August 21, 2014, 10:33:45 PM

Author Topic: Deep Sky Astrophotography (Gear Discussion)  (Read 29158 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3939
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #105 on: March 01, 2014, 01:12:54 PM »
The Pleiades. The first few frames I managed to get on the first night I set up my telescope setup:



This was stacked from only a few frames, maybe 28. I had originally intended to take about 100 frames or so, but cloud cover and an accidental unplugging of my power cable ended up ending the night before it really got started.


Nice, so this was with the 600mm Canon lens and the 7D?


Yup!
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #105 on: March 01, 2014, 01:12:54 PM »

Click

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2823
    • View Profile
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #106 on: March 01, 2014, 01:17:04 PM »
Very interesting post jrista. Thanks for sharing all this information.

BTW Great pictures.

jprusa

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #107 on: March 01, 2014, 04:24:48 PM »
The Pleiades. The first few frames I managed to get on the first night I set up my telescope setup:



This was stacked from only a few frames, maybe 28. I had originally intended to take about 100 frames or so, but cloud cover and an accidental unplugging of my power cable ended up ending the night before it really got started.

 Nice Pictures Jon and thanks for all the information.

scyrene

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #108 on: March 01, 2014, 08:50:14 PM »
This has all been very interesting and informative! But I'll stick with my plan - my budget just doesn't stretch that far! I think living in a country where the weather is unreliable, many nights ruined by cloud - and not having access to a very dark site - means it wouldn't be worth bothering with high end equipment. Mind you, it's amazing what can be done without telescopes, cooled sensors, etc.

Fwiw my roadmap goes: full frame in-body light pollution filter (just out, though not available yet) ~£130, better tracker ~£500 (minus what I can get back by selling my current one).

The latter should allow me to use the 500mm f/4 for tracked astro work at last, and that should keep me happy until midsummer, when the nights are too short here to be able to do any night sky photography. Come autumn, maybe there'll be room for another upgrade :)


At 500mm, you are going to need guiding. You are also going to need a mount that can REALLY handle the load. That's an expensive lens, and relatively heavy. When you throw in the weight of the guider, the weight of the camera and lens, plus the weight of all the cables coming off them, your going to be around 20lb or so. For smooth tracking without any issues or the chance of toppling over, you want a mount that can handle twice the load. You might be able to get away with an Orion Sirius. The Sirius is $1100, and it can hold 30lb. You can usually find those used for $700, maybe a little less. I really wouldn't recommend anything smaller than that for use with your 500mm lens. If you must go cheaper, then the smallest thing I would recommend would be either the Orion SkyView Pro (which runs about $850 new), or the iOptron ZEQ25GT (also $850 new). You can find both for cheaper used (check cloudynights.com and astromart.com). The SkyView Pro can handle 20lb (your cutting it REALLY close with that), and the ZEQ25GT can handle 27lb (close, but probably acceptable.)

The iOptron mount won't support EQMOD, so it isn't at the top of my list of recommendations. I really highly recommend that you use an Orion mount...either the Sirius or the Atlas. You can find both used for pretty reasonable prices. I've even seen the Atlas mount used for as cheap as $750.


I don't understand what you mean by a guider. There's a new iOptron tracker out this spring here, aimed at DSLRs just like my current one. It takes up to 5+3.5kg according to the specs, although I don't know precisely what they mean. I understand what you're saying about extra capacity, but 5kg is enough for my peace of mind. Here's a link: http://www.tringastro.co.uk/ioptron-sky-guider-portable-dslr-imaging-mount-3683-p.asp

As for the others you mention... are they aimed at telescopes? I found aligning my telescope so counterintuitive I gave up, but the mount I use at present seems straightforward.

To be honest, if it cost any more than that, I'd probably give up at this point. It's too niche an area, even though I enjoy it, for me to justify too much dedicated equipment.
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, MP-E, 85L II, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3939
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #109 on: March 01, 2014, 10:23:42 PM »
This has all been very interesting and informative! But I'll stick with my plan - my budget just doesn't stretch that far! I think living in a country where the weather is unreliable, many nights ruined by cloud - and not having access to a very dark site - means it wouldn't be worth bothering with high end equipment. Mind you, it's amazing what can be done without telescopes, cooled sensors, etc.

