Very good. I have always collimated this way with success and no waste of time. Only adjust the secondary carefully in the daytime. One tip : When you see the out of focus image of a star, put the hand in front of the telescope and see the shadow of your hand. Move the hand around, then you easily see which collimation screw you need to adjust first.
I was trying to restore and old telescope in very poor condition for 2 years. After watching your video last night It made me want to try it again, headed out and managed to finally see a star and then I was able to watch the moon. This video gave me the confidence to keep trying as I didn't have any tool. Just eyeballed everything, and in the end I put cardboard under both main mirror screws to help the worn system, and managed to get it going. Thx so much, awesome!
That’s an awesome story. Reading this made my day. Thank you for watching. It’s a great feeling to have inspired someone. Thank you for the kind words and I’m glad you got it up and running. Clear skies.
Thanks for the great video! I bought a $26 Svbony laser collimator. It required collimation itself, but once I did that it has held its collimation just fine. I’m glad I bought it because I can collimate by day AND with my 8” Dob, it’s super easy to stay at the primary mirror and see the laser, instead of having to go back and forth between the eyepiece and the primary mirror. BUT I agree that the star test is essential and knowing how to collimate on a star is an important skill. And a good way to recognize that your scope NEEDS collimation, or not. So I appreciate your video!
Thank you for taking the time to watch and for your feedback. SvBony seems to be becoming a big player fast. They are offering good products at a very reasonable price. I have a very good relationship with them. Very nice folks. Their website is full of very innovative and problem solving ideas. I’m really curious about their Sv503. That thing seems to perform like the best upper end doublets. At $400 it likely may quickly become the best entry level refractor. I’m always excited to hear from Dob users. I have a strong passion for the Dobsonian. I can think of no better instrument for a beginner and then later it can translate appeal even to someone as yourself. They are fantastic, no fuss, instruments and I will eventually get a beast one myself. Is yours a truss model? Have you motorized it? Brilliant equipment. I truly regret selling the 10” I had. No scope has since provided me with more joy visually. The Maksutov is a close second. I think my love for Newtonians stems more from its inventor than from the design itself. John, however, was the pioneer of something that totally changed what was available to public. The man is a saint to astronomy. Sorry, passion ramble. Lol. Thanks again for chiming in. Clear skies.
Had an old timer at Oregon Star Party collimated his 12” dob that had duct tape all over it, using the star test. He was a visual observer, but it literally took him 3 minutes to do it each night. His views were awesome.
I know people who have spent over $500 on laser collimators for their big dobs, and don't even star test to get accurate collimation. When a couple of people invited me to look through their dobs, I racked the focuser in and out and it was obvious the scope was not collimated properly. Thanks for the video
I think the market sales things as solid cure-alls when in fact the majority of product solutions are just aids. Nothing beats a field test. Thanks for watching. Clear skies.
Black dot on distant white wall or a star in the night sky is how to correctly check Collimation and correct the Collimation of all refractor, reflector or compound telescopes. But people love useless tools. Well done sir.
you make a good point, the cheshire can and likely will wobble when inserted in the focuser, to solve it I bought a Howie Glatter parallizer, which centers the cheshire perfectly and with repeatability.. when using this setup the cheshire is the most accurate tool, every time...
Colliamating using a camera is imo the best way to collimate since youre gonna use the camera for the imaging. I tried laser collimators but those need precise collimation themselves and even if the laser is perfect, just tiny shift in the focuser is gonna mean that it wiill be wayy off when you put the camera in. If you collimate with the camera, even if your focuser is crappy, you can get a precise collimation atleast for the session
After several years of collimating with a laser, I can tell you the laser if worthless and a dust cap with a pin hole and a binder hole reinforcement sticker is priceless.
I will try this out tonight. I do use a laser and as long as the secondary is aligned, I just bump the laser till it gets centered on the primary then adjust the primary knobs from there. In other words, lasers do not need to be accurate. It all depends on the accuracy of the secondary to alighn the primary. I do have a dob equatorial mount so that will help in repeating the alignment by star process keeping it i center. Reason I was to do this is because I did noticed that when I photographed Jupiter last time, it had just a hint of some chromatic abberation when i saturated it in editting. Might be due to some slight mis alignment. Stars look fine though.
