Page 1 of 1
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:02 am
by Montana
This is my best
220516_081515 by
Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
But mostly like this
180617_073020 by
Alexandra Hart, on Flickr
These are the best, 99% I through away as they are blurred after processing.
Alexandra
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:37 am
by Valery
Apollo,
Lunt CaK is 2,4A and the PST is 2.2A. I have compared the Lunt CaK 12mm diagonal and my PST CaK in the configuration I have now.
Lunt was better than PST CaK if the PST CaK was single stacked. I belive this was because the blocking filter of the PST was rusty. I stick with the PST hoping to change the bloking filter for baader K-line. This was not realized yet.
As far as I know, the PST CaK is 3 or 4 cavity filter. It works very good from F/7 to F/40 without noticeable degradation at F/7.
Same with the Lunt CaK filter.
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:19 pm
by christian viladrich
Here is an image taken a while ago with the Lunt Ca K filter:
This is quite a good Ca K filter. I use it with a 150 mm refractor and no ERF with no problem. But don't use it with a larger aperture and no ERF. A friend tested it with a 200 mm and the fiter got damaged ...
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:37 pm
by Valery
christian viladrich wrote: ↑Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:19 pm
Here is an image taken a while ago with the Lunt Ca K filter:
This is quite a good Ca K filter. I use it with a 150 mm refractor and no ERF with no problem. But don't use it with a larger aperture and no ERF. A friend tested it with a 200 mm and the fiter got damaged ...
Christian,
Thanks for the input.
BTW Did you ever perform the direct comparision of your Barr CaK and Lunt CaK filters?
Valery
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 5:50 pm
by marktownley
Spherical aberration is the key hindrance at these wavelengths.
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:17 pm
by christian viladrich
I also found out that old one taken with the Lunt CaK :
Valery, you made me check my data log :-)
In fact, I broke my Baader K-line filter (which I used at that time as an ERF for the Barr Ca K filter) when I had the Lunt Ca K for testing. So I have no direct comparison.
This being said, the difference between the Baar filter and the Lunt is clear when you compare the image I took with the Lunt on August 17 (in my previous message above) and the image taken one day earlier with the Barr filter :
Another point of interest is that the images with the Lunt and the Barr filters are taken with the some exposure time, while the image scale of the image with the Baar is much larger. This means that the transmission of the Barr filter is higher that the transmission of the Lunt.
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:40 pm
by p_zetner
Here are older images taken of the full disk, an AR closeup and proms (with inverted disk). All were taken with Lunt B1800. All except the full disk had the Lunt stacked with an Omega 2 Angstrom (nominally) filter. Possibly a contrast improvement ... not sure and didn't really carry out study with / without the Omega.
Cheers.
Peter
- full disk labels siz.png (2.27 MiB) Viewed 3432 times
- AR closeup labels siz.png (2.95 MiB) Viewed 3432 times
- prom inv disk labels siz.png (2.41 MiB) Viewed 3432 times
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:10 am
by christian viladrich
BTW, in adddition to the Lunt, the Daystar Ca H filter is another good Ca K filter.
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:18 am
by marktownley
TheSkyBurner wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:57 am
Peter has got an apo-triplet. that explains it! Super-apo telescopes are just in a league of their own for all wavelengths. I cant beat that high strehl ratio with out using my 150mm f15....
At 393 it's not about strehl it's about spherical aberration. That 115/7 (along with the TOAs) have very little SA down in the blue. High strehl is definitely not a indicator a scope will perform well deep down in the blue.
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:11 am
by christian viladrich
Hello Mark,
If I may, I would suggest rephrasing your statement as follows :
"the Strelh ratio at 436 nm (g band for the opticians) is not relevant to the performance of the refractor at 393 nm".
This is because the spherical aberration increases very fast when you go to shorter wavelengths.
Here is an example with the SC :
Because of the refractive index evolution with the wavelength, spherical aberration increases gently with longer wavelengths, and sharply will shorter wavelengthx.
Indeed, the Strehl ratio includes all aberrations of the optics. Accordingly, The Strelh ratio at 393 nm is fully relevant to the performance of the optic at 393 nm. The optics is diffraction limited when the Strelh is greater than 0.8.
