Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Roddier Test results TMB 130 SS

Expand Messages
  • Bob McCourt
    Tim, Did you edit the fits header according to the directions? The FITS need to be 16bit and the header edited for them to work as far as the directions I used
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Tim,

      Did you edit the fits header according to the directions? The FITS
      need to be 16bit and the header edited for them to work as far as the
      directions I used go.

      No doubt looking/imaging is where it's at but I can tell you it's
      feels good knowing what I have for what I paid ;)

      CS's



      --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Tube Tim" <potentate@...> wrote:
      >
      > >--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <msholdenct@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      >
      > > For what it's worth, Roland seems to like the Roddier test.
      > >
      > > One of these days I'll probably run it on my scope, but while I
      > > apparently have the equipment, and it's "easy", it's not nearly as
      > > easy as looking through the scope and enjoying the view.
      > >
      >
      > I'd like to give this a go but using the FIT file direct from an
      > STL-11K didn't work. I sure agree about the looking instead.
      >
      >
      > Tim
      >
    • Bob McCourt
      Markus, From the research I have been doing the test is turning out to be quite accurate really and scales very well with those reports that have come with
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Markus,

        From the research I have been doing the test is turning out to be
        quite accurate really and scales very well with those reports that
        have come with scopes. As it's been said, Roland seems to put some
        validity in them and that is a pretty strong statement.

        I have a question. And this is asked with all due respect. Why have
        you/Do you continue to beat the daylights out of this scope? Why such
        a negative post over at CN's? Some of us don't have budgets of $6-8K
        to put into a scope and so, have to maybe settle. (At 1/10th wave and
        a strehl over .98 I really hate settling ;) ) I have noticed a
        pattern developing after the release of this scope. It's almost as if
        it would be impossible for the scope to perform as good as it does
        becuase of it's price. Perhaps the days of absurdly priced APO's is
        showing it's legs. Again, I mean no disrespect nor am I looking to
        start a fight I'm simply making an observation.

        I for one would love to see other manufacturers follow this same
        route. Give us a high quality APO without us having to sell our kids
        and as has been seen, the world just may beat a path to your door
        also.

        CS's

        Bobby

        --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Ludes" <anfrage@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello,
        >
        > a question, how reliable is such test ? I mean if it would be
        > relaible , why manufactors need to spend money to do testreports ?
        >
        > And such testresults we have seen extremly seldom in reliable test
        > by other worldclass makers
        >
        > thanks for explanations
        >
        > Markus
        >
        >
        > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "jdma926" <jwm521@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I did a similar test last night, and achieved similar results to
        > > yours! I used an ST-8 camera, and the coupling to the focuser
        was
        > a
        > > little wobbly, so there was some tilt in the optical train. When
        > > that tilt was removed, the results were lambda/13 PTV and Strehl
        =
        > > 0.99 (calculated from RMS of lambda/74.7). The wavelength that
        > the
        > > software uses in the calculations is 560nm.
        > >
        > > I've been very impressed with the scope so far, and await the FT
        > > focuser!
        > >
        > > Thanks Thomas, bring on the 155! John
        > >
        > > --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Bob McCourt" <ESUTEK27@>
        wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I have spent a bit of time hear reading before making the
        > purchase
        > > of
        > > > the SS and feel I can post some info at this time. I may be new
        > to
        > > > this forum so to speak but not to astronomy or scopes in
        general.
        > > >
        > > > I ran the test on my 130SS the other night and posted the
        > results
        > > in
        > > > a thread over on CloudyNights. You can view that thread at
        > > >
        > > > www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/13979
        > > > 33/page/1/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1
        > > >
        > > > To make a long story short I need to first Thank Thomas for
        > > designing
        > > > and amazing scope for the money. I have never been happier with
        > any
        > > > scope I have owned. It is a joy to use plain and simple. It
        > stands
        > > > toe to toe with the TOA-130 I owned previously which is saying
        a
        > > lot.
        > > >
        > > > So how did it do you may be asking????
        > > >
        > > > Looks like a 1/10th Wavefront and a Strehl of .99. Sorry that's
        > not
        > > a
        > > > typo :) The views from the EP and the images it has taken so
        far
        > > > surely back up these results.
        > > >
        > > > All that is needed to make this scope one of the finest large
        > APO's
        > > > available in ANY price point is the addition of the FT which
        > should
        > > > be happening soon according to Mike at Astronomics. This is
        > > > the "Missing Key" to a Perfect scope.
        > > >
        > > > It was stated in that thread that the 130 can be produced at
        > it's
        > > > pricepoint because of the use of "Lower/Cheaper" priced FPL-53
        > > Glass
        > > > and that the addition of a highly regarded optics designers
        name
        > on
        > > > it doesn't make for a great scope. That a lot of people are
        > buying
        > > > into Ad hype and such. To those that feel that way I say....
        > > >
        > > > "Beat it. Design a scope that tests as well as this one did and
        > > seems
        > > > to be making A LOT of people happy and impressing A LOT of
        > people
        > > > with it's quality of optics. Give the consumer another choice.
        > > Until
        > > > than you can say whatever you'd like but the proof is in
        > > > the "Pudding" so to speak ;)
        > > >
        > > > Thanks for taking the time. If you own a 130SS give the test a
        > > shot.
        > > > It would be interesting to see how they test as a group and
        what
        > > kind
        > > > of consistency there is to the scopes. Perhaps I just
        > got "Lucky"
        > > and
        > > > got one of the so called "Good ones" Based on what I have been
        > > > reading and seeing I don't think such is the case.
        > > >
        > > > Best regards and CS's
        > > >
        > > > Bob M
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • jdma926
        Hi Tim - The first time I tried this using the ST-8, I ran into real problems...Roland and I were both scratching our heads. Then a fellow named Joe Baldwin
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Tim - The first time I tried this using the ST-8, I ran into real
          problems...Roland and I were both scratching our heads. Then a
          fellow named Joe Baldwin figured it out...I was measuring stars that
          were too bright (or, exposing too long), and the resultant
          intensities caused the data to become un-signed 16 bit values. The
          Roddier software needs signed 16 bit values. Joe divided all the
          values in the image by 2, and that fixed the problem. Given what Joe
          had discovered, the intensity in each pixel must be <32768 (that is,
          half of the maximum that 16 bits can accomodate, or 65536). Now I
          simply ensure that the maximum intensity is <24000 for each image,
          choosing the star or exposure time to be compatible with the aperture
          of the scope that I'm testing. Maybe this will help in your case.

