0.00
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I'm a new user of the starizona apex reducer 0.65x. Thus is advertised as a reducer/flattener I believe. Although I am still trying to tune delicately with shim spacers etc and have recently got reasonable results with it like with  Rosette nebula Here the rosette nebula with modest amounts of data. I still wouldn't say it is doing a great job of flat fielding. My esprit 120 native with no flattener gets better flat native results but of course at f7. With flats taken I am able to process an image like the above rosette but I do think "are these companies allowed to call their reducer a flattener when it doesn't"? Especially when I believe starizona say its a design built for the esprit range?? 🤔 From other users I have witnessed in vlogs and online forums, say they haven't managed ideal flat fielding.. Please all chip in and share your experiences with reducers and apex reducers for the esprits!! |
9.48
#...
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
My results with the Esprit 100 + Apex 0.65x reducer have been similar to yours, and I have only a 16 mm sensor diagonal on my camera. I didn't get perfect stars in the corners so far. However, many excellent images on Astrobin taken with highly regarded equipment don't actually have perfect stars in the corners if you look a little more closely. I see that your image still got a Top Pick nomination, so somebody liked it a lot. I have enjoyed using the reducer the past few months, and I have mostly imaged targets that can withstand a little bit of cropping around the edges. I am actually a little more bothered by my lack of ability to get good flats when the reducer is in place; I always have to flatten the background again during processing. The field of view is still much larger than it would be without the reducer, and I get 2.5x as many subs for the same integration time, so I am happy with it overall. When traveling to a dark site, the extra subs really help. |
1.81
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I think your image looks great! keep playing around with the backfocus and try your best to get it close. If this is the best that you can get then no worries because it looks great! |
|
0.00
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thankyou for your informative reply. And for letting me know someone nominated as top pick! I didn't know. You spoke about not getting your image flat even when using flats and this was instant de ja vu to me! If you're using a cmos camera. Take long flats and flat darks (with matching exposure times obviously) As 1 Second or less isn't good enough as the electronic signature were trying to get an average of changes radically with each exposure. Longer 3 second + exposures gives a more accurate measure. This way your calibrated master flat will correct your integrated image MUCH better! I recently did this to find a VAST improved calibrated integration! I discussed on my vlog YouTube channel "Wayne's cave" thus very subject and my findings/results if you may find useful. Unless of course this is old news to your ears and ignore my every word! 😂 All the best Wayne |
|
9.48
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Yes, the little gold arrow on your image means it was nominated as Top Pick. I am actually using a CCD camera, and I get good flats with my C11 Edge and with the Esprit at f/5. With the Apex reducer, I get dark corners in my images, as well as a slightly darker, horizontal bar across the top edge of the sensor, which covers about 15% of the sensor on one side only. I really can't explain the horizontal bar! I can process out these aberrations, but it would be better if I did not need to. I will experiment with the length of my flats. It might just work, so thanks for the tip! |
|
0.00
#... |
|---|
Yes, the little gold arrow on your image means it was nominated as Top Pick. |
