In preparation for the Iowa Star Party I'm doing a some imaging housekeeping. The guider needs a fresh calibration and the filter offsets need a good redoing. More complicated are the changes needed for a basic imaging sequence using the Samyang lens. Because rotating the camera/lens requires the EAF belt to be disengaged and then re-engaged, one needs to put some breaks into the sequence to make opportunities for working with the belt. Here's what I'm setting up for the Iowa party.

The following instructions are for the NINA advanced sequencer. If you're not using that, you really should be! Also note that this is specific to a short focal length system for which you intend shoot RGB suitable for drizzle processing.

• NINA's Advanced Sequencer (If you are not, you should be)
• Your EAF position is zero when the lens focus is at the infinity stop

All good? Great. Here's what you need to do if you plan to orient the imagining camera while it sits in an Astrodymium cradle. It's a little complicated by the need to disengage the EAF belt while turning the lens.

Rotating the lens requires that you add two Message Box (MB) instructions to the sequence. The MB instruction is found in the Utility section. Obviously, if you don't care about the camera orientation, you can just skip the following.

If you're doing a Slew, Center, and Rotate (SCR) and have connected the Manual Rotator to NINA, place one MB just before the SCR command and another just after it. When the sequence reaches the first one, it will stop. You should then disengage the belt from the lens, being careful to not disturb the focus. Then click away the Message Box. NINA will slew, center, and tell you the amount and direction to rotate the lens. Do this until NINA is happy. It may also do some additional centering, but eventually it will reach the second MB and stop. Re-engage the focus belt. Verify that focus is good enough for autofocusing, and click away the second MB. The sequence will now resume normal operation.

If you're using Slew and Center (SC) and simply eyeballing the orientation, just use one MB immediately after the SC instruction and a second SC right after that*. When sequencer get to the MB, Disengage the EAF belt and manually orient the camera using snapshots. When the orientation is correct, re-engage the belt, check focus, and click away the MB.

*The second SC is needed to insure the target is at frame center; it acts as the post-rotation recentering performed by SCR but not by SC.

----------------------------------------------

I still wasn't happy with the tilt I was seeing, and I wondered if maybe it was coming from the way I had the camera attached to the Samyang -- that partially attached 5 mm spacer seemed iffy. I sent a note to Nic at ThinkableCreations asking if he had some advice about how to remove about 2 mm from the M42 threads on the adapter he sells. He didn't, but he expressed some concerns about the shorter thread length not providing a solid connection. I thought that would not be a problem and went ahead with my plan to sand off the end of the threads.

I used 600 Ultrafine "Wetordry" sandpaper from 3M for a while and made little progress, so I switched to 400 and it went nicely. Eventually I was able to attach my 7.5 mm spacer to the Thinkable adapter, giving me 45.5 mm of backfocus, close enough to the 45.0 desired.

Sounds good, but the reality was that this change once again made the lens unable to focus infinity.

Swapping off the 7.5 mm spacer for a 5 mm, back focus was now 43 mm and focus was restored at a EAF position of about 3200. Still bad tilt, possibly because I didn't sand the Thinkable adapter down far enough. I added two spacer shims to bring the back focus up to 44 mm. The focus position was now around 2300. One last tilt tilt-correcting shim took it up to 44.2 mm and an EAF position of 1400. Possibly I'll add another thin spacer in Iowa.

Evidently the ability of a lens to reach focus depends strongly on backfocus, something I didn't know. 

EAF position (vertical axis) vs. Backfocus (horizontal axis, mm)

(The zero position in the diagram corresponds to the maximum lens movement in the direction of infinity focus. The negative position at 45.5 mm is a guesstimate.)

----------------------------------------------

Anyway, here I am a few days away from the Iowa Star Party and I'm going to shove my perfectionist nature to the curb and settle for "good enough." I'm going to rely on BlurXTerminator to handle aberration and tilt issues.

Here's an idea of what the lens can do. This is about a 16th of the full image area, unscaled. M31 straddles the right edge of the image. This is a single 20 second frame of luminance; click to see it at 1:1 scale.

Getting The Samyang Setup Ready For Imaging

[This is Part 2 of 2 about my new Samyang 135mm f/2 lens imaging system]

What is the Samyang Setup? 

It's the same setup I use for imaging with the FSQ-106 -- with a few changes. Obviously the imaging scope is now the Samyang lens and the Pegasus FocusCube 3 is swapped out for a ZWO EAFN. The connecting hardware between the lens and my imaging camera (ASI 2600MM) is different as well because of backfocus needs.

Questions to Answer

Is the lens optically sound?  Can it provide focus at infinity? Does it have significant aberration? Will it work well at f/2, or does it need to be stopped down to f/2.4, f/2.8, or f/4? Do the lens adapters introduce significant tilt?

Does autofocus work well?

How much can I reduce the time it takes to make a single dither?

Given the cloudy nights typical at this time of year it will take a while to get things sorted out. Because it only requires stars to do this I can stay in my back yard; dark sky is not necessary.

Night One (10 September)

The lens would not focus at infinity.  This meant autofocusing and image quality assessment were off the agenda. 

What did work was tracking. Plate solving was 100% despite the stars being somewhat out of focus.  I was able to slew and center without any issues. 

Clouds came in before I could look into dithering -- or anything else, for that matter.

--------

A letter to the M42 adapter person  at Thinkable Creations got a fast reply that pointed me to this video that shows how to remove the focus travel stop. This was an easy fix and with the stop removed the lens should be able to focus stars. 

--------

Night Two (22 September; summer is over!)

Really, it was almost two weeks between clear nights that I could use! Worst Summer Ever: clouds, smoke aloft, smoke at ground level with air quality alerts, rain, and the abundance of mosquitoes that the rains produced. Onward to Autumn!

First business: star focus. I set the EAF zero position at the full out focus, and infinity focus is near  position 750. Park position will be a little larger than the backlash.

I used a standard methodology* for getting autofocus configured.  

1. Manually** find a very good focus. 
2. Change position** gradually until you see greater than 50% growth in star size. Set step size to the amount of position change.
3. Run autofocus and see if the ratio of defocused:focused HFR is about 3:1 to 4:1; estimate how much backlash is in the system and enter that in the OUT field of NINA's autofocuser settings. Backlash will appear as unchanging HFR in the first few measurements. The change in position from the first measurement to the last one at the same HFR is the amount of backlash.
4. Run autofocus again and adjust step size and backlash accordingly until a decent hyperbola emerges
5. Repeat Step 4 until HFR ratio is about 3:1 to 4:1 and hyperbolic quality is close to 1.00
6. (optional) Reduce number of autofocus points and run autofocus to confirm it still works well 

*This is described by another fine Patriot Astro video starting at the 16:29 point, where the process is used with a ZWO EAF.

**My suggestion is to start at focuser position zero (the new "infinity" stop, or close to it) and move to best focus. Stop at a good focus and don't try for perfection; don't decrease the focus position at any time while hunting for focus. Then continue increasing the position while determining the step size. If you happen to pass through a better focus, note its position and measure step size from it. This insures that backlash does not factor into step size.

