Very nice images. I have heard, and seen videos, about the need for blurxterminator with this OTA. But, your images look fine to me. I think I'd carry on with the 2600 at least for a while; optimize that before adding another element.
WO states on their website that the scope is best used with blurxterminator, which I guess implies that the scope design is less than optimal. I am very happy with my Meade 70mm quadruplet, although it's not a cool red color. Thank you for the video and nice images.
It’s good to hear your input! I never came across that statement on the WO site. It’s good to hear you have a great telescope that gives you great results. It sounds like you either have very good seeing conditions and transparency, or possibly your telescope fully accommodates and corrects for the distortion caused by the atmosphere and other environmental factors. Clear skies!
I wanted to see the statement you cited from Williamoptics.com. So I went there and searched the site and found no occurrences of blurxterminator. Maybe you could post a direct quote from their site so we can see the statement. Thanks!
Sorry, I didn’t read your first comment properly. Without blurxterminator, the stars are still round. I know some people are against using the tool because it leverages AI. I respect their opinion and feel it’s their right to choose. However, in my case if I’m going to use Pixinsight’s deconvolution utility or I choose to use Blurxterminator, for me it’s very similar. I’m leveraging a process or algorithm that someone else developed just like many other tools for post processing. This way I don’t have to reinvent the wheel, but can use good tools that someone else developed through trial and error. The analogy that seems relevant is: we used to have to get out a paper map to plan the route to drive somewhere in another state. Then came garmin and other carry along GPS devices. Then the GPS was built into our car’s navigation system. Now every smartphone has a navigation app. I personally don’t want to go back to paper maps because it takes more time and now my up close vision is failing. So using these astrophotography post processing tools in a similar way saves us time and effort.
@@marksastrojourney no need to apologise and i appreciate your detailed reply. Im new to the hobby and am far from certain, where, if anywhere to draw the line. Different opinions on this sort of stuff is useful to read :)
The images are so beautiful. Thank you so much for sharing these pictures with all of us.😊❤
Glad you like them!
So beautiful.
Thank you! 😊
Very nice images. I have heard, and seen videos, about the need for blurxterminator with this OTA. But, your images look fine to me. I think I'd carry on with the 2600 at least for a while; optimize that before adding another element.
thanks for the feedback!
WO states on their website that the scope is best used with blurxterminator, which I guess implies that the scope design is less than optimal. I am very happy with my Meade 70mm quadruplet, although it's not a cool red color. Thank you for the video and nice images.
It’s good to hear your input! I never came across that statement on the WO site. It’s good to hear you have a great telescope that gives you great results.
It sounds like you either have very good seeing conditions and transparency, or possibly your telescope fully accommodates and corrects for the distortion caused by the atmosphere and other environmental factors.
Clear skies!
I wanted to see the statement you cited from Williamoptics.com. So I went there and searched the site and found no occurrences of blurxterminator. Maybe you could post a direct quote from their site so we can see the statement. Thanks!
How are the stars without blurxterminator? Thanks for the video
I am using blurxterminator. It’s a great tool! Thanks for watching!
@marksastrojourney thanks for the reply. Look forward to your next videos
Sorry, I didn’t read your first comment properly. Without blurxterminator, the stars are still round. I know some people are against using the tool because it leverages AI. I respect their opinion and feel it’s their right to choose. However, in my case if I’m going to use Pixinsight’s deconvolution utility or I choose to use Blurxterminator, for me it’s very similar. I’m leveraging a process or algorithm that someone else developed just like many other tools for post processing. This way I don’t have to reinvent the wheel, but can use good tools that someone else developed through trial and error.
The analogy that seems relevant is: we used to have to get out a paper map to plan the route to drive somewhere in another state. Then came garmin and other carry along GPS devices. Then the GPS was built into our car’s navigation system. Now every smartphone has a navigation app. I personally don’t want to go back to paper maps because it takes more time and now my up close vision is failing. So using these astrophotography post processing tools in a similar way saves us time and effort.
@@marksastrojourney no need to apologise and i appreciate your detailed reply. Im new to the hobby and am far from certain, where, if anywhere to draw the line. Different opinions on this sort of stuff is useful to read :)
wishing you well on the journey with the hobby!