Tripod Leveling in Astrophotography! Worth it or Worthless??

[@sonnyedmonds2212]

Just some friendly banter from the other side. While true the Equatorial mounts we use can compensate for off level, the more off level, then the more the workings of a given mount will have to compensate. So I'm of the other side, I do my best to level my tripod base so everything on it has the best shot at being at a zero error projection from the center of the earth. (Not possible, I know) Everything I have seen in my electrical-mechanical life has always depended on a good level start. Imagine a building being erected on an unlevel base. Not a big deal at ground level, but the further the distance from the base, the worse the error will become. So, the more "off" your tripod is, the more your mount has to correct for. And it has to do that night after night, target after target. Does leveling matter? Only to the degree of accuracy matters to the individual. In the end, the fog rolls over, the clouds float by, and more space junk gets in the way. So do it the way you like, to the degree of accuracy you like. I made levelers I can dial in my level plane of my tripod with from the tips of the fully retracted legs. So the machining accuracy of my base can be utilized by adjusting the ground under each of the 3 legs. I think I enjoy the mechanic aspects of Astrophotography as I do the end results. It is a great personal challenge!

[@marccarrier]

From my experience, when you do drift alignment as I have to do since my house blocks Polaris, with for example the Three Point Polar Alignment plug-in in N.I.N.A., the azimuth and altitude corrections the plug-in gives you are very difficult to do with an unleveled mount. Consider if the tool tells you have a no error in altitude but need to shift azimuth west 5 arcminutes. If you are not leveled, as you make the correction to azimuth, it will introduce a new error in altitude and will make your azimuth change a little short or long. Then, when you try to correct the altitude, it adds azimuth error and you have to iterate many more times. I have started spending 3 minutes with a bubble level to level the mount and I find it saves me 15 minutes or more on polar three point alignment. Great video Cuiv.

[@endless-sky2777]

Thank you, Cuiv! I knew a rough levelling of the tripod was good enough and now, after watching your video, it is more clear why. I gotta say, my heart stopped for a moment when you put the counterweight under the tripod leg... I saw your whole rig tipping over in slow motion, it was like a bad dream while being awake!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, I think a lot of people almost had a heart attack while watching this video! Thanks for the feedback, and glad that it was helpful!

[@sneakerset]

i just follow best practice - level it. That saves time during drift alignments. Thanks,Cuiv

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Very good point on the drift alignment - and polar alignment in general. I just want people to relax - perfect leveling is not essential, close enough is good enough!

[@emoclew411]

I am so glad I found this video. It makes perfect sense. I’ve been wasting sooooo much time trying to get my tripod as level as possible. Thanks!

[@RobB_VK6ES]

To emulate the Hubble telescope I like to extend the tripod legs as far as possible to minimise the air column above the scope ;)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I think we could just build a space elevator, bring the telescopes to geostationary orbit - heck, if they can be secured and polar aligned there, they should work fine and not need any counterweights :D

[@RobB_VK6ES]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek on a more serious note I see a lot of how to balance the scope over the mount videos. Typically this involves testing the Dec balance only in the 0 Dec region buy this does not account for lateral scope imbalance that can be induced by adding an for example an autofocus motor or offset finder/guide scope or even at a fundamental level caused by the mounts own dovetail claw. My CGX for instance places the scope off center using a Losmandy dovetail. I suspect this may be the reason you positioned the camera at the bottom of your Vixen.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@RobB_VK6ES I don't even think proper balance can be achieved at all angles if you have and asymmetrical sideways - and this is indeed why my OTA is rotated like that. Plus it keeps the total weight closer to the RA axis of rotation.

[@pompeymonkey3271]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yes, that is the correct orientation for a Newtonian on an equatorial mount for AP. :)

[@johnhawk8624]

Accurate leveling makes polar alignment so much easier that I feel it's worth it. I do understand it is not necessary but it ends up saving me time in the end IMHO. Thanks for all your great videos.