I did get AF to work reasonably well, with a focus step of 100 and backlash also at 100. However, this was with NINA's built-in AF, not Hocus Focus, so for Night 3 I'm going back with Hocus Focus

Sample frames were also collected at f/2.0, f2.4, f/2.8, f/3.3, and f/4.0. 

This gives me hope that I can image at f/2.0. Night 3 will be tuning Hocus Focus for better focusing and seeing if I need to adjust backfocus. If this works out Night 4 might be trying to create an actual RGB image!

------------------------------

Loading the sample frames into ASTAP suggests dreadfully large tilt: 42% at f/2.0, and 16% (barely tolerable) at f/4.0. Here is are the diagrams of interest at f/2.0:

f/2.0 Tilt Original

This indicates a strong bottom to top tilt.

f/2.0 Aberration Inspector Original

The bottom row has badly elongated stars, but the top row isn't too bad at all. I think the tilt adds elongation in the bottom row while essentially nulling it out the top row. If I could selectively remove the tilt I'd probably have a better idea of the aberration due to backfocus error and  could possibly fix it mechanically.  

Toward that end I've ordered some very thin 3D-printed tilt shims. (Hardware doesn't permit me to use the tilt plate that came with the camera). Correcting some of the tilt might help with focus and other star-diameter calculations. An alternative it to use software to correct both tilt and any other aberrations simultaneously. The software of choice for doing this is BlurXTerminator (BXT).

Applying BXT (using its default settings) gives me this:

f/2.0 Tilt after BXT

f/2.0 Aberration Inspector after BXT

Quite an amazing improvement, isn't it? Tilt has essentially vanished and corner stars are much rounder.

Night Three (23 September)

Hocus focus worked well with the existing values of backlash and step size. I did bump backlash upward a little to 150 after looking at a few runs. With HF running the hyperbolic fits were much better and the luminance focal position seemed more consistent.

I ran the filter compensation calculator with mixed results. Red and green were basically parfocal with luminance, but blue was quite offset. This might be because I need to adjust exposure times? I'll repeat this.

Night Four (25 September)

This time the best focus (smallest NINA HFR) determined manually was at focuser position 735. Blue best focus came at 835, so the offset was +100. This is essentially the same as the software-determined +93. 

I took a baseline R-G-B-Dither 10 times; the target was M52. My main goal is to get a baseline for how long it takes to gather this data. It appears that a simple 60 s frame consumes about 70.4 s; a frame followed by a dither uses 101.4 s. Ignoring autofocusing, this means a single RGBD(ither) sequences uses about 242.2 s to collect 180 s of data. Roughly speaking, multiply the total exposure time by 4/3 to get the actual acquisition time. It's pretty much the same as if I was shooting LRGB.

An "adequate" data set of 40 frames per channel, suitable for drizzling, means 2 hours of data. This means acquisition time will be about 2.7 hours, plus some for refocusing. This isn't half bad, and might be bettered by adjusting settling times and optimizing the filter order.

Anyway, here is the first light image for the lens:

M52 at center

This is surprisingly good, at least to me. I'm under a Bortle 7 sky and not using filters of any kind. The ability of PixInsight to remove light pollution boggles me, and how well BlurXTerminator reduces aberrations is equally amazing. At f/2.0 the lens has considerable chromatic aberration:

CA in corner star

This star elongation is almost all chromatic aberration, and amounts to about 4 pixels between blue and red. Because BXT is able to correct this I'm going to go with f/2.0 for my first "real" image. If that doesn't turn out well I may move to f/2.8.

Questions Answered?

Is the lens optically sound?  Can it provide focus at infinity? Yes, after a little surgery. Does it have significant aberration? Yes, but it appears to be correctable using BlurXTerminator. Will it work well at f/2, or does it need to be stopped down to f/2.4, f/2.8, or f/4? It's adequate at f/2.0, but might be better at f/2.8. Do the lens adapters introduce significant tilt? I suspect this is the source of the tilt I'm seeing, but I need to look closer at this issue. Maybe the shims I ordered will be the remedy, or I may revert to using a Canon to M42 adapter to see how that works.

Does autofocus work well? It seems to work well enough.

How much can I reduce the time it takes to make a single dither? I still need to play with the dither settings and find out.

------------------------

That's the last of the prep nights!  Next I'm going to try to resolve an issue I've had while using two ZWO cameras (one for imaging, one for guiding) at the same time; this was a problem that first popped up while at a remote dark-sky site in which the two cameras switched roles. Using the ASI2600 as the guide camera really does not work.

Another issue I need to explore is why it takes NINA so long to connect to my Losmandy Gemini 2, why it throws an error at first and then makes a good connection. Strange!

The Samyang 135mm f/2 Lens; Setting It Up and How to Use It

[This is Part 1 of 2 about my new Samyang 135mm f/2 lens imaging system]

Assembling the System

My Samyang 135 mm f/2 imaging system comprises the Canon version of the lens,  a ZWO EAFN, the M42 adapter from Thinkable Creations, and finally the Astrodymium rings. 

The rings (made in Canada) were held up by the changing import rules and regulations about tariffs and fees because I had ordered them from the manufacturer in Canada. The seller was scrambling to sort out what it all meant for any delivery issues and added fees, and was good enough to contact me about what was going on and suggest I cancel the order and buy it from Agena Astro.  Which is what I ended up doing.

The Astrodymium rings/cradle went together like clockwork. I managed to take a couple of missteps by not following the directions and paying attention to the animations in the instructions. I don't use ASIAIR and probably never will, so instead I got a second accessory rail instead. I know when one is accustomed to machined aluminum for tube rings and dovetails the 3D-printed plastic parts may seem a little suspect, but when assembled the entire thing is quite rigid. I don't expect to see any flexure at all.

Through no fault of Thinkable Creations the install of their adapter was more difficult than anticipated. Installing it involves first removing a plate on the Samyang that interfaces with a Canon DSLR and then detaching a spacer ring that's held in place by four tiny screws. The plate came off easily, but two of the spacer ring screws were crazy tight and it took some time (plus a little penetrating oil and elbow grease) to get them out. Other than that the install went well. 

One thing about this adapter that prospective buyers should know: the M42 threads are very long. When I screwed it onto my ZWO EFW it came within a mm of the filter carousel. This seemed dangerous; I imagined it snagging on the carousel and possibly damaging the EFW and filters. 

