STILL NO LICENCE ACTIVATION ON WINDOWS 7!

[toshtoshingdon]

so after taking your advice and purchasing BYE to run on Windows 7, the licence key still wont activate, and just states "invalid key length" What is going on here?

[astroman133]

The error is that the key is invalid. If the key were valid you could use BYE even without validating with the O'Telescope server. The good news is that if you upgrade or replace the PC you can put the license key into the new copy of BYE and still comply with the End User License Agreement (EULA).

Use copy/paste to transfer the key from the web site to BYE. Make sure that you grab the entire key, but no additional characters.

Also, Guylain said that Windows 7 was no longer supported but that it would run even if it couldn't validate the key with the server. However, the key must be a valid key. I said that you could TRY to upgrade TLS to 1.2 to see if it would allow you to register your copy.

[admin]

No need to yell (capital case title) 

I just tried your key and it validated first time.

Invalid key length typically means you did not enter your key correctly.

Please try again and keep us posted, please.

[toshtoshingdon]

Is there any wonder?

Yes I did enter the key correctly and it kept coming up with the same error.

Only after uninstall and reinstalling the .exe it finally decided to work!

[admin]

56 minutes ago, toshtoshingdon said:

Only after uninstall and reinstalling the .exe it finally decided to work!

ummm, that makes no sense. Anyway, thanks for letting us know, and glad to see you are operational.

[toshtoshingdon]

Thank you.

Is the 2 hour YouTube presentation you did a good source for educating myself on getting the best out of the program?

[admin]

15 minutes ago, toshtoshingdon said:

Thank you.

Is the 2 hour YouTube presentation you did a good source for educating myself on getting the best out of the program?

Yes, it's still a good source. Some new features have been added since, but the core functionality remains.

[toshtoshingdon]

23 hours ago, admin said:

Yes, it's still a good source. Some new features have been added since, but the core functionality remains.

Used BYE for the 1st time last night and I can see why its so popular. Very intuitive and very good lay out. Easy ro navigate around.

I just wish I could produce some quality images but it feels like I'm doing something fundamentally wrong. Being a total noob I'm trying to keep things simple by only attaching the Canon 6d mkii to the scope (no barlow). But the image of Jupiter on the screen is tiny and when using the 5x it just seems out of focus/blurry/low quality. 

I've seen others on Cloudy Nights with amazing images of Jupiter with small bore scopes. I don't get it. 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I don't have any astro groups / societies where I live and don't know anyone personally who's into astronomy.

[admin]

Planetary imaging using a DSLR is certainly doable, and some do it very successfully.

Google "Lucky imaging", and you'll get numerous good sources.

Take a look at "Guide to Planetary Photography" by Jerry Lodriguss.

 

 

 

[toshtoshingdon]

2 hours ago, admin said:

Planetary imaging using a DSLR is certainly doable, and some do it very successfully.

Google "Lucky imaging", and you'll get numerous good sources.

Take a look at "Guide to Planetary Photography" by Jerry Lodriguss.

 

 

 

Thanks. That's essential reading!

Regarding combining BYE with Autostakkert...

I've dragged 4x BYE folders of frames across into Autostakkert (4 x200 frames), to use all 800 frames, but Autostakkert appears to only use one folder at a time. How do I combine all 4 folders in order to stack them together?

[astroman133]

Did you try to drag all 4 folders together into a single folder and then drag them all to Autostakkert at the same time?

[toshtoshingdon]

Ahhh. .it's fine. They're all there 😄

I can see now, my main issue is the object I.e Jupiter in my images is way too small, when I zoom in its super pixilated so this is why there's no quality. Do you think I should change some of the video ratio settings within the camera, or perhaps add a quality x2 barlow?

I shy away from the barlow I have as the quality is poor.

[astroman133]

This is just my opinion, but to begin to do justice to a target like Jupiter you really need a focal length that is around 4000mm. Depending on the focal length of your scope that may require a Barlow of some sort. I would recommend a quality 2" Barlow. You also need to use 5X zoom in BYE for your video. Here's why:

BYE uses LiveView frames to create the video. LiveView frames are downsampled to fit on the camera's LCD screen. When you use 5X zoom, what is downloaded is the portion of the image that is inside the focus rectangle (which you can move). This portion is exactly 20% of the entire image, so what 5X zoom provides is that portion of the full image, but at the full resolution of the sensor. That is the best that you will do with a DSLR. Jerry Lodriguss probably explained that in his video.

I hope this helps.

[toshtoshingdon]

By George I think I've cracked it!!

Just put all my equipment into the absolutely brilliant 'field of view calculator' website and it shows the Jupiter exactly as I'm getting it....a small pinprick!

Then I change camera to a 'ZWO224' and guess what...Jupiter becomes around 20 times larger in the field of view!