Fwiw my roadmap goes: full frame in-body light pollution filter (just out, though not available yet) ~£130, better tracker ~£500 (minus what I can get back by selling my current one).

The latter should allow me to use the 500mm f/4 for tracked astro work at last, and that should keep me happy until midsummer, when the nights are too short here to be able to do any night sky photography. Come autumn, maybe there'll be room for another upgrade :)


At 500mm, you are going to need guiding. You are also going to need a mount that can REALLY handle the load. That's an expensive lens, and relatively heavy. When you throw in the weight of the guider, the weight of the camera and lens, plus the weight of all the cables coming off them, your going to be around 20lb or so. For smooth tracking without any issues or the chance of toppling over, you want a mount that can handle twice the load. You might be able to get away with an Orion Sirius. The Sirius is $1100, and it can hold 30lb. You can usually find those used for $700, maybe a little less. I really wouldn't recommend anything smaller than that for use with your 500mm lens. If you must go cheaper, then the smallest thing I would recommend would be either the Orion SkyView Pro (which runs about $850 new), or the iOptron ZEQ25GT (also $850 new). You can find both for cheaper used (check cloudynights.com and astromart.com). The SkyView Pro can handle 20lb (your cutting it REALLY close with that), and the ZEQ25GT can handle 27lb (close, but probably acceptable.)

The iOptron mount won't support EQMOD, so it isn't at the top of my list of recommendations. I really highly recommend that you use an Orion mount...either the Sirius or the Atlas. You can find both used for pretty reasonable prices. I've even seen the Atlas mount used for as cheap as $750.


I don't understand what you mean by a guider. There's a new iOptron tracker out this spring here, aimed at DSLRs just like my current one. It takes up to 5+3.5kg according to the specs, although I don't know precisely what they mean. I understand what you're saying about extra capacity, but 5kg is enough for my peace of mind. Here's a link: http://www.tringastro.co.uk/ioptron-sky-guider-portable-dslr-imaging-mount-3683-p.asp

As for the others you mention... are they aimed at telescopes? I found aligning my telescope so counterintuitive I gave up, but the mount I use at present seems straightforward.

To be honest, if it cost any more than that, I'd probably give up at this point. It's too niche an area, even though I enjoy it, for me to justify too much dedicated equipment.


The sky guider might work. It aligns the same way as the other mounts I mentioned, however...you look through a scope built into the mounts RA axis. It really is not counterintuitive, and once you get the hang of it, it is pretty easy and very precise. It does take some time, though.

It does not look like the sky guider is computerized, however. At 500mm, which is like a small refracting telescope, you are going to have a tough time finding objects in the sky. For wider focal lengths, you'll be fine, but 400mm and 500mm, you'll have to spend some time hunting to find the objects you are interested in. Just be aware of that.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3939
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #110 on: March 04, 2014, 07:08:57 PM »
Two more images. Two nights ago, we had a fluke clear sky...forecast showed cloudy at sunset, turned out to be clear from sunset until after midnight. I got some imaging done on a number of objects, including Pleiades again.

This shot of the Pleiades was much more deeply exposed than my first attempt, however I ended up having some problems with my guiding that consumed a lot of the detail present in the nebula. I worked on this image for two days, but because of the guiding issues, I think it's the best I can do without trying again with better subs:



I also imaged two other regions of the sky. Orion slipped behind the trees before I had a change to get any exposure time on M78. So I looked a little higher in the sky, in Gemini. I was first looking for Jellyfish Nebula, but it is extremely dim, and I knew the mount was having problems guiding, which would have destroyed a lot of the nebula detail. So looking around the same area, I found M35 and NGC2158, two open clusters about too moon diameters above Jellyfish:



The color is slightly false...the blue stars of M35 (the larger cluster) should be just a touch paler, and the red stars of NGC2158 should be a little more varied. I have to use a light pollution filter from my back yard, and it blocks out most of the greens, hence the skewed color.