@@GarnettLearyI use a Night Vision device to view things. I bought the platform thinking I would be able to do say....1 minute, 5 min?? exposure times. It only really allows about 30 seconds max. before starting to see trails. Even with that, since I'm using the N.V. it really has enough light already and don't need the culmulative amount of time for good exposures. Still cool to have. I've used it for some planetary long exposures (Jupiter and Saturn are bright and don't really need it either). Been a while...forgot if i used it for Neptune and Uranus. Will try it out sometime soon on them.
there is even better one , you can eyeball perfectly while indoors without any tools , because you have a shadow of secondary in your eyepieces . This one was the best and i still use the stars to check , but found out even better one .
Awesome very helpful, the star defoucusing tip dude hell ya good call. I grabbed Orion starblast 4.5 from library for free, it was so out of coll. Saw First glob cluster, saturns bands we're unreal last night all summer really Saturn too!!
This is fine for visual and its good that you're telling people not to over complicate this. However, for photography in fast Newtonians the sweet spot is only a few millimeters in the center of the primary and secondary. Also, cheaper focusers may not be collimated properly. That's where a Cheshire eyepiece comes in handy. You have to center mark the telescope tube 180° opposite the center of the focuser hole, take out the slop between the focuser draw tube and the Cheshire eyepiece by building up tape, (evenly), around the barrel of the Cheshire eyepiece. That way it is centered in the focuser draw tube, (without) the use of the focuser thumb screws. Then proceed with collimation. There are many factors for photography otherwise you end up with cone error. This becomes more important the faster the f/ratio as the "sweet spot" is smaller. Also, some manufacturers offset the secondary either axially or radially which means the secondary will not be tilted at a perfect 45° angel to the primary and focuser center axis. Some offset both radially and axially, though its not necessary in reflectors until you get up past 16" and above primary mirror sizes. I noticed you're using a camera now to do the star test. This is a good thing and can be used to center the secondary under the focuser the way the guy does it on Astro Shed, however, just as he says about laser collimators, "that they lie", which is true, a camera will also lie if it's not centered in the focuser draw tube. Any slop between the T- adapter for the DSLR and the focuser draw tube will again introduce an error in your alignment. For visual your technique is fine.
I finally have gotten my 16" goto dob to track, hadn't been using a reticle eyepiece to center first star, since figuring that out my second star always comes up in fov and can center it and can slew and track on whatever Getting 30 second exposures of orion nebula and getting all kinds of color. Which looks amazing but its blurry, cant blow it up at all, probably my collimation, have always just been eyeballing everything Also when looking at jupiter my 13 mm eyepiece looks clear, but my 10 and 5 looks blurry
I was reading a thread the other day suggesting top planetary guys collimate with the scopes pointing in their imaging region. It makes sense because I discovered my XT8 experiences a shift as I go from parallel to 45 degrees. I would expect the same from most medium to large scopes that utilize mirrors. With the exception of Maksutovs likely that’s an issue. As anyone will argue it’s dangerous to collimate outside of parallel due to the possibility of dropping a tool inside the scope. If guys like Damien Peach insist on the importance of per region collimation than I have to agree. I used to own a 10” Dobsonian. I’ve used larger ones but that’s the biggest personal one I owned. I experienced the same especially across the Meridian. If there’s no tilt then it means the clips are too tight and likely you’ll get pinched aberrations. If they’re too loose then you’ll get enough tilt that you’re views will be soft. There’s a fine balance in there. Also large temperature drops will cause it. These are a few additional factors to why I believe it’s critical to use a star. I’d also suggest within the viewing or imaging region. Not all scopes are equal. Window grade glass vs Zerodur for example. They handle thermal expansion differently. There’s a lot too this and it’s something that can easily ruin a clear night if not monitored.