But fortunately it all worked out. The required backfocus when used with filters is 45 mm. With the adapter in place I have 12.5 (camera) + 20 (EFW) + 5.5 (adapter) for a backfocus of 38 mm. My plan was to add a 7.5 M42 spacer ring to bring it up to 45.5, which I should have been close enough to the magic number of 45.0. Unfortunately those long threads wouldn't allow the ring to fully screw onto the adapter, and instead of 7.5 mm it added 9.5 mm. That put backfocus at 47.5, much too long. Luckily, I had a 5 mm spacer ring on hand. When it screwed on as far as possible there was a gap between it and the adapter face of about 2 mm. This effectively made the adapter's back focus 7.5 mm. Plus the spacer ring's threads don't intrude into the EFW anywhere near as far as the adapter. So if you intend to use the adapter, buy a 5 mm spacer ring, too. The diagram below illustrates how the backfocus works.

Backfocus for ASI 2600 minus tilt ring (red),
ZWO EFW (blue), 5mm spacer (green), and M42 adapter (black);
Diagram is not to scale!

The only thing I didn't get (but should have) in the initial round of orders was a short (150 mm) Vixen-style dovetail, but that's on order and will arrive about the time this is posted. The short length allows the camera/EFW to have full rotation and lets me do flats by resting the light atop the lens shroud.

Imaging at a focal length of 135 mm

Undersampling

Imaging with the Samyang 135 mm f/2 lens is going to be different from my usual imaging mainly because of its short focal length. This will cause what's called undersampling, in which pixels scale is smaller than what the seeing scale. When this is the case, a star's light will illuminate a pixel, but probably not the pixels around it. The star is imaged as a square of pixel size. (When pixel scale is much smaller than seeing scale, a star will illuminate many pixels which makes for nice looking stars at the cost of resolving detail.) 

How do we know undersampling will occur before even taking an image? All we need to do is compare our imaging setup's pixel scale to a value of seeing expected for an imaging session. Suppose we take average seeing as 2.0 arcseconds per pixel  ("/px).

The formula for a setup's image scale is base on the camera's pixel size and the focal length of the imaging telescope or lens: 

Pixel scale (in "/px) = 206 x camera pixel size (in microns) / focal length of lens (in mm)

If you look closely at my recent IFN image, you can see it's on the edge of being undersampled: many of the smaller stars look blocky. According to the above formula, my setup for that had an image scale of 

Pixel scale = 206 x 3.76 microns / 387 mm = 2.0"/px

This confirms the idea that it's mildly undersampled.

Now let's repeat the calculation for the Samyang. We have

Pixel scale = 206 x 3.76 microns / 135 mm =  5.74"/px

This is much larger than 2"/px, so it's safe to assume stars will be undersampled, probably badly.

Drizzling

The way to compensate for undersampling is to drizzle during processing. Drizzling can make those blocky stars rounder and fuzzier, at cost of extra processing time and worse, an amplification of noise. The noise can be reduced by acquiring a large number of light frames and by using a utility like NoiseXTerminator. Drizzling raises the bar on how many light frames to collect and may require frequent dithering. 

If you read forums there seem to be two common answers for how many frames you need -- at least 100 or at least 40. The former comes from those who want the very best images, while the latter is for people like me who are happy with satisfactory results. I'll probably go with 40 for the color frames, but closer to 100 for luminance. There's also disagreement about how often to dither -- once every few frames or with every frame. I'll probably choose to dither after each luminance frame and after each third frame for color channels, if I can reduce the time it takes to dither to something like 20 seconds or so. This might be unrealistic, only testing will tell.

 Dithering

The distance to dither on the imaging camera is generally accepted to be 10 px or so. NINA lets you set this by specifying how many pixels to move on the guide camera. To determine the value to use requires that pixel scale formula again, applied to the imaging system and again to the guiding system:

Imaging Scale = 5.74 "/px (from previously)

Guiding Scale = 206 x 3.75 microns / 130 mm = 5.94 "/px

This means moving one pixel on the guider corresponds to moving 5.94", and moves the imaging camera (5.94 / 5.74) px, or 1.04 px. In other words, the motions of the imaging camera essentially are the same as those of the guider. If I want 10 px dithering on the images, I should use 10 px for the NINA "PHD2 Dither Pixels" setting. The number to use is open to guesswork. Maybe 5 is fine? I'll have to try different values.

Other NINA dither settings are related to the mount. "Settle Pixel Tolerance" is basically how close PHD2 has to be to the guide star before it allows the mount to start settling. You can also set the minimum and maximum times for settling. The defaults for these are 10 and 40 s, respectively. My plan is to experiment with the minimum time and pixel tolerance values to see what works fastest with my mount. 

Some people dither only in RA, but the general advice is to use random dithering.

Exposure time

This is really a guessing game with many trade-offs. For fun I'll use the Sharpcap Sky background calculator for imaging with the Samyang at the Iowa Star party. Sky brightness there is 21.60 magnitude per square arcsecond, and the resulting sky electron rate is 6.49e-/px/s. Read noise is a negligible 1.4e- at gain 100, so to get the sky up to about 1/6 of full well would take 333 s (5.5 minutes). Pretty sure most of the stars in the field of view would be blown out by that. How about simply making sure that the sky signal swamps the read noise? Let's say by a factor of 100? That would only require an exposure of about 21 s. So now I have the exposure time bracketed: 20 to 2000 s!

It's worth noting that some people will shot light frames with only 20 s exposure.

I've been using 90 s exposures and I really like the star color I got in the IFN image so I think I'll stay with that. A test image around the next new moon would be really useful.  

Next Post: Testing

Finished: Integrated Flux Nebula Image

Here's the image at quarter-scale:

1/4 Scale Image

Full-Scale image at AstroBin.

Where to even start with this? How about the data?

Originally there were 13.2 hours of data, but I came across a video in which someone explained how they use PixInsight's SubframeSelector process to cull bad frames. My approach to data culling has always been to keep all that aren't terribly bad, but for this project I thought I'd get tough. Using SFS led me to reject 3.6 hours of data!  To be fair, about a third of that was because of my penchant for starting data collection before the end of twilight. There were very few visibly bad frames as viewed in Blink, so I'm going to call this approach "2 sigma" aggressive, in that it basically culls any frame that has  FWHM, eccentricity, or median values more than two standard deviations above the mean. Note that those rejected frames might be perfectly fine in and of themselves, but relative to their cohort they are of significantly lesser quality. Frames with anomalously low star counts are also culled. An example of this is the set collected during the session that a smoke layer moved in and began obscuring stars in the late morning. Star count fell markedly and I removed frames.

Worth mentioning was the need to use WBPP's Grouping Keywords to make sure that light frames and their appropriate flats were processed together. This was the first time I used it, and it worked perfectly. 

Also, I no longer use dark flats, or "flat darks," if you prefer. Only dark, flat, and bias frames are used for calibration. (Flat and dark frames are now taken for granted at Astrobin, it seems; it no longer asks if you use them.)

Now about the calibration frames, specifically the flats. It seems that most of the time my flat illumination was asymmetric for reasons I don't understand, and this gave the background modelization processing some problems. That big bright Polaris didn't help, either, nor did the fact that most of the image was nebulosity. My first pass used GradientCorrection and that left the right side with a green cast. After playing with that for a while I moved on to DynamicBackgroundExtraction. That didn't clear it up, either. After thinking about it for a while I reverted to AutomaticBackgroundExtractor with a 5th-order function and that did the job. 