[@salomon1639]

Another practical video. I held my breath when you lifted the tripod-thought that your whole rig would tip and crash-would that be an unbelievable video. Please don't risk your equipment . as usual, you have a lot of common sense and I totally agree with your analysis. Obviously the tripod would not have such an exaggerated tilt but even with the tripod being that far off balance, the polar alignment is the most important for accuracy and your point was well made. All this time I was worried about my tripod not being perfectly balanced and wasted time trying to get that tiny little bubble in the middle of the circle (I also have a Skywatcher EQ6r pro mount with built in balance bubble). Thanks

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Full disclosure: I had tried prior to taking the video, making sure I was ready in case it toppled over - it was very, very far from doing so :D I'm glad I can make you more relaxed about tripod leveling - rough leveling is definitely good enough!

[@oq17]

Thank you - I never saw the point of leveling the tripod with any degree of precision. Nice to hear you confirm this .

[@DominiqueGibert-sy3ot]

Totally agree with you Cuiv, the only important thing is to have the RA aligned with the Earth rotation axis.

[@paultadrick8801]

Good information, this video will bother a lot of people who are very picky about things they don't need to be. I like it!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, fortunately for the moment it hasn't bothered too many people! But I am well aware that it may :)

[@Sifugord]

Agreed. Rough/close levelling is all that is needed. If the mount is considerably off level you could have flex and safety issues, especially when imaging, due to uneven weight distribution.

[@sneakerset]

That's an excellent point - analyzing a flexure issue.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Exactly - I wouldn't keep that counterweight under my tripod leg for fear of things flexing or tipping over, but otherwise, rough leveling is perfectly fine!

[@blschneider]

Perfect leveling is not essential but the closer you get to level, the closer your initial alignment stars will be. Polar alignment only accounts for x and y axes when you adjust the alt and az bolts. The z axis, which is required for positioning in all 3D systems including the pointing model of eq mounts, is the mount head base which should be level for initial alignment stars to be close or to improve the speed of initial plate solving. Assuming perfect polar alignment, adjustments to the pointing model during star alignment correct for a non-level mount head. Thanks for your videos!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks for the feedback Brian! I completely agree on the Alt Az mounts, since two of their rotation axis are directly controlled by the tripod leveling (and the third one is fixed by the tripod tilt). In my experience their sky model after initial alignment typically correct very well for minor leveling imprecisions (or even major imprecisions - I've been very mean to my AZGTi in the past with tilt, and it still managed excellent GoTos after star alignment). For equatorial mounts, though, I'm not so sure - although I may be missing something obvious. Once you are polar aligned, since the position and orientation of the RA axis of the mount are now fixed, you've basically locked all three rotation angles for orientation in 3D space (of the RA axis), with regards to a chosen referential (and not just two axes, although we are only in control of two rotation axis during the PA adjustment): we could choose the referential where Y is the east-west axis going through the tripod head plane, X is perpendicular to that in the same plane, and Z is orthogonal to that X-Y plane, going through the center of the tripod head. Rotation around Z is done via the Azimuth screws. Rotation around Y is done via the Altitude screws. Rotation around X cannot be changed by the user, but it doesn't change the fact that it is fixed and decided. And you only need access to two rotation axis to point to the Celestial Pole. So once PA has been done, the RA axis orientation is indeed fixed. Since RA axis is now fixed, we can change referential and look at X axis going through the RA axis, Y perpendicular to it and pointing East-West parallel to the ground, and then Z orthogonal to the X-Y plane. Rotation around RA axis is rotation around X, DEC rotation when in zero position is rotation around Z, and DEC rotation when RA is 90 degrees off from zero position would be rotation around Y. The initial zero position of the RA axis will indeed need to be changed so that the CW bar is pointing to the ground (e.g. parallel to Z), which makes it look slanted compared to the unleveled tripod - but if that adjustment in the initial rotation around X is done, from the mount's point of view nothing would be different than usual - the mount itself has no way of knowing (or caring about) whether the tripod