6.02
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Hi all, I now have 3 setups running which I usually use for different targets. Now I bought an Explore Scientific 127ED APO f/7.5 CF HEX and with the 0,7x reducer, I will get about 666mm focal length. I also own a TS APO 115 F/7 with a TS 0,79x reducer. With this setup, I will get about 635mm focal length. I use a ZWO 294MM Pro on one setup and a QHY 294M on the other. So they both use the same sensor. That means, i will get about the same image from both scopes. My idea is, to use both scopes on the same target to save some time and collect twice as much data which may help to finish projects faster. My question now is, if there are any drawbacks of doing so. I assume, combining data from different setups may be possible, because there are a lot of team projects ot there. Could you please share some experiences with me. This would be very kind. Thank you Christian |
8.83
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I've been combining data from multiple setups for years. There are no drawbacks as long as the pixel scale of the systems in question are similar which in your case they are. I use APP for my stacking and it has some very good functionality for combining data from different systems. |
9.35
#...
·
|
|---|
| Like Reg said, pixel scale is the most important. Something else to consider is the bandpass of your filters though, are they the same as well? I run dual scopes together, but that's because they're identical setups. |
3.01
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| PixInsight star alignment can do this even with different pixel scale, it will adjust as necessary to the reference frame pixel scale. |
|
8.83
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Byron Miller: So will APP. |
|
9.35
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Byron Miller: The point of keeping pixel scales similar has nothing to do with if pix can stack it. There is simply no benefit from mixing greatly different pixel scales. The bigger scope will always win. |
|
3.01
#...
·
|
|---|
Brian Puhl:Byron Miller: In PixInsight, the reference scale will "win". |
|
3.01
#...
·
|
|---|
Reg Pratt:Byron Miller: Is APP still supported? I've seen a lot of people wondering if the developers are still around. |
|
8.83
#...
·
|
|---|
Byron Miller:Reg Pratt:Byron Miller: From what I've read one of the devs is ill and the other is trying his best by himself rn. But APP is already fully functional, quite powerful, and I personally prefer it over WBPP and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to others. |
|
6.02
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Thank you all for your answers. That's nice to hear. I have different filters in my filter wheels, but the bandwidth is in both cases 6nm (maybe 6.5?). I plan to upgrade my optolong filterset I use in one setup to Astronomiks. I really like those ones and then I have two sets of the same brand. But it is quite an investment and I hope I may get descent results even with two different sets. I rearely take LRGB images, because we have clear nights mostly around full moon. At least it feels that way. Anyway, with the two setups, I could use the moonless clear nights to collect twice as much LRGB data as usual. It even helps with collecting OIII data. Of course it is cloudy now, but I can't wait to try the first image. CS Christian |
 #...
·
|
|---|
| I combine data from my two Newts, F4 and F5 pretty routinely. In Pixinsight it's no problem registering the data from one scope versus an image from another - and thereby shifting the image scale. I now have two mounts and, like you, have long thought that it would be a good idea to run both simultaneously on those all too rare goos nights. Trouble is that one Newt can be difficult to get right and so far I just haven't been organised enough to manage all the set up and cabling etc for both. Tim. |