I also started imaging one of the galaxy clusters in Leo, however by the time I managed to get that sequence started, the clouds had closed in, and I only managed to get 7 subs before Leo was clouded over.

I am hoping to solve my guiding issues next time there is a clear sky. I also have the option of programming PEC, or Periodic Error Correction, in my mount, which can improve tracking accuracy even further. It's complicated, though, so I haven't tried that yet. I think I'll need about five minute exposures to get good light on the galaxies (and "Galaxy Season" is coming up...once Orion sets, the Milky Way is generally out of sight for most of the night, and the constellations that are overhead, like Leo and the Big Dipper, have bunches of galaxies in them. Until late April, early May, about the only interesting things to image are galaxies.)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #111 on: March 07, 2014, 07:18:08 AM »
Nice work.  What keeps the stars from blowing out more than this, if the exposures are 5 minutes?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #111 on: March 07, 2014, 07:18:08 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3939
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #112 on: March 07, 2014, 10:24:55 AM »
Nice work.  What keeps the stars from blowing out more than this, if the exposures are 5 minutes?

I use a relatively low ISO of 400. A lot of astrophotographers shoot at ISO 800 or 1600 on APS-C cameras (most often, the 18mp Canon APS-C), however that reduces the saturation point to half or one quarter what I usually get at ISO 400. It might make it a little more difficult for me to pull detail out of the shadows, but I prefer my stars not be blown.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3939
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #113 on: March 07, 2014, 10:30:07 AM »
Here is an image of Orion Nebula and Running Man. This is effectively an HDR image, as this region has EXTREMELY high dynamic range. I used 30x120s + 20x60s + 20x30s exposures to capture the ultra bright core detail where the Trapezium open cluster is, (30s and 60s exposures) as well as the dimmer outer regions of the nebula (120s exposures). I'd have liked to get 240s exposures, but Orion had moved behind my trees before I was able to do that. I wasn't even able to capture all of the dimmer dust detail...and for the detail I did capture, there is probably about 20 stops of DR. I'd probably need about 24 stops of DR to capture it all, meaning I'd need several more sequeces at 240s and maybe 480s to really pull out the dark dusty detail (which fills the entire region):



Couple of close ups:


Running Man Nebula and Dark Dust Lane


M43 and Trapezium Core
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

Trovador

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
    • Photography Portfolio
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #114 on: March 07, 2014, 10:32:52 AM »
To all,

This is not quite deep-sky, but might be "landscape".  :)

This is a composite image of the 2012 Perseid Meteor shower taken with a Canon 1DX and a rented Canon 8-15mm f/4.0L lens.  The underlying background is a single image.  I captured meteors throughout the night and picked the brightest ones to copy onto the background image.  LightRoom and Photoshop CC were used to make the composite.

Thanks for looking,

Wade

Love this picture, congrats.
Canon 6D+7D; 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L 2.8 IS II, 100-400L IS, 50 1.4, 100L 2.8 IS, Rokinon 8mm fisheye
www.ruddyflorentino.com

scyrene

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #115 on: March 17, 2014, 02:34:56 PM »
This has all been very interesting and informative! But I'll stick with my plan - my budget just doesn't stretch that far! I think living in a country where the weather is unreliable, many nights ruined by cloud - and not having access to a very dark site - means it wouldn't be worth bothering with high end equipment. Mind you, it's amazing what can be done without telescopes, cooled sensors, etc.

Fwiw my roadmap goes: full frame in-body light pollution filter (just out, though not available yet) ~£130, better tracker ~£500 (minus what I can get back by selling my current one).