It's that darn 6dmkii with its huge 5.7 micron pixel sensor that's causing all the problems (after googling the best astro dslr for months, and being totally misguided!).

So it appears that you need a camera with a sensor of around 3 - 4 micron pixels which aligns with the scopes focal ratio x the 5x rule of around f=20!!!!

Wow I'm actually learning something here after just 3 weeks.

[toshtoshingdon]

Insane!!

https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/?fov

[toshtoshingdon]

Had to use custom camera as they only have the settings for a 6d not the 6d mkii and wanted the settings (micron pixel of 5.67 to be exact). Just look at how much quality I'm loosing with the camera!

[toshtoshingdon]

Playing around with the figures using different ZWO cams and the more expensive versions are producing much less quality. The budget ZWO224MC (and not the pro) is the way forward. But that means no BYE and people are still getting amazing results in BYE, obviously with DSLR so maybe I'm just using the wrong DSLR/EOS model?

[toshtoshingdon]

On 10/15/2023 at 3:39 PM, admin said:

 

 

9 hours ago, astroman133 said:

This is just my opinion, but to begin to do justice to a target like Jupiter you really need a focal length that is around 4000mm. Depending on the focal length of your scope that may require a Barlow of some sort. I would recommend a quality 2" Barlow. You also need to use 5X zoom in BYE for your video. Here's why:

BYE uses LiveView frames to create the video. LiveView frames are downsampled to fit on the camera's LCD screen. When you use 5X zoom, what is downloaded is the portion of the image that is inside the focus rectangle (which you can move). This portion is exactly 20% of the entire image, so what 5X zoom provides is that portion of the full image, but at the full resolution of the sensor. That is the best that you will do with a DSLR. Jerry Lodriguss probably explained that in his video.

I hope this helps.

Totally agree. Not only does achieving around 4000mm fl by use of a barlow of ×2.5 -×2.75 on my 1500fl c6, but having that spec Barlow Also meets the 5x rule of f20 focal ratio when taking into account the 5.67 micron pixels of the 6D mkii sensor. The only downside would be, if I decided to go down the ZWO route, then the Barlow would need to be x2.

(Check me out sounding like I know what I'm talking about 😆)

[astroman133]

When you use the term "quality" I think that you mean "resolution", with typical units of arc-seconds per pixel. The lower the resolution value, the higher the resolution since it means that each pixel represents a smaller portion of the sky.

The 6D Mark II has a full-frame sensor. This is larger than the sensor of the ZWO ASI224 camera, so of course a target will take up a smaller fraction of the FOV. For me, I have never seen a need for a full frame camera for astrophotography. A camera with an APS-C sensor is better matched to my hardware and typical sky conditions. It is also lighter than a typical full frame camera.

Also keep in mind that a larger full frame sensor may not be fully illuminated by a telescope with a 2" opening. This can cause severe vignetting in your images. While you would not see this with a small target like Jupiter, it may be a problem when shooting a larger target like Amdromeda or the Orion Nebula.

One other thing that may be important. The typical seeing where you are imaging can influence what camera you use. If the seeing is particularly poor, a camera with lower resolution (larger pixels) may actually produce better looking images.

The following article may be useful - https://expertphotography.com/camera-sensor-size-astrophotography/

[s3igell]

One additional thing to remember, Toshtoshingdon, is that there are significant differences between Deep Sky Astrophotography and Lunar/Planetary Video "Lucky Imaging".

1. FOV of Targets are significantly different - DSO may be Arcminutes to portions of a Degree in size while other than the Moon all Planets are only a few Arcseconds.  Jupiter is only 45-50as at a close opposition; Mars never gets more than 25as; and even Venus (our nearest neighbor) only gets to 66as when in the daytime sky during conjunction
2. All Stars are Point Light Sources, but all Planets and Moon are (small) illuminated surfaces.  Planetary Details are distorted by Atmospheric Distortion and need massive quantities of short exposures processed via Lucky Imaging.  DSO Imaging requires long exposures and stacking to accumulate sufficient light to give detail.
3. Imaging "Magnification" is realistically limited to 1.5-2as/pixel for DSO and 0.75-1.5as/pixel for Lucky Imaging due to Atmospheric Distortion.

[toshtoshingdon]

I've no interest in DSO at this present time, maybe when I've learned and experienced all I can in Planetary then perhaps I may consider it.

What is an 'arc second'?

A: a unit of measurement of time?

B: a unit of measurement of distance?

C; is the term only relative to pixels?

D: is the term only related to Astronomy?

E: Is the term only related to FOV?

F: is the term related to some or all of the above?

[astroman133]

An arc-second is 1/3600th of a degree, so it is a measure of angle.

[s3igell]

6 hours ago, toshtoshingdon said:

I've no interest in DSO at this present time, maybe when I've learned and experienced all I can in Planetary then perhaps I may consider it.