Next, those darn satellites. The first processing pass got most of them, but a few stuck around in weakened form. They should have been removed during light frame integration, so I looked at what WBPP was using for rejection and it was Generalized Extreme Studentized Deviate (ESD). Some hunting around took me to a PixInsight forum where it was noted that ESD (using its default settings) wasn't doing a great job with satellites. So I told WBPP to instead use Linear Fit Clipping and that seemed to work better. Not perfect, just better. I will need to find out what ESD settings work best since overall it's probably the scheme to use. It may be that satellites and an image full of nebulosity are always going to be a problem.

I also learned that my usual haphazard application of the XTerminator family has been wrong. It's a processing sin to use NoiseXT before BlurXT and NoiseXT before SPCC. For this image I only applied NXT after taking the image nonlinear.

Here's my workflow for this project with the ">" symbol meaning "creates":

WBPP  >  Cropped channel masters

ABE (color channels) > Backgrounded color channel masters

ChannelCombination > RGB master

ImageSolve > RGB master with astrometry 

SPCC > color-calibrated RGB master

ABE (luminance) > Backgrounded luminance master

BXT (luminance master and RGB master) > enhanced masters

STF and HT > nonlinear masters

NXT > de-noised masters

CurveTransformation (with gentle "S" curve) > enhanced masters

LRGBCombination > LRGB master

assorted tweaks (saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc.) > Finished image

Not shown is an additional DynamicCrop after the ABE of luminance because ABE was a little overaggressive at the left edge. Even with two crops, the final image lost only 4.2% off the short axis and 5.5% off the long axis for a 10% areal loss. The reproducibility of the image framing was impressive. Thank you, NINA. 

Another lesson learned was that the XTerminators could be sped up quite a bit. Normally the necessary files are installed by XTs, but on my old computer the install did not engage the GPU. My graphics card is an NVIDEA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti circa 2018. This post explains how to upgrade a computer to use the GPU for faster XT performance. In my case it sped up the XTs by a factor of 4. I may need to repeat this every time XT does an upgrade.

So how did the processing work out? Mostly I was concerned that the area around Polaris was darkened by background extraction and didn't represent reality. I searched AstroBin for an image I could use as a sort of "ground truth" for what I had done. I found just what I wanted in an image by captured_mom8nts (which I'm guessing is not their real name). It appears to have been taken at a much shorter focal length and so should have suffered much less Polaris bloom, keeping the area around the star reasonably pristine. A little crop/rotate/scale/stretch and it matched my image's scale and orientation:

Comparison: Mine (top), captured_mom8nts (bottom)

I think it fairly obvious that the dark areas on either side of  Polaris in my image match those in captured_mom8nt's image, even though mine is much deeper. I'm happy!

I'm also happy with the star color. Shooting only 90 s exposures may have been the key to that in that it kept stars from saturating. Next time I'll be shooting at f/2, but with a smaller objective so I may keep the exposure time as is. 

-----------------------------------------

All the components of my new Samyang 135 mm f/2 imaging system have arrived or are on their way. Next time I'll have a picture of it all assembled and possibly already taken on its first test drive!

Back From NNSF: Tamron 135mm Verdict

NNSF 2025 was better than average; I had two solid nights of imaging. I might have had three if I had stayed over on Sunday night--but I'm not really sure if it was clear that night.

The first night (Wednesday) was a dusk-to-dawn session and I used my FSQ-106 to collect the green and red channel data I needed to complete my integrated flux nebula image. Plus a few more luminance and blue frames, just because I could. I'll be processing that data in the next couple of weeks.

Thursday night was lost to clouds, but Friday night was fine and I went until about 3 A.M. using the Tamron for wide-field views. The Tamron was stopped down to about f/5.4, basically reducing it to a one-inch f/5.4 telescope that no one in their right mind would use for imaging. It wasn't surprising that the results were less than adequate. Here's the Veil:

Final result, significantly cropped to hide flat frame errors

This is based on about 60 frames in the LRGB ratio of 2:1:1:1, with each frame a 120 s exposure. Bias, Dark, and Flat frames were applied; processing was in PixInsight.

That's not completely terrible if you only look at the much scaled-down size. But the faults are still there.

There's an overall blue cast to stars, due to problems with the red focal point and probably chromatic aberration. 

The stars are quite bloated, probably because of the tiny aperture used. I tried to reduce them as best I could, but you can see how the Veil is almost lost in all the stars.

There was good news, the new mounting ring made rotating the camera easy and reliable. And stopping down the lens and processing with BlurXterminator made the stars nice and round even in the corners:

PixInsight Aberration Inspector Panel

The red focal point was substantially different from what NINA expected based on filter setoff training. The Astrodon LRGB filters I use are essentially parfocal, so I have to assume this is some sort of lens fault.

Final judgement: I don't want to do wide field at a sluggish f/5.4, I don't like bloated stars, and autofocus is something I can no longer live without. This image just isn't what I consider acceptable, and I also like to guide and dither. Although the above image used neither and turned out fine -- the G-11 tracks well enough at 135 mm -- I think some dithering might be helpful. So: the Tamron will be relegated to daytime use and I'll need to find a replacement. How about that Rokinon? Or maybe the identical Samyang? Why pay an extra $50 for the brand name?

Here's the kit to go with a 135mm f/2 Samyang: A cradle from Astrodymium that will let me attach a guide camera and a ZWO EAF, giving me my precious autofocusing!

Now let's address the backfocus issue, something that has plagued my use of Canon lenses with the ASI 2600. The desired backfocus is something like 45 mm (44 mm + 1 mm to compensate for the filters I use). Conventional wisdom says you must be within +/- 2 mm, and that being within +/- 1 mm is preferred.

Solution 1 is to use a Canon to M42 adapter with maybe a 1mm spacer ring: ASI2600 (12.5 mm) + ZWO EFW (20 mm) + Canon adapter (10 mm) + spacer ring (1 mm) = 43.5 mm backfocus. That's off by 1.5 mm, which might be enough to show up visually. It would be nice to slip in another space ring, but there just isn't enough thread depth for it.

Here's a video by someone with exactly the same gear I would be using, and she's happy with it.

I don't know if that will hold true for me, though. Maybe variations between lenses might be enough to require a closer backfocus match. Maybe imaging at f/2 changes the amount of filter backfocus compensation? It would be nice to have some options.

Which brings us to Solution 2: ASI2600 (12.5 mm) + ZWO EFW (20 mm) + spacer ring (1 mm) + (extension spacer) 5 mm + spacer ring (0.9 mm) + M42 adapter (5.5 mm) = 44.9 mm. (I don't have two 1 mm spacers.)

There's even a Solution 3, since I have a 7.5 mm extension ring: ASI2600 (12.5 mm) + ZWO EFW (20 mm) + (extension spacer) 7.5 mm + M42 adapter (5.5 mm) = 45.5. I actually prefer this as it it eliminates the spacer rings and allows all the threads to engage more fully.

