t00fri wrote:
this is a pretty good one! Incidentally, did you ever find some time to examine your mirror via a Ronchi grid or perhaps simpler: "mit der Foucault'schen Messerschneiden-Methode" ? From your shots I'd say the mirror must be very good, indeed!
Over the years, I did quite a few Moon shots with my C8, having an effective focal length of 2.0m. Yet I don't think the result was any better than yours. This is mainly due to the much more delicate requests for grinding and alignment accuracy of such catadioptric folded systems. Also --compared to simple parabolic mirrors--Coma becomes even more serious at somewhat larger angles...
Thank you. No I didn't do any measurements with my mirror - I couldn't do anything with these numbers anyway, as I wouldn't know what to improve based on them.
So it looks like I was very lucky with the telescope after all - if only I had a better mount to drive it.
But I think that apart from the optical quality, very much depends on the postprocessing as well. I aligned the source images using
PIPP and then stacked and sharpened (wavelet-sharpening) using
RegiStax. This helps with getting the optimum detail and compensates for errors caused by atmospheric turbulences.
fenerit wrote:
That's an experienced amateur shot. You did catch the "Werner X" feature!
Thanks!
As much as I would love to tell you that this was on purpose, the "Werner X" was purely accidental, and I didn't even know this feature until now. Seems like I was lucky again.