What is an 'arc second'?

Astronomical Objects - DSO and Planetary - are measured for Apparent Size in Degrees/Arcminutes/Arcseconds.

1 Degree = 60 Arcminutes = 3600 Arcseconds; 1 Arcsecond = 60 Arcseconds

Arcseconds-per-Pixel is a measurement of Resolution that is dependent on the total Focal Length of your Optics and the size of individual Pixels on your Sensor.  This measurement is useful to understand how small/big an Object will appear in the output Image.  It is also an important metric to know when attempting to maximize both Captured Detail and FOV by using stronger Barlows to gain Longer Focal Length, as the Atmospheric Distortion (often referenced as "Seeing") will usually deteriorate the captured image as the ArcSeconds/Pixel ("as/p") value is decreased below about 1.5as/p.  Great Seeing might be slightly under 1.0as/p, while Poor Seeing (such as caused by strong upper winds) is usually greater than 2.5as/p.

[toshtoshingdon]

Fantastic answer! Many thanks!

[toshtoshingdon]

So would it be fair to say that an arc second goes 'deeper' into resolution, where resolution refers to the amount of pixels in an image, an arc second refers to the resolution on each individual pixel, I.e resolution within resolution?

And how does your explanation coincide with: for example, 'a celestial object which measures 20 arc seconds across'?

This is where I'm getting confused as I interpreted an arc second as the time taken for that object to travel across the FOV?

[astroman133]

I can see that you are still confused.

An arc-second is not a measure of time, it is a measure of angle, where it is 1/3600 of a degree. A degree can be subdivided into 60 arc-minutes and an arc-minute can be subdivided into 60 arc-seconds.

Resolution is not "the amount of pixels in an image". The number of pixels in an image is determined by the camera and is part of a hardware specification value that is set by the manufacturer of the camera. When you take a picture with that camera, whether using a lens or a telescope the number of pixels in the image does not change, but depending on the focal length of the lens or telescope, you will see either a larger or smaller portion of the sky.

The longer the focal length of the lens/telescope, the less of the sky you will see. The resolution is how much of the sky you see in the image divided by the number of pixels across the image (not the total number of pixels in the image, but the number of pixels in a row on the sensor).

If a telescope displays a field-of-view that is 1.5 degrees of the sky and the camera has 3000 pixels across the sensor then the resolution is 1.8 arc-seconds/pixel. Here is how I calculated it:

1.5 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 60 arc-seconds/arc-minute = 5400 arc-seconds

5400 arc-seconds / 3000 pixels = 1.8 arc-seconds / pixel

Now consider the moon...The moon is about 1/2 degree across. This is equivalent to 1800 arc-seconds across.

This means that from an observer's location on surface of the earth the included angle from one side of the moon to the other would be 1/2 degree, or 1800 arc-seconds.

Now, how does this relate to how long it takes an object to move through a telescope's field of view...This movement is caused by the Earth's rotation. The Earth rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours. This is 15 degrees per hour (360/24) or 1 degree every 4 minutes.

Lets assume that your telescope has a horizontal FOV of 1.5 degrees, how long would it take the moon to move horizontally through the field? This means that if the moon were half visible at the left side of the field it would have to move 1.5 degrees across the sky in order to be half visible at the right edge of the field. Since the rotation speed is 1 degree every 4 minutes, it would take 6 minutes to move 1.5 degrees from one edge of the FOV to the other.

I hope this is useful.

 

 

[toshtoshingdon]

Brilliant! 

Thanks for that amazing and in depth explanation. Thanks for giving up your valuable time for doing that for me. Really well appreciated!

Being ADHD this stuff either sticks or it refuses to go in, and I was really struggling...until I saw the Image, then It all clicked!

Before that I was thinking about angles as angles of movement or objects moving on angles, but then the image makes perfect sense, being the angle created by the viewable size of the object as viewed from a fixed point on earth.

So then it's simply a case of dividing the angle of the object (degree value) by the number of pixels across the sensors width to calculate the arc seconds of each pixel that contains the viewable object?

So then would there be a arc second pixel chart to represent various resolution values?

But then that wouldn't be real world due to constant & varying waves of Atmospheric Distortion negatively impacting on seeing.

 

[astroman133]

There is not one chart because the resolution would be different for each camera and optical train (telescope and Barlow, or not). I use an old version, Sky Tools 3, that calculates that for a given setup (telescope, Barlow, camera (pixel size and pixels across and down the sensor). It provides an estimate of how many pixels across and down an object should take, as well as how many arc-seconds across and down. If you are doing visual observing it tells you the size of the object and even suggests which eyepiece to use (if you have told it what eyepieces you have).

Greg Crinklaw has a new version of Sky Tools (Sky Tools 4), but I have not seen it so don't know what features it supports. Go to skytools.com for more information.

I am glad that I could help.