All the orders have been placed, and things start arriving in only two days! Plenty of time to get this assembled and running before the Iowa Star Party in October.

Next time, the IFN image and a look at the new Samyang!

Fast Deliveries Mean an Unexpected Update: NEEWER to the Rescue

A couple of things came in so I'm doing this happy update:

135 mm Tamron & ASI in new mounting ring
atop a NEEWER dovetail atop an ADM vixen to Losmandy D adapter

The new 90 mm mounting ring arrived and it fits my ASI 2600 like a glove. Plenty of room for the entire optical train to rotate through 360 degrees, too. 

There's always a catch, though. The mounting ring comes with a foot appropriate to sitting on a quick-release tripod head rather than anything commonly compatible with astronomy mount saddles. If only there was an adapter to mate a dovetail to those two little holes on the ring? 

But there is, at Amazon. It's a NEEWER 9 inch Vixen dovetail. It mates perfectly to the ring using the ring's included bolts. The NEEWER slips into an ADM saddle adapter, so the whole thing will ride atop my G-11. Granted this does look like a bit of a kludge, but it's solid. 

I have a finder saddle to fit on the top of the ring, so I'll be able to guide and dither should I choose. If I make it to NNSF this will come along. I'll also bring a couple of other lenses for testing.

The last bit on order is a filter adapter that will act as an aperture mask for the Tamron. At this point it has departed China; delivery is still expected on the 18th.

Revisiting the Tamron 135 mm Lens.

Perfection is a terrible thing, being both difficult to define and impossible to achieve. It can stand in the way of getting something done, and lead a person to reject things that fail to meet your estimation of perfection. It has led me to consider getting rid of my old Tamron 135 mm lens. (Yes, I'm talking about that lens again. I could subject you to more battery talk, but no one really wants that, right?)

The Tamron was dropped from my integrated flux nebula imaging project for two primary reasons: the mounting ring I had made it all but impossible to consistently orient the camera, and it was showing too much aberration. 

I've now purchased a much better ring from Agena Astro. This ring and the dovetail it's on will also help with the limited rotation the old one allowed. The extended ring release knob release knob also eliminates the difficulty in turning the old knob, which was tight against the ring itself. I doubt the new ring will be "perfect," but it may be much more adequate that what it replaces. 

As for the aberration, I blamed that problem mostly on incorrect backfocus. I had assumed 45 mm was needed (44 for the camera plus 1 for the filter). My setup had backfocus of 12.5 (camera) + 20 (filter wheel) + 10 (canon to M42 adapter) plus 1 mm (spacer ring) for a total of 43.5 mm. This was 1.5 mm short, and the way people talk in forums that was seriously incorrect. 

But what if it wasn't? Watch this video. The imager is attaching an ASI 2600MM (my camera) with the same ZWO EFW as mine, a 135 mm lens (not the same as mine, sadly. She had the Rokinon 135 mm lens that I continue to lust after), used the same Canon-to-M42 adapter as mine, and a 1 mm spacer ring for a total backfocus of 43.5 mm (the same as mine). That gets her nice flat fields, so it's probably the case that my backfocus isn't the issue, it's the lens quality. 

A late-1970s Tamron at f/4 is no match for a modern lens like a Rokinon even if their inflation-adjusted prices aren't all that different. The obvious fix is to stop the Tamron down, perhaps to f/5.6. To do this without spiked stars requires a 58-24 mm step down filter adapter. (I found a 58-25 mm adapter on eBay ($2 + $15 for shipping), so I'll be shooting at f/5.4, which is close enough. Delivery date is projected to be August 18, two days before the Northern Nights Star Fest. 

These two issues settled (perhaps) the Tamron will continue to live.

If it arrives in time, I'll take it north and skies permitting put it to work on this:

Heart and Soul Nebulae with the Double Cluster

This is a very rich field ...

Above image with annotation

... with so much nebulosity and open clusters, too!

First priority will be collecting the green and red channel light frames to complete the IFN image. That should take only one night with time left over for more luminance frames. The Tamron will come out on the second clear night, assuming there is one. If the Tamron's aberration is still significant, I may switch to my 200 mm Olympus lens which has already proven itself to be flat-field at f/4. The Olympus will narrow the field to just the two nebulae.

Just in case NNSF produces four nights (!) of clear sky I'll bring along the 200 mm lens for some fun! And maybe even my 50 mm Olympus lens, why not.

--------------------------

In terms of comfort sky clarity this summer has been one of the worst on record, with days and nights alternating between excessive heat and humidity, rain and severe weather, overhead smoke, and very poor air quality. In fact, half the days since mid-May have featured one of these unpleasantries (per the State Climate Office). My hope that the smoke will diminish before NNSF is only that, a hope. I'm fairly sure the fires will be much reduced by the time of the Iowa Star Party in October, but it would be nice if the new moon in September is also smoke-free!

We're currently in the midst of a multi-day air quality alert covering the entire northern Midwest. Yesterday morning the air smelled of sulphur and the sky has been a perpetual brown.

Air Quality Map @ 2 PM CDT 08/01/2025 (graphic from fire.airnow.gov)

---------------------------

August 1 brings more tariffs, and it's time to check on that Rokinon lens. The "new" tariff on on South Korea is about the same as the existing one, so it's no surprise that the Rokinon is holding steady at $449.

----------------------------

That's all for this time, next post is in late August with results from the NNSF (I hope!)

One Channel; Dozens of Bites

Another camping trip to Lac qui Parle State Park is over and it was a partial success. Let's start with the good news first: I got the blue channel data I needed:

Blue Channel of IFN

This is based on 1.72 hours of total exposure. Blue is usually the weakest channel in terms of signal and to me this looks decent. I'll try to get about the same exposure time for green and red. The strongest blue signal seems to be in the area just below Polaris; this may make that area whitest, which would be in agreement with what I've seen in other images.

[ Compare this to the luminance channel image in the previous post. Blue looks much less contrasty, right? Consider that the blue channel has only 1/3 (or so) of  the luminance signal, and that the above is based on 69 subs compared to the luminance's 177 subs; you can roughly figure this has an equivalent exposure of only 1/8 of the luminance. It didn't get lifted nearly as far above the background, so less contrast. ]

See the copyright notice? That's because my little blog is now getting scraped two or three times every day. Probably not because it's worth scraping, but simply because it exists. I can't really do much of anything that's effective to stop it without adding a CAPTCHA-like layer that would force everyone to choose which squares are motorcycles, or traffic signals, or whatever bots can't easily distinguish. I don't like those things, so I won't subject others to them.

Now the unfortunate part of the trip. The first night's imaging ended prematurely when somehow PHD2 became convinced it was using my imaging camera as the guide camera. This wreaked havoc with things: I started getting repeated timeouts, and a couple of the frames suffered from strange excursions probably caused by calibration mismatch due to different focal lengths. I shut down the sequence and tried troubleshooting, but it was simply not happy. It was already 1:30 A.M. so I decided to give up and get it worked out the next day. Here's what the misguided guider was doing on two of the frames:

Excursions along one of the guider axes.