+ Garnett, you do know that Rigel is a double star , you need to use a laser to collimate your scope. When done properly the diffraction from the spider is minimal and the haze in your photo is not there, but could be cause by seeing conditions at the time, and the companion star is sharp and clear. There is no way just eyeballing anything that far away will produce a good image in the eyepiece. Carry on star gazer and clear nights to you. You do not mention how many if any diffraction rings when in and out of focus. So, carry on and good luck. I get reffractor like stars and just dark space between these stars in my 10 inch DOB.
+Darrell Grisham Thanks for your input. Rigel could be grouped up to five. I never have been truly happy with this video because it was loosely pieced together from tons of footage. I’ve considered a redo on many occasions but my initial argument remains. You make a good point about separation using your instrument as a reference but also that is a 250mm telescope. I have an Orion 10” I may use for a whole new video. I definitely feel like there is a need. I wasn’t even aware I posted any photos in this video. My star photos are unaffected by atmosphere. They are off by a slight primary mirror tilt. I see the lopsided diffraction looking at it on pc. To be honest I posted this from a phone and never watched it on pc. That’s not good. I’m certainly glad you responded and I will certainly get around to demonstrating it properly. I don’t get very good separation in a 130mm F5 anyway. I may dump it completely for an aberration video covering all ends of it. I actually have a telescope with a rare pinch. I haven’t seen any live footage with examples of astigmatism or thermal currents etc. Anyway, I hope you enjoy the week and have plenty of clear skies.
What’s up Garnett?!? So your saying just eye ball the center! Then fine tuning it in a bright star? Awww man i wish I had seen this first feels like I wasted $120 on a laser tool... lol great video by the way
+Llamar Vasquez Yes and I don’t think you wasted money. I’m just illustrating the point that stock focuser slop doesn’t allow for a sure thing. Moving a scope to a mount has the potential to throw it out of whack too. There’s nothing better than a real time visual reference to get it 100%
When you want to looknat dimmer objects.. You need close to perfect alignment between mirrors... The laser collimator will come in handy when you are observing tiny stars.
That’s a good one. A lot of people use Polaris for collimation because it doesn’t appear to rotate and stays in the frame regardless if you’re tracking or not. Try to use a very bright star in the south, at high magnification, and it will drift out of view before you’re done in most cases. Depending on your skill level and speed Polaris is a great choice.
for some reason when i collimate with my lazer the mirrors always seem way off compared to if i eyeball it and use my eye cap with a hole in... i am yet to test the collimation on a star as its unfortunately day time..
Right. You may have figured this out in the 2 years it has been since you wrote this comment, but sometimes laser collimators themselves are out of collimation.
Some missing information... i am lost and need more help... when doing initial colimation from getting a telescope from a yard sale, i am only seeing the reflection of my own eye, when reflected off of primary. If aimed at a wall, and i cant see the wall, on the focal point, how am i supposed to see a star? I need to know HOW to make those adjustments please.
That may not be enough. Try a target at a distance. A sign, a street light, etc. I feel your problem is being too close. My refractor has a minimum distance of 50 ft for example.
+MrRightNowNews I definitely need to post photograph slide shows. Not many folks were interested in live views. I think that's because there are much bigger telescope live views on other channels. Any suggestions? What kind of astro photos are you interested in?
+jon mauck I'd be happy to. I'm out of state right now and have a couple other ideas some friends were interested in but will gladly get back to that topic. Let me know a little more information. What kind of equipment do you have? I had a budget Jupiter in mind but I can shift to another popular one like say the Beehive Cluster. I will definitely get around to more targets. That Orion video was well accepted. Clear skies.
jon mauck Very nice instrument. Have you considered StarSense? I have no experience with it but the reviews are great. That would make a great auto guider for dso I bet. I like the T5i too. You have a nice set up. There's a wedge available for your mount. I considered the 6 myself and would have it rather than the 4 had I known the 4 doesn't have the auto guider port. Celestron amazed me with the NexStar mount in terms of planetary, solar and lunar. It's really the best go to I have used for tracking them.