The latter should allow me to use the 500mm f/4 for tracked astro work at last, and that should keep me happy until midsummer, when the nights are too short here to be able to do any night sky photography. Come autumn, maybe there'll be room for another upgrade :)


At 500mm, you are going to need guiding. You are also going to need a mount that can REALLY handle the load. That's an expensive lens, and relatively heavy. When you throw in the weight of the guider, the weight of the camera and lens, plus the weight of all the cables coming off them, your going to be around 20lb or so. For smooth tracking without any issues or the chance of toppling over, you want a mount that can handle twice the load. You might be able to get away with an Orion Sirius. The Sirius is $1100, and it can hold 30lb. You can usually find those used for $700, maybe a little less. I really wouldn't recommend anything smaller than that for use with your 500mm lens. If you must go cheaper, then the smallest thing I would recommend would be either the Orion SkyView Pro (which runs about $850 new), or the iOptron ZEQ25GT (also $850 new). You can find both for cheaper used (check cloudynights.com and astromart.com). The SkyView Pro can handle 20lb (your cutting it REALLY close with that), and the ZEQ25GT can handle 27lb (close, but probably acceptable.)

The iOptron mount won't support EQMOD, so it isn't at the top of my list of recommendations. I really highly recommend that you use an Orion mount...either the Sirius or the Atlas. You can find both used for pretty reasonable prices. I've even seen the Atlas mount used for as cheap as $750.


I don't understand what you mean by a guider. There's a new iOptron tracker out this spring here, aimed at DSLRs just like my current one. It takes up to 5+3.5kg according to the specs, although I don't know precisely what they mean. I understand what you're saying about extra capacity, but 5kg is enough for my peace of mind. Here's a link: http://www.tringastro.co.uk/ioptron-sky-guider-portable-dslr-imaging-mount-3683-p.asp

As for the others you mention... are they aimed at telescopes? I found aligning my telescope so counterintuitive I gave up, but the mount I use at present seems straightforward.

To be honest, if it cost any more than that, I'd probably give up at this point. It's too niche an area, even though I enjoy it, for me to justify too much dedicated equipment.


The sky guider might work. It aligns the same way as the other mounts I mentioned, however...you look through a scope built into the mounts RA axis. It really is not counterintuitive, and once you get the hang of it, it is pretty easy and very precise. It does take some time, though.

It does not look like the sky guider is computerized, however. At 500mm, which is like a small refracting telescope, you are going to have a tough time finding objects in the sky. For wider focal lengths, you'll be fine, but 400mm and 500mm, you'll have to spend some time hunting to find the objects you are interested in. Just be aware of that.


You've been so kind, I hope my last replies didn't seem churlish. It is a pain finding stuff in the sky, but I have done some fixed tripod work with the 500mm lens. Some objects can be found (if they're near obvious asterisms), by hunting back and forth. A pain, but can be worth it - especially as this is a once in a quarter-year sort of endeavour. Actually, it's looking unlikely that I'll be able to devote any time to astro work this side of the summer now, so I can take stock at leisure. Maybe I'll change my mind again :)
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, MP-E, 85L II, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

scyrene

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
    • My Flickr feed
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #116 on: March 17, 2014, 03:43:50 PM »
Here is an image of Orion Nebula and Running Man. This is effectively an HDR image, as this region has EXTREMELY high dynamic range. I used 30x120s + 20x60s + 20x30s exposures to capture the ultra bright core detail where the Trapezium open cluster is, (30s and 60s exposures) as well as the dimmer outer regions of the nebula (120s exposures). I'd have liked to get 240s exposures, but Orion had moved behind my trees before I was able to do that. I wasn't even able to capture all of the dimmer dust detail...and for the detail I did capture, there is probably about 20 stops of DR. I'd probably need about 24 stops of DR to capture it all, meaning I'd need several more sequeces at 240s and maybe 480s to really pull out the dark dusty detail (which fills the entire region):



Couple of close ups:


Running Man Nebula and Dark Dust Lane


M43 and Trapezium Core


Excellent work.
5D mark III, 50D, 300D, EOS-M; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, 24-105L, MP-E, 85L II, 100L macro, 500L IS II, EF-M 18-55; 1.4xIII, 2x III + 2xII extenders; 600EX-RT; EF-M--EF adaptor.
Former lenses include: 70-200L f/4 non-IS, 200L 2.8, 400L 5.6