          John

          --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Tube Tim" <potentate@...> wrote:
          >
          > >--- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <msholdenct@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          >
          > > For what it's worth, Roland seems to like the Roddier test.
          > >
          > > One of these days I'll probably run it on my scope, but while I
          > > apparently have the equipment, and it's "easy", it's not nearly as
          > > easy as looking through the scope and enjoying the view.
          > >
          >
          > I'd like to give this a go but using the FIT file direct from an
          > STL-11K didn't work. I sure agree about the looking instead.
          >
          >
          > Tim
          >
        • zeissnut
          ... Hi Markus, I run the yahoo Roddier group. I think we are still trying to understand how reliable Roddier is. So far it seems good -- we have three scopes
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Markus Ludes" <anfrage@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello,
            >
            > a question, how reliable is such test ? I mean if it would be
            > relaible , why manufactors need to spend money to do testreports ?
            >
            > And such testresults we have seen extremly seldom in reliable test
            > by other worldclass makers
            >
            > thanks for explanations
            >
            > Markus

            Hi Markus,

            I run the yahoo Roddier group. I think we are still trying
            to understand how reliable Roddier is. So far it seems
            good -- we have three scopes with interferograms and
            Roddier so far always agrees to within 1% Strehl. But
            these are all very good scopes with Strehl 98% or better.
            We still need more scopes with interferograms, especially
            scopes of lower quality to compare the techniques.

            But Roddier is a very promising technique, and people with
            simple equipment -- camera or webcam -- can make some
            quantitative assessment. And we can test outside under
            the stars in real conditions (11F right now!).

            That is it not used by world class makers is natural.
            It is rather new technique, not yet completely proven.
            Also it does not lend itself well to needs of lens or
            mirror maker. For example, Foucault is much easier for
            mirror maker -- for Roddier what optician wants to
            assemble telescope, collimate, take outside and cooldown
            for hours, just to make a 2 minute test? It is too much
            work for mirror maker, but for observer it is perfect.

            I am hoping it will become more accepted and popular as
            we make further tests on it. Imagine if every telescope
            owner can make simple test and know Strehl is xx%,
            wavefront errors, etc. -- I think Roddier has potential
            to do this. Interferometry will still be the "gold"
            standard, but maybe Roddier can be "silver" or "bronze."

            - John B.
          • Orion_60640
            ... such ... If you don t recognize it, the technique was made famous by IBM in the sales of large computers. It s called FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 5, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In tmboptical@yahoogroups.com, "Bob McCourt" <ESUTEK27@...> wrote:
              >
              > Markus,
              >
              > From the research I have been doing the test is turning out to be
              > quite accurate really and scales very well with those reports that
              > have come with scopes. As it's been said, Roland seems to put some
              > validity in them and that is a pretty strong statement.
              >
              > I have a question. And this is asked with all due respect. Why have
              > you/Do you continue to beat the daylights out of this scope? Why
              such
              > a negative post over at CN's?


              If you don't recognize it, the technique was made famous by IBM in the
              sales of large computers. It's called "FUD" - Fear, Uncertainty,
              Doubt. I'll leave it to you to make a value judgement on its use.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.