This was clearly along one of the guider's axes. The guiding display of corrections looked like a strong square wave. 

The next day was unpleasantly warm (almost 90 F and dead calm). I redid PHD's hardware profile and collected the new dark/bad pixel frames it demanded. Things seemed to work; there was a steady stream of images. It also needed a new calibration, something I could only do once it was dark. As dusk fell the mosquitoes attacked in force. My Coleman shelter worked reasonably well to protect me, but all this reconfiguring was making me repeatedly get in and out of the protected area, each time allowing dozens of hungry mosquitoes in. Neither the usually effective Ultrathon or DEET products kept them off me. It was not fun.

There were thunderstorms already west of me in South Dakota, the last satellite images showed high blowoff from them headed directly my way. The forecast was for rain and possibly severe weather around 5 A.M., meaning I'd have to break down everything and pack it away before turning in. 

Between all that and how the bites on my arms and hands were welting up I decided to pack it in and  get a good night's sleep. As it turned out there was rain but the severe stuff went elsewhere. I was glad to have bailed on the night. 

I don't think I'll be making any more mid-summer trips to the park, it's just too buggy for this imager. What a change it was from the previous month's visit!

I'll only have some of the July new moon to see about collecting the red and green frames as my wife is having her second knee replacement done on the day of the new moon. I'll probably just wait for the Northern Nights Star Fest at the end of August, as that should be cooler, darker, and will have longer nights. Or, if that's completely clouded out the Iowa Star Party in October or any clear, dark nights I can get out to Eagle Lake.

-----------

Tariff Watch: The Rokinon lens remains in stock at B&H at $449. This price is 22% above the February pre-tariff price, which is very close to the current tariff of 26% with South Korea.

Reservations, Smoke, and One Night of Imaging

A few things from a less than fully successful week of dark-sky camping:

Reservations

The initial state park reservations I had were for three nights starting Tuesday. Clouds and rain looked very likely to wipe out the first two nights so I cancelled the reservation and made another for 3 nights starting Thursday when the forecast was much more favorable: one iffy night followed by two that were perfect.  I decided to get everything set up and running that iffy night after seeing the Sun wink out as it set into a heavy smoke layer on the northwest horizon. This turned out to be a good move as this would be the only useable night. The heavy smoke arrived by Friday morning, when two hours after sunrise the Sun was a dim red ball you could look at directly. 

Lesson learned: Minnesota state parks offer same-day reservations.  Next time I'll wait until I'm sure the night will be clear to make my reservation.  All my things are very well organized and I can pack the car and be on the road in less than an hour. My preferred dark-sky camp, Lac qui Parle, is lightly used and usually has unpowered pull-ins available.

Mount Safety Limits

By the time I was ready to shut down that first night my mount had rotated to the point that it was well beyond its safe travel limit. This didn't really matter as looking to Polaris allows much further travel than is usually safe, and the G-11 mount tracks nicely even when it's over-rotated and the counterweight shaft is well beyond horizontal. 

That said, what I expected was a meridian flip sometime around midnight. When that didn't happen I recycled the system and expected go-to would put the scope on the correct side. It didn't. I could see that eventually I'd run the camera against the mount and decided to let it go right up to that point before stopping. 

I got enough frames that night, but in a month when I return to shoot color frames I'll have to stop even earlier in the evening. 

Lesson learned: I need to configure NINA and my Gemini-II mount control to properly handle flips.

Here are two videos that I found useful for doing this and for setting up NINA for flips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8uOikHPb4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N0U5chskCQ

There's also a very useful spreadsheet available to members of the Gemini-II user group on groups.io (See the second link above for how to use the spreadsheet.)

I've made the changes to my Gemini-II and go-to now seems to put the telescope on the correct side based on the limits. Seeing if automated meridian flips work will have to wait for a night under stars.

The Coleman Bug Shelter (Previously mentioned here.)

This was my first night out with the shelter, and it worked great--no gnats, no mosquitoes inside. I sat in the shelter linked to the scope with a 16' active USB 3 cable (which was also getting its first all-night imaging test). There wasn't a single glitch. The only awkward part of this is doing polar alignment, when I (and the laptop) need to be at the mount to make adjustments. Once that's done, it's back into the Coleman. It was so comfortable in there that I spent most of the evening relaxing with a good book.

Lesson learned: I'm ready for next year's Nebraska Star Party and its all-night supply of mosquitoes. Will the shelter, even when staked down, be able to endure the winds of Nebraska?

The Results

If the Eagle Lake Observatory setting is Bortle 4 plus a bit, then Lac qui Parle with Thursday night's smoke was Bortle 4 minus a bit: definitely darker than Eagle lake, but certainly it wasn't the Bortle 3 I've seen  there before. Despite that, I gathered 113 luminance frames. Seven were discarded for being in twilight, and one was lost for poor tracking. Adding the new 105 frames to the previously collected 72 Eagle Lake frames brought me to about 4.4 hours of total luminance exposure.

Here is the result, as produced by PixInsight's WBPP and some modest postprocessing of my own:

IFN (luminance, 4.4 hours)

This is much better than my 72-frame image, and it may be all the luminance I need to collect. Using the 3:1:1:1 "standard LRGB model" what's left to shoot is perhaps an hour and a half of each color channel. I have the new moons of June and July to collect my color frames.

Lesson learned: some smoke at a Bortle 3 may be better than clear sky at a Bortle 4+ site.  Given enough good nights I'd still like to add more luminance and get to 6:1:1:1, but good nights around here seem all too rare.

Satellites Galore (with bonus Trek Humor)

These are the satellite tracks rejected by PixInsight. There are a lot of them in 4.4 hours!

"Go home, Tholians, you're drunk"

That's all for this post. In a couple of weeks the moon will go away again and I'll try to get the color data that will bring this luminance to life. 

Reprocessed IFN Using PixInsight's WBPP

The image in the last post was really not very well processed, with the culprit being me. I suspect I twice subtracted bias or something. It was so bad that I decided to reprocess immediately, adding in some color channel data I collected. The best way I could see to avoid messing up again was to plunge right into using PixInsight's popular Weighted Batch Preprocessing script (WBPP).

Was it easy to use? Yes! If you disagree, I suggest watching the series of WBPP tutorials by Adam Block.

Did it work well with all the default settings? Yes, it did for me. The only step I skipped was Cosmetic Correction. I'll have time to learn how to incorporate CC between now and when I need to process new data collected later this month. 

Was it fast? I fed it my 72 luminance frames, 36 color frames, 100 bias frames, 30 dark frames, and 100 channel flats. WBPP made master frames, calibrated my light frames, and registered and integrated the lights, and finished by doing a crop of all four channels. All that in 51 minutes. Wow!

I know there's some sort of WBPP Fast Integration thing that can reduce this even further, but I'm saving that for the future.

The WBPP result is so much better. Here is the master luminance after post-processing:

Polaris IFN as processed by PixInsight WBPP

The full scale image is on AstroBin. Because Astrometry.net as employed by AstroBin seems to have issues with this, I'll pass along ASTAP's solution:

ASTAP solve of above image.
North is up; the celestial pole is a little beyond the top edge

This is exactly the composition I want: Polaris sitting at top center and giving the illusion of shining its light down on the nebulosity. Which it probably isn't actually doing, but artistic license is allowed, right? 😏

Not only is that ugly vertical banding gone, the stars are better shaped. ASTAP puts the tilt at only 3% ("none") compared to the previous "moderate." I continue to be amazed that so much nebulosity can be captured with less that two hours of total exposure at a Bortle 4 site with a nasty high-in-the-sky first quarter moon.  

The color image was not adequate and you won't see it here. It looked as if the background flattening of the three channels had gone awry. I'll need to play with the color channels and see if I can do better.

The night I collected the color frames give me hope for my camping trip. PHD2 guiding was almost perfect. Of 36 frames, none were rejected. With dithering turned off there were no hiccups. I retrained PHD2 beforehand, this time with the correct focal length for the guide scope, and it seemed better behaved. 

Reacquiring the image area worked great. The evening was the third time I told NINA to go to the target. It seems to be doing this quite well: almost nothing has been lost due to mistargeting: 

Portion of full image removed by WBPP cropping (red)

Everything considered, it all worked as intended. That's a little scary; I have to wonder what mischief my hardware has planned for me when I take it to the dark-sky campground.

-------------------

While the tariff wars have devolved into confusion over what, when, and how much, the Rokinon 135 mm f/2 lens for Canon hangs in there at the same old $449. If you've been watching the astronomy gear dealerships, you've probably noticed that many items are no longer in stock. Buyers seem to be rushing their purchases to avoid the expected higher prices.

Integrated Flux Nebula Mini-Test Result

 Let's get right to the image:

Polaris IFN luminance trial

The total exposure was a scant 1.8 hours (72 x 90 s). NINA ran the acquisition and PixInsight handled the processing. Flat frames were used. The nonlinear stretch was the PI Screen Transfer function and no attempt was made to enhance contrast beyond what it provided.

This is so far beyond my expectations that I don't know what to write. It was a not-very-dark site, the moon was at first quarter high in the ecliptic between Cancer and Leo, and there was a thin layer of smoke aloft. I really didn't expect to get much if any nebulosity in the image. But there it is.

The night's goal was to fully test the imaging setup and perhaps answer a few questions:

• Would go-to compose the image reliably? I started it once, collected a dozen frames, shut it all down, parked the scope and did the entire startup again. Plate solving shows the center changed by 67.5 seconds in RA and 7 seconds in Dec. Translating the RA difference to arcseconds at the equator, it's actually more like 27 arc seconds. That's total shift of about 28 arcseconds. The difference in image axis rotation is also tiny, about 0.11 degrees. So the answer is Yes, go-to works very well!
• Would guiding work so close to the pole? I had made some changes in PHD2--activating multi-star guiding and predictive PEC, and using the calibration assistant to make sure that was done optimally. Through the evening it collected 72 light frames, and only one had to be rejected (when PHD2 timed out after a dither). Tracking was next to perfect. I'm nor sure the ASI 2600 benefits much from dithering, so I'll disable it.
• Some people have indicated issues with field rotation when guiding near a celestial pole. I saw no sign of that. Possibly the excellent polar alignment from PoleMaster should get credit for this.

I do like the composition of the image, with Polaris shifted off center northward and looking as if it's shining light down onto the nebulosity. It's nice to see that the offset doesn't produce any significant internal reflection.

There are issues with this image, though. Although ASTAP reports moderate tilt I don't see any evidence of it. (Maybe it's some sort of algorithmic issue?) There are a lot of vertical bands in this that snuck in during the processing. I'll have to find a way to make sure to avoid them. [EDIT 12 May: see the reprocessed image here.]

PHD2 was doing something that seemed odd. Every now and then it would make a too-large declination adjustment and then follow that with smaller corrections. This may also have been my fault as I had the wrong guide scope focal length entered. This has been corrected, so I'll see if that takes care of the issue. 

Tonight I'll be out again to test my RGB acquisition scheme. Basically, I'll try the good old 3:1:1:1 channel ratio, meaning 24 frames for each color channel. How will the colors turn out?

My 135 mm Tamron Delusion Ends, It's Plan B now

I really thought I could get away with using my old Tamron lens for imaging Integrated Flux Nebula (IFN), but it's not to be. The number of minuses kept growing as I spent more nights practicing with the setup. I realized that my desire to use the Tamron and was blinding me to the issues that doomed it.

The greatest difficulty was being unable to rotate the field of view in a reproducible manner. This happened every night I used the setup with one night being 45 degrees out of kilter from the others. Keeping the camera orientation consistent between multiple imaging sessions is essential; without this, some of the field will need to be discarded during stacking. It became obvious that the amount of lost field would probably be substantial, resulting in a much retained field of view. The advantage of the wide 135 mm field of view would be lost. I think the cause was the ring clamp I was using to join the lens and camera to the dovetail. To permit manual rotation of the camera this ring had to be loosened and retightened many times, resulting in misalignment.

Image quality was also not what I wanted. There was no reasonable solution for the back focus error and I would be stuck with strong aberration needing to be corrected by BlurXTerminator. I knew some residual aberration remained, and I was concerned that this might show itself during the aggressive processing I would use to draw out the IFN. 

I came to realize that the stepdown ring I was using to produce spikeless stars was causing severe vignetting. While flat frames could somewhat compensate for this, too much signal was being lost -- again diminishing the effective size of the field of view. Using the lens's internal blades to stop it down was an alternative that created large, flaring spikes around the stars. I found this unacceptable.

Plainly, the lens was not up to the purpose and it was time to move to Plan B.

Plan B

The fallback is to use the FSQ-106 + focal reducer operating at a focal length of 387 mm and focal ratio of f/3.65. This California Nebula image used that configuration and gives you an idea of what it can do. The advantages are many over the Tamron: 

• 17% increase in speed (f/3.65 vs f/4)
• A very flat field with modest vignetting  
• An actual rotation ring
• Amenities like autofocus, autoguiding and dithering, easier creation of flat frames, and automatic meridian flipping

This is a much heavier scope to tote around, but the only real disadvantage it has is the smaller field of view. Here's a comparison:

135 mm Tamron field (outer box) vs 387 mm FSQ field (inner box)

The star cluster is no longer in the FOV, which is fine as the IFN is the real target. Does the smaller FOV (about 3.5 x 2.3 degrees) include enough IFN to be worth imaging? This image of Polaris IFN by another imager has essentially the same FOV as my setup will produce. I think there's enough IFN there to make it worthwhile particularly if Polaris can be reduced in size. I'll also compose the image to have Polaris much closer to the north edge of the frame, making more room for the IFN. 

