Hi,
Partly that, and partly the mismatch between small pixels of your camera and the long focal length of an SCT - long focal length imaging usually goes better with larger pixels (6-7 micron or more). Even with perfect focus, perfect collimation and decent seeing, stars are going to be spread out quite significantly using a 2 m focal length and 2.4 µm pixels. There is a calculator online here - https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability - that give some suggestions about optimum pixel size for different focal lengths.
Cheers, Robin
Unable to stack
Forum rules
If you have a problem or question, please check the FAQ to see if it already has an answer : https://www.sharpcap.co.uk/sharpcap-faqs
Please also read about Troubleshooting USB Issues before posting.
*** Please do not post license keys - please report any problems with licensing to 'admin' by private message ***
Please include the following details in any bug report:
* Version of SharpCap
* Camera and other hardware being user
* Operating system version
* Contents of the SharpCap log after the problem has occurred.
[If SharpCap crashes, please send the bug report when prompted instead of including the log]
If you have a problem or question, please check the FAQ to see if it already has an answer : https://www.sharpcap.co.uk/sharpcap-faqs
Please also read about Troubleshooting USB Issues before posting.
*** Please do not post license keys - please report any problems with licensing to 'admin' by private message ***
Please include the following details in any bug report:
* Version of SharpCap
* Camera and other hardware being user
* Operating system version
* Contents of the SharpCap log after the problem has occurred.
[If SharpCap crashes, please send the bug report when prompted instead of including the log]
Re: Unable to stack
Hmmm...Interesting...I was trying to get some better detail on small targets and was going for a much smaller image scale.
But it was also failing when using a 0.63 FR which should have improved it. It did do much better with my 294 which has 4.63 um pixels.
Well I have learned alot during all this. Thanks for your help and for creating such an amazing program.
But it was also failing when using a 0.63 FR which should have improved it. It did do much better with my 294 which has 4.63 um pixels.
Well I have learned alot during all this. Thanks for your help and for creating such an amazing program.