Daytime focuser squareness, sensor tilt adjustment method

11 replies933 views
Michal N avatar
Hi Everyone,

I have been troubleshooting and trying to fix issues with my sensor tilt and focuser squareness for a while now. Ultimately it came down to field flattener being loose in the focuser barrel. I wanted to share the method I have used to find the problem and also how to help adjust for sensor tilt related issues during the day and not to have to waste the rare good imaging nights to do so.

I have printed an A4 sheet with a grid of black dots and hung it on the wall around 5-6 meters away from the telescope. Then added enough spacers between my flattener and the camera to be able to achieve focus at that distance.
I took a test shot, inverted the image in Photoshop, adjusted levels so our dots became bright stars on a dark background.
Then imported the image into ASTAP and measured both aberration and tilt.

This method will work for both DSLRs and dedicated astro cameras.
 
A bit of further explanation:
Because we are moving a focusing distance closer to us, we are also reducing our depth of field.
Also because we are moving the sensor further away from telescope lens, we are exaggerating any sensor tilt or off-axis errors we have in our imaging train.
Both exaggerated tilt and narrower depth of field allow us to perform a much more precise adjustment to ensure that our imaging train is as close to square as possible.
The principle behind it is similar to doing macro photography with a regular DSLR lens and extension tubes.

Just to answer any questions about how perpendicular should telescope imaging axis be to the paper, here is my setup and calculation:
80mm refractor @480mm F6, QHY163M 4/3 camera and distance to the paper is ~5m. That gives me a working focus depth of field of ~2cm.

I hope that helps someone with their struggles

Clear Skies and Kind Regards,
Michal


Images

Test page (Test Page.pdf):

Inverted and levels adjusted:

Out of square imaging train results:

Focuser tube squared with imaging train:
Helpful Insightful Engaging Supportive
James Ross avatar
This is an interesting method and assuming it works it could be a useful tool as tilt correction with actual stars is obviously a pain. I'm curious about a few things:
1) Do your results with the dotted paper translate into real world images - i.e. does your measured tilt under an actual star field agree with what you see here?
2) Have you checked that the tilt measurement is independent of the distance you mount the paper from the camera? I know you said you adjusted the setup to allow focus at <infinity but it might be worth checking this doesn't influence the tilt measurement. Intuitively I don't see why it would but one thought is that with this setup you might end up also exaggerating some other source of abberation besides tilt that would compromise ASTAP's measurements.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Richard avatar
Sounds like an interesting idea, Michal. My camera (QHY268M) has a built in tilt plate so I checked tilt with the camera off the telescope using the jig described here:
https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/382323-chip-tilt-test-jig/?do=findComment&comment=4352204

Thing is, the approach I listed above doesn't work if your camera doesn't have a tilt adapter or using a DSLR! So in this case your method would be better suited. 

Question: does the the telescope/lens have to be perfectly perpendicular to the grid you put on the wall?
Engaging
Michal N avatar
James Ross:
This is an interesting method and assuming it works it could be a useful tool as tilt correction with actual stars is obviously a pain. I'm curious about a few things:
1) Do your results with the dotted paper translate into real world images - i.e. does your measured tilt under an actual star field agree with what you see here?
2) Have you checked that the tilt measurement is independent of the distance you mount the paper from the camera? I know you said you adjusted the setup to allow focus at <infinity but it might be worth checking this doesn't influence the tilt measurement. Intuitively I don't see why it would but one thought is that with this setup you might end up also exaggerating some other source of abberation besides tilt that would compromise ASTAP's measurements.

I have just managed a few subs today due to cloudy weather. I still have issues with my field flattener being square after rotation. But I think it got better, stars look much more round, before they were leaning towards triangles (Images below).

2) I think if you have tilt error or your focuser is not square to the imaging plane then distance will just exaggerate this error. I would say we should first square the focuser tube and collimate the scope, then adjust the tilt.

Before:

After:
Michal N avatar
Richard:
Question: does the the telescope/lens have to be perfectly perpendicular to the grid you put on the wall?


The more precise the better I would say. You are working with a much reduced depth of field, so any diviation out of perfect will surely start showing at some point. It is most likely not as critical as sensor tilt and will have a much lesser effect, but I would try to square it to the best of my abilities to achieve best results.
jeffreycymmer avatar
Michal, could you describe how you created your test image?

Thanks,
Jeff
Well Written Respectful
Michal N avatar
Michal, could you describe how you created your test image?

Thanks,
Jeff

Hello Jeff, it is just a Word document page filled with dots.
Well Written Respectful
jeffreycymmer avatar
Didn't have any luck with that.  Are you using a laser printer?
Well Written Respectful
Michal N avatar
Didn't have any luck with that.  Are you using a laser printer?

Yes, I have used a laser printer, but I don't see why it would not work with an ink one too. What did not work for you? I have also added a test page PDF to the first post.
jeffreycymmer avatar
ASTAP couldn't find stars.  I didn't use that many dots.  I'll try yours.  Thanks
Dan H. M. avatar
Thanks for sharing. Maybe a dumb question but what’s the reason to use A4 over regular 8.5x11?
Michal N avatar
Thanks for sharing. Maybe a dumb question but what’s the reason to use A4 over regular 8.5x11?

A4 is a standard paper size in Europe. It is very close to 8.5x11.
Well Written Respectful