Other aspects of the comparison image are worth looking at.

The scope used was an f/5.5 refractor with a flattener that didn't affect the focal ratio (so far as I can discover). The camera, an ASI 6200 color camera, has a quantum efficiency about the same as my ASI 2600 mono camera. The total integration time was 5 hours and 10 minutes. My thought is that if I want a reasonably deep image with low noise I should try to get at least twice the total time that went into the image. I'll probably use a plan that requires two nights of imaging: 5 hours of luminance one night, 3 hours of Chrominance another night. That's roughly the equivalent of 11.7 hours of one-shot color gathered at f/5.5. 

Yes, I know, that's a LRGB ratio of 5:1:1:1 and instead of the usual 3:1:1:1. I just like working with luminance; one night a few years ago something glitched and I ended up shooting only luminance. The final ratio was 6:1:1:1 and the result was quite nice (in my opinion, of course).

The comparison image was created using 5-minute light frames, which is probably why star colors are muted and Polaris is bloated. I've had much better luck with shorter exposures, and may simply go with 90 s lights. Both of my linked images used 90 s lights exclusively.

----------------------------

Tariff watch: the Rokinon 135 mm lens (Plan C) is holding steady at $449 and in stock at B&H.

IFN Setup Passes Its First Tests (With Help From BlurXTerminator)

Last night was good for running some tests on my integrated flux nebula (IFN) imaging setup. I was able to take test frames at different exposures (60, 90, 120, 180 and 240 seconds) and test go-to and tracking. Everything came out well, or as well as could be expected and many questions were answered.

Did Polaris throw an internal reflection?

I stretched a 240 s exposure using PixInsight's Boosted Autostretch and there was no evidence of any internal reflections. It's possible something will show up in an image stack, but this suggests even if it does it will be faint.

Was the field suitably free of aberration? 

Here's a visual comparison of the corners and center in one of the 2 minute exposures (click for full scale). This is basically a raw frame; it's only been brute-force flatted and then delinearized with PI's default stretch.

Pretty awful, isn't it? My guess is that the aberration is coming from backfocus being significantly off. How much off, and in what sense? I'd use NINA's aberration inspector to find out, but this is a manual-focus lens. Sadly, my ability to change the backfocus is next to zero. Skip the following paragraph if talk about backfocus bores you :)

My required backfocus should be about 45 mm (44 for the lens plus1 for the filter), and I'm currently at 42.5 mm. The best I can do to increase this is by adding a 0.8 mm thin spacer or whatever the thinnest M42 spacer ring is (probably 5 mm?). Decreasing the backfocus would require a Canon-M42 adapter that's thinner than 10 mm or a filter drawer that's thinner than 20 mm and can be adapted to use 36 mm filters. Increasing the fun is that this lens is actually at heart a Tamron Adaptall lens circa 1980, fitted with a ring to make it compatible with OM-1 cameras. Both date back to the 1970s, so good luck finding things to take advantage of any of that. And yes, I looked into having a custom adapter built, both Canon to M42 and Olympus OM to M42, and they can't do it in a way that works for me (not to mention it would be $$$ if they could).

Fortunately the aberration can be adequately dealt with using BlurXTerminator (BXT). The corner diagram below shows how well BXT fixes things using the very non-aggressive settings of zero for both its "Sharpen Stars" and "Adjust Star Halos" parameters:

The improvement is almost miraculous. All the corners look sharp. So the lens passes this test thanks to processing with BXT.

Can the lens reach a decent focus?

The focus you see is the result of a few minutes of shooting test frames and making very tiny manual adjustments (just like in the old days before I had an electronic focusing motor). I think it's quite good. Yes, I'd love to have NINA do the focusing for me, but that's not going to happen.

I will need to stabilize the focus wheel to avoid accidental movement; a piece of tape should work.

Was there tilt?

A first look at tilt as calculated by ASTAP gave this.

It's not so much tilt around one axis as it is a sign of the aberration. ASTAP considers the tilt severe (see the small text along bottom of image). After BXT has been run the results confirm the improvement seen in the second corner diagram above: 

Star size outside the center is dramatically reduced and ASTAP now considers the tilt to be "almost none." This means I won't need to add the tilt plate or shims.

What about the mount and Go-To?

The mount slewed to Polaris and plate solved without fault. Manually correcting the rotation was simple and fast. The required rotation was only eight degrees, so the riser wasn't necessary and will be removed.

How was the tracking?

The center stars in the pre-BXTcorner diagram were nice and round so I'll assume tracking is close to perfect. The corner stars in the post-BXT are fine, too, so there's no appreciable field rotation in a 2 minute span.  I use PoleMaster for polar alignment, and it provides almost no visible rotation even over a multi-hour session, so I think that tracking should be more than adequate.

In other words, there's no need to add autoguiding or fiddle with PEC.

Were there any composition issues?

The amount of camera rotation required was only eight degrees from the filter wheel's long-axis up position, meaning that the riser wasn't needed. I'll remove it and the system will be a little sturdier.

Oddly NGC 188 was not quite where I wanted it. It's a touch close to an edge than I expected. I'll have to look at the instructions I gave NINA.

Summary

Everything worked better than expected with help from BXT! Basically, the system is ready for field use, although a little more work remains to get it set up for dew control. Because BXT removed the aberration using very nonaggressive settings, I don't think it will damage the IFN.

A major concern was the mount: would it behave itself for a target so close to the celestial pole? It slewed and centered on the target without difficulty. Manual rotation was easy and the riser won't be needed.

I think the ASI-2600 will do fine without dithering, but I may try that anyway with the PixInsight manual dithering tool.

It looks like almost any exposure will serve well; even a 4-minute exposure had nice round stars; I think I'll probably use 2 minutes for all four channels.

----------------

My reading of Hugo Award winning novels is winding down. I skipped back to the 2000 winner, A Deepness in the Sky, by Vernor Vinge, and it was slog to get through. A few times it was almost a DNF (did not finish). I just couldn't connect with the author's writing style, his use of many side characters that were of little consequence, and the too-happy ending that seemed rather forced. For some reason he felt compelled to add a bloated epilog that served mainly to punish readers. Most of the Hugos have been worth reading, but not this one.

Up next is the 1939 Retro Hugo Award winner, The Sword in the Stone by T. H. White. Yes, it's that sword in that stone; the story has spawned a number of adaptations (the 1963 animated version by Disney is probably still the best known.

This will be the end of the Hugos for me, at least for a while. Maybe I'll start another reading marathon when my wife has her other knee replaced.

----------------

It's lithium battery maintenance time: all the batteries have been fully recharged and then discharged to about 50% of capacity. Just before Northern Nights Star Fest I'll be bringing them up to full charge and selling/swapping them at 80% below list price. I'll provide a full description of what I'm bringing to NNSF in an August post.