Hi. Stars should be pin points of light at low power am I right? If I use higher power should they still be points of light? I am having trouble getting stars to be pin points even on low power. They look slightly triangular and not pin points. Any thoughts or help would be greatly appreciated. I think my mirrors are lined up ok but maybe I'm wrong...
@@GarnettLearyThanks for the reply. I have a Baader Hyperion 8mm, a SkyWatcher ultra wide view 6mm and a 20mm Orion Sirius plossl that came with my Orion XT8 Dob. The 8mm is also quite blurry but maybe I'm expecting too much or the seeing conditions might not be perfect. Haven't used the 6mm yet as I just got it recently and conditions have been poor. The 20mm used to have pin point stars but otherwise provides clean image. Could secondary mirror being out of line cause any of those problems?
Definitely yes. Very unlikely it’s your eyepieces. Those are all decent midrange ones. Your mirror may be overtightened. If you pinch the mirror it actually flexes. That will result in such aberration.
@@michaelaldan4354 ok I've loosened the clips and I'm waiting for a clear patch of sky. The clips were definitely too tight after reading your comment and checking on Google. I wasn't aware they should be slightly loose like that. I'll let you know either way but thanks so much for that piece of info!
I have a question for you. when I try to do the star test, I view a bright star in the LCD of my canon connected to telescope, I make a 5x zoom and verify by focusing in and out. if I see that it is not collimated I should move the screws that control the primary mirror. here comes the problem. when I move the screws, also the star moves on the screen and I lose it. because when i play with the screws, the primary mirror moves and also the star. i'm a bit confused….
That’s a great point you make. Unfortunately the majority of the retail scopes available and their respective mounts have that problem. Either the mount isn’t very rigid especially in its racking or the knobs on the collimating screws are too rigid and it’s very easy to throw the scope off a target. On a wide field scope the margin for error is much greater and you can keep it fairly centered if very careful. I didn’t consider specifying longer focal lengths that even on a really good setup would likely kick out of the frame. I definitely should have been more clear on the type of instrument this would be effective on. Solid question but I still believe it’s possible unless say you are using a high focal ratio. I need to try it on something below an EQ4 and see how my luck goes. Clear skies.
When you adjust the primary mirror the star will move off-center or completely off the field of view. That is why it is very important to recenter the star in the field of view each time before you turn any of the three adjustment screws and always make very small turn a little at a time. Star test is the most accurate way to collimate a telescope. And don't forget to realign your finderscope because once you adjust the screws on the primary mirror it no longer points in the same direction as the finderscope.
It must be a refractor. The donut shape is created by the secondary mirror obstruction of the light path. Refractors don’t use secondary mirrors. In your case you should see just a circle that increases and decreases in size as you rack the focuser. You can check collimation by looking at how concentric the circular lines are inside of the airy disc. On nights of bad seeing it may appear quite irregular rather than circular. In most cases refractor telescopes require very little to no collimation. They have superior lens housings as opposed to the mirror cells of reflector systems.
i dont get it , looks fine to me , i have 114/500mm Newtonian , still fresh in it , i see the coma but towards the edges , found Jupiter last knight all by my own looking , nothing aligned , i dont have trouble with comas or what not , i have trouble zooming in to it , i have cheap eyepieces that came with it , the cheapest ones , i can see jupiters moons but thats it , no color on it, eyepieces are expensive , about 50$ a piece , good ones , i would like someone experience to tell me , why i cant see jupiter in its glory , i cant see stars like shown , i think i dont have that zoom , and color . i have 10mm piece , 25mm that ones the best , at least i see something , and 2x Barlow that doesnt do much . Please help . I think my scope is not that bad , maybe its light pollution im in a city but still i the best zoom i can get lets say on the moon is full moon , no crater zooming, jupiter is a dot , like a street light , these eyepieces are expensive , i would rather invest there first then 70$ for colliminator , laser or not .