Best regards
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:43 pm
by Valery
This image is at 393nm continuum taken with a standard C11 280mm F/10 telescope.
download/file.php?id=34233
The image is quite crisp.
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:47 pm
by marktownley
christian viladrich wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 9:11 am
Hello Mark,
If I may, I would suggest rephrasing your statement as follows :
"the Strelh ratio at 436 nm (g band for the opticians) is not relevant to the performance of the refractor at 393 nm".
This is because the spherical aberration increases very fast when you go to shorter wavelengths.
Here is an example with the SC :
Because of the refractive index evolution with the wavelength, spherical aberration increases gently with longer wavelengths, and sharply will shorter wavelengthx.
Indeed, the Strehl ratio includes all aberrations of the optics. Accordingly, The Strelh ratio at 393 nm is fully relevant to the performance of the optic at 393 nm. The optics is diffraction limited when the Strelh is greater than 0.8.
Best regards
Fair point Christian, that says it better than I put it.
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:28 pm
by marktownley
Valery wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:43 pm
This image is at 393nm continuum taken with a standard C11 280mm F/10 telescope.
download/file.php?id=34233
The image is quite crisp.
Hi Valery,
Is the c11 one that you selected from a number over time, or this the only one you've had?
Mark
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 6:03 pm
by Valery
marktownley wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 5:28 pm
Valery wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:43 pm
This image is at 393nm continuum taken with a standard C11 280mm F/10 telescope.
download/file.php?id=34233
The image is quite crisp.
Hi Valery,
Is the c11 one that you selected from a number over time, or this the only one you've had?
Mark
This is the very same C11 telescope I started the high res imaging with. It has very average optics. I'd better have
a telescope with somewhat smoother optics.
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:41 pm
by Valery
TheSkyBurner wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 7:36 pm
Valery wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:43 pm
This image is at 393nm continuum taken with a standard C11 280mm F/10 telescope.
download/file.php?id=34233
The image is quite crisp.
Valery: it is a good image, but it is not entirely "crisp". It is very blurry to my eyes, and it is over processed to bring out the details. Processing is a personal ability, and not a good indication of how well the scope is. It is a factor of lucky imaging.
You would get a better image if the optics were turned in favor of the blue wavelength, your hydrogen alpha image is the proof in the pudding. It is so much sharper, and has pure definition across all the whole-image. Which means the optics on the c11 are definitely made for h-alpha more than calcium. (as they should be, it is a deep space imaging scope)
If you could post the single frame data or a 10 frame raw data animation we can conclude the sharpness with better opinion of the sct optics.
http://gifmaker.org/ (just extract 10 frames from the .avi file using avidub and upload them to gifmaker)
Post 10 frames of h-alpha raw, and 10 frames of calcium raw (unedited, unprocessed, screen grabbed straight from the .ser capture.)
Again, the image is great. But, there are definitely better optics out there for this color, like peters. We all work with what we have.
However I would trade the c11 for the apo triplet every day of the week,. (sacrificing the aperture for the strehl)
Valery: if i could give you my 150mm f/15 telescope, i would. You would likely use many times over the c11 and c14. Sometimes more aperture is not always the best choice, but of course; aperture IS king!
Christian your images are going to be very helpful! Thanks for posting.
This image is nearly as 1,6x larger scale than the H-a image, Apollo. Resolution corresponds to 11" aperture at this wave length. High is not possible. Corrective optics has been used. Remember for the future: Valery is optical designer and systems and optics maker in a past and I know something in optics...
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:45 am
by marktownley
I thought this scope was a good example of how strehl varies with wavelength - the apm 152/7.8 doublet
https://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/telesc ... 9-ota.html At either end of the spectrum the strehl plummets away
- Strehlkurve.jpg (133.05 KiB) Viewed 3223 times
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:14 am
by MapleRidge
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:43 am
by george9
Nice. Makes me look forward to the next maximum, assuming we have one. George
Re: Lunt calcium filter imaging thread
Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:51 pm
by MapleRidge
It is too bad that some places on earth suffer from the pollution as shown in the pic posted for the 'televised sunrise'. I suspect that unless there is major change in thinking these places will continue to degrade. I only hope that clearer minds will continue to push efforts to preserve the environment for generations that have not been born yet.
Brian