Re: Worse guiding with OAG?
|
>>>
I think that phd multistar has improved performance of guidescope guiding, but not OAG guiding.?
Jamie that isn't my experience.?
OAG and multi-star guiding has roughly the same improvements as a separate guiding camera. I've seen this in many posts at OpenPHD forums where I contribute.?
The one related thing that may be true is for really long focal lengths (that also happen to use OAG) it may be less beneficial.
there's been some conjecture as to why: the narrower fov means the relative atmospheric disturbance is more homogenous, so may not benefit as much. With wider fov, you could see more differences between stars and therefore more stable guiding.
[Edited Message Follows]
I think that phd multistar has improved performance of guidescope guiding, but not OAG guiding. This is because fewer stars and a narrower field of view reduce the possibility of averaging errors. I've been getting similar results as you with a guide scope -- 0.4 to 0.9. When I did use the OAG, I found lost stars, and confused centroids caused issues. My usual tweaks were to monitor the star profile and tweak the gain, exposure and star choice until the centroid crosshair looked stable to my eyes. -- also make sure the OAG is in front of the main cameras filter, and use an ir filter on the guide camera.
-- Brian?
Brian Valente portfolio
|