Most of the objects you can see visually fall way short of how camera sensors detect them. Orion is a blob of grey to the human eye and very faint. If you attach a camera to your scope you can expose for Jupiters moons or the Planet but typically not both at the same time. Visually, with your setup you should be able to at least see a couple bands of clouds on Jupiter. Try averting your vision. Center your target but focus your eye on an area just outside center. Human vision is designed around anti-predation so unfortunately our vision is better at the edges. Coma is more apparent in photography. Imaging will show you just how bad it is. When you focus on Jupiter you have two fine adjustment choices. 1) moons 2) planet. You can’t resolve both simultaneously as the focus is drastically different. Higher quality eyepieces are a great upgrade but not one a beginner should make. I say that because the difference is minute except to a pro. Well, field of view is noticeably different but seriously it’s far more to do with training your eyes to see. That sounds cryptic but it’s so true.
Thank you for replying , you seam to understand me , and my problems well, only thing is i can focus the Jupiter and moon in same picture , exactly like shown on google HERE goo.gl/3Ac1fJ , i see exactly that , the only problem is i dont have a focus on planet, no stripes , just imaginary , a bit of it , i think this is due to cheap optics , and only optics in reflector scope , is eyepiece , so i think its the eyepieces , again asking experienced astronomer for i am a noob. But for your troubles i can help you with your videos , audio, for i am in a studio , working with audio for 15 years , i can improve your audio significantly , i have at least 10 000$ of gear for audio , and 100$ scope :) ill do it for free for you if you help me :) you can reach me here or dedskinproducer at gmail . Thank you in advance , much appreciated
Aperture is detail. Larger the scope the more fainter details you can see. Focal ratio is another important aspect. A large focal ratio like F12 is ideal for planetary whereas a fast F5 is ideal for scanning large areas of the sky. Field of view is one of the most heavily used aspects. Field of view is a result of many factors and even eyepieces have their own field of view. Your telescope is fine. It’s resolving all the detail it can for its size and could improve in a darker area or with better eyepieces. To me it sounds like you are wanting to see greater detail and closer tighter views. I would venture to say you need something in the F10 and up range. There are a lot of really good Maksutovs out on the market that won’t kill your wallet. Orion makes several for under $300. Telescopes are a lot like camera lenses. Depth of field may be something you are familiar with. The views from fast optics are relatively flat whereas high focal ratio telescopes are long on the focus and deep in magnification. That’s why big fast reflectors are called light buckets. We typically discuss astrophotography and you’ll find what’s desired by photographers is vastly different than by what visual observers seek. Aperture isn’t too big a concern for astrophotographers who rely on exposure time for detail. Quite a few of the best images you’ll see on a search are made with 80mm refractors. The telescope you have is fine. Likely it’s just not producing towards your expectations and a higher magnification instrument is the only thing that will likely satisfy your interest. If you want to test the idea go out and find a cheap retail refractor that’s at F10 or higher. Even a cheap Tasco will do. I’m saying even a $50 40mm cheapo. You’ll be able to see the difference in focal ratio in no time. Constrained field of view but greater magnification. Ultimately if you continue you’ll find aperture is king in detail and focal ratio will become more and more important. There is no one perfect scope. All of them have strengths and weaknesses. You are fighting against the nature of what yours is intended for. Do a Google search for NexStar 4SE and look at the detail in the images taken with it. You’ll see mostly planetary as that’s what it’s best at. F12 Maksutov. I truly believe a higher F ratio would bring you happiness. Keep the one you have tho. If you stick to the hobby you’ll find it useful for other objects. That’s cool you work with sound. I appreciate the offer but I obviously don’t take the Peter McKinnon approach lol. You won’t catch me b-rolling a slow mo of coffee is what I mean to say. I will however offer any information I think is helpful to my viewers and gladly take the time to help. I’m interested in problem solving and encouraging others. I hope this was helpful and again thank you for the offer.