Jack Douglas

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #117 on: March 17, 2014, 06:38:34 PM »
Not sure I should even open my mouth here as I'm new to this and indeed very uneducated in the subject.  I have modified my iOptron skytracker to add rigidity to the base and allow my gimbal head to be mounted on a horizonatal plane.  I removed the gimbal swing arm and mounted my 300 X1.4 and was able to get quite good shots with pretty accurate focus.  Aligning Polaris was not too much of an issue but it did need tweaking.  With the now horizontal orientation of the iOptron base the gimbal worked really well in allowing smooth balanced movement of the lens.

However, last week I tried 300 X2 and found getting focus to be tricky becasue of lens movement due to lack of rigidity.  I will try again and then perhaps have to accept that it's impractical.  I'm not fully convinced, but obviously what I'm trying to do is not what anyone who is serious about the stars would be willing to accept.

An even bigger problem is my ignorance of where to aim.  Also I have not yet tried stacking.  I did post a shot in the other thread but I guess it's no longer active, so here's a sample at 420, 30 sec.  My remote timer release is in the mail, so that'll help.  Otherwise I'm all ears.

Jack
6D  24-70 F4  70-200 F2.8 II  300 F2.8 II  1.4X III  2X III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #117 on: March 17, 2014, 06:38:34 PM »

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3322
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #118 on: March 18, 2014, 07:38:45 AM »
Here is an image of Orion Nebula and Running Man. This is effectively an HDR image, as this region has EXTREMELY high dynamic range. I used 30x120s + 20x60s + 20x30s exposures to capture the ultra bright core detail where the Trapezium open cluster is, (30s and 60s exposures) as well as the dimmer outer regions of the nebula (120s exposures). I'd have liked to get 240s exposures, but Orion had moved behind my trees before I was able to do that. I wasn't even able to capture all of the dimmer dust detail...and for the detail I did capture, there is probably about 20 stops of DR. I'd probably need about 24 stops of DR to capture it all, meaning I'd need several more sequeces at 240s and maybe 480s to really pull out the dark dusty detail (which fills the entire region):



Couple of close ups:


Running Man Nebula and Dark Dust Lane


M43 and Trapezium Core

Truly MAGNIFICENT!
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #119 on: March 19, 2014, 12:43:47 AM »
Here is an image of Orion Nebula and Running Man. This is effectively an HDR image, as this region has EXTREMELY high dynamic range. I used 30x120s + 20x60s + 20x30s exposures to capture the ultra bright core detail where the Trapezium open cluster is, (30s and 60s exposures) as well as the dimmer outer regions of the nebula (120s exposures). I'd have liked to get 240s exposures, but Orion had moved behind my trees before I was able to do that. I wasn't even able to capture all of the dimmer dust detail...and for the detail I did capture, there is probably about 20 stops of DR. I'd probably need about 24 stops of DR to capture it all, meaning I'd need several more sequeces at 240s and maybe 480s to really pull out the dark dusty detail (which fills the entire region):



Couple of close ups:


Running Man Nebula and Dark Dust Lane


M43 and Trapezium Core


You did very well on Orion, the other two are less compelling...especially the bottom one.  Scaled too large, or otherwise too soft.  I'll post the one I got of Orion with just my 135 f/2 in a few days.  It doesn't compare of course, haha.

Well, 5 minutes at ISO 400 on a stationary star, seems like it would still blow it out.  You're wide open at f/4, correct?  (Maybe you're closed down for some of the esposures in the series, and open for others?)  The Pleiades primary stars would be so blown that they would appear twice as large as they do, so I'm not sure how you're doing that.  It seems like the way to do it, would be to expose for only a few seconds at ISO 100 for the brighter stars...then combine that with longer exposures at ISO 400 for the Nebulae and the fainter stars.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« Reply #119 on: March 19, 2014, 12:43:47 AM »