 microns all the way around the four corners and the center is within single digits. I take the same sub to ASTAP and it shows 12% tilt to the Top and Bottom Right side. Also, CCDi shows .7% tilt in the same location and direction as ASTAP. FWHMEccentricity shows a slight tilt in agreement with ASTAP and CCDi. Why the differences?? It has been recommended to take a longer exposure for the HF routine. Any ideas?? Thanks |
|
5.76
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Yes and no. I've found that if I can get a really good, dense star field in HF then ASTAP also agrees. FWHMEccentricity generally follows ASTAP. My largest issue is with long focal lengths and getting a dense star field that can provide a lot of stars in all corners. HF really needs a lot of stars in all corners to work well, though it works and does not complain with just a few, it just seems inconsistent with few. |
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I have to give credit to this long running thread for pushing me to do what I was reluctant to do: admit that I wasn't going to solve my RASA 8 tilt problems via careful attention to my back focus. I had already tried the "miracle" filter drawers from Artesky and Starizona, and found I still had bad issues. I believe it was none other than "Bug bit" himself who, exasperated with my rantings, showed me a depiction of the APS-C sensor on my nice ASI2600 and how all 4 corners of the sensor stuck out from the RASA 8 image circle! Wow, seeing was believing! So I purchased an expensive downgrade camera, the ASI294. And it improved things! Just not a lot. I still had bad tilt. Curses! So then I jumped even further off the deep end, I said to heck with it and I purchased a Tak E160! Overkill! Ha, I am much enjoying the TAK and it's just a superior machine which affords me a EFW and works great with my ASI2600s. But the RASA tilt issue stuck in my craw. I did what I previously didn't think should be necessary and I purchased the Photon Cage for my ASI294. With little confidence in my dark driveway screw twisting, I had to wade in. I am NOT at my best after 9pm in my driveway twisting the small screws, often twisting the wrong one the wrong way. And I had to learn NINA from scratch, which is not as user friendly as was the ASIAir Pro. But after 2 nights of going from my indoor monitor screen to the scope with the small drivers in hand, back and forth, I think I got some better results. My initial "needed adjustment steps" were above 350. Does anyone have the depiction of the APS-C sensor shown over the RASA 8 image circle? I would like to see it again. I might have had an easier time than some people using a corrector because I was using the more RASA 8 friendly ASI294.  |
5.01
#...
·
|
|---|
That's a great article Chris. Thanks for sharing it. I come from FSQ refractors... and now grabbed a 13028HNT, fast newtonian, so I'm dealing with all kind of challenges I never experienced before with the high end refractors  Many thanks for sharing. Regards, Aleix Roig |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| i think that The NINA instructions regarding the distance to the board work for reflectors, so I think they will also work for other types of telescopes. |
|
20.43
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Aleix Roig: Good luck! I'm field testing a motorized tilt device from ASG on a tak epsilon, which is really cool. The future of tilt correction for these hyper fast systems! Of course, blurX is very capable as well, but I'm still of the belief that the better the data to start with, the better the final result. |
|
11.02
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Chris White- Overcast Observatory: I think a good experiment could be done to determine the point at which further hairloss inducing tilt work has greatly diminished to near zero difference on the final image than using BXT2. While there is definitely good reason to correct egregious tilt errors there will be a point where getting that last few bits loses it's value. That's not to say that perfection in the field isn't ideal. From a challenge standpoint that can certainly be rewarding for those that seek the summit of that mountain. I just see the corrective capability of BXT2 leading the long term charge of what the majority of imagers will deem good enough to just fix in post with the software. Bill |
|
20.43
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography:Chris White- Overcast Observatory: Yep, but a lot of images are looking fake now that there is a heavy handed application of tools like blurx and noiseX, etc... That will become the norm i fear. Instagram has ruined our perception of beauty now that everything we see is oversaturated and altered by mood enhancing filters. So, rely too much on post processing and the end result shows it. Over-detailed, over noise reduced, over saturatee, over processed... as you say, there is a point where it is good enough after all and that's true. Thankfully, the only person I need to impress is myself. That allows me to have my own goals and choose my path to achieve them. Among those goals, is a perectly flat and corrected field out of the camera. YMMV.  |