So what you are saying is that big aperture , relatively speaking like mine reflector 114mm , is good for large field of view and faint objects as well as sticking a camera on it and collect the light for faint objects . Woudl that be what you would advise me to do ? While larger focal length is good for Jupiter/planets . This is confusing me a bit , if you have time you can address that im quite interested and subbed . Are not Barlow lenses increasing focal length by 2x , or even 5x , . So if i get a decent Barlow of 2,5X i would have effective Focal length from original 500mm , to 1250mm . That part i dont understand . I considered focal length when buying this scope , looked at 900mm refactor VS 500mm Reflector , and chose 500mm because i red that Barlow lenses make focal length effectively longer , so i was thinking , then better get the biggest aperture i can get for start and then use Barlow , but real world Barlow i have , is a single lens i think plastic piece , that really doesn't do much . I think i will take your advice and get another scope , that is of a Refractor type , longer focal length , like 900mm or more , but even with that , i would probably have a use for good Barlow . So maybe first get Barlow , then see how it works , if it doesn't make my scope focal length longer , and still doesn't work to my satisfaction, then go for Refractor , and then i can use that Barlow with that scope . Because now i can afford , lets say 100$-150$ to improve my experience stargazing , so you are of an opinion i would be better of getting a cheap refractor for that rather then invest in good lenses , or DSLR tho be it cheap one without optics,and T adapter for my existing scope , what would be the best way to improve my experience in stargazing , for lets say , seeing Jupiter better . Or maybe in this Time of the Year Jupiter is low, and it is low on horizon and Atmosphere makes it hard to see , or is in longer orbit , and not close . Obviously i need to learn some maps , and orbits and what can be seen , for i am a beginner . But even so , i found these shops do sell unnecessary stuff , even usless stuff , and can take my money and i will get nothing . But thats true everywhere , its just the way world works . Truly appreciate your input .
I found this video , short one , you can take a look, .ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wG6lxFW-pyQ.html both types work on planet , as you say better detail on refractor , reflector doesn't have chromatic abortion, but both can see it . they are 6" , mine is a bit smaller , 114mm how much is that in inch, about 4" still , what i see is not even close to that or im looking at a wrong thing , i looked at it 2 nights now and it did change position of its Satellites , so im 99% its Jupiter , those images dont have Satellites on them , while i can see them clearly , small dots yes , but i see both the planet and satellites , here is an image of my scope just so that you know what it is , 114mm-500mm focal length , if those numbers are correct, its not exactly a SkyWatcher or Orion goo.gl/9i83oU
I know why. Science has become about "accuracy" in the "lab" not experience in the field. This is true for any discipline I have looked at. The really odd reason behind this is to make Truth subjective to the observer. It also has something to do with advertising, since those cool tools don't sell unless people think they need them. Honestly I did not want the tools that is why I tracked down this video. all that being said I purchased my 114mm reflector for DSLR photos and video and to test the curve of the earth. I know it sounds insane but after 7+ years I have not found any evidence of curvature as in the curve of the ball we are supposed to live on. Yeah the earth is flat. We know this as astronomers since stars rotate differently in the south and you can observe Venus after sunset and before sunrise despite it being in the inner solar system.
I am not responding to you with any contempt. Please know I take every statement quite seriously and I’m not into ridicule. I’m curious what tests you are performing. I’d love to know how you arrived at your conclusion. I can suggest quite a few observational tests that you can try. One example is using a camera in combination with your 114. We can physically measure the dimensions of your sensor. That should be a measurement that flat earth or spherical earth believers can agree on yes? My test involves using a solar filter to photograph the Sun. You can then measure the Sun in pixels across the sensor. Take this measurement multiple times throughout the day. You will arrive at the same pixel measurement across the sensor. This is important because the flat Earth theory adopts a much closer Sun that moves across the face of Earth. If that were true then it would take up less pixels as it moved away and more as it approached. I realize this doesn’t do much to explain Earth curvature but it’s a deal breaker for conventional mainstream flat earth theory. Why I bring the Sun up is because it’s also a great object for observation of curve. If you can locate someone over 50 km from yourself you can conduct a very simple test. Bury a stick, or post, identical to your assistant in height above the ground. Measure the length of the shadows cast simultaneously. You will be able to record variations in the length of those shadows depending on your location. This would not occur with a flat earth, especially when the conventional Sun theory fails. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, especially if you can conduct them in a respectful way. I can and I’m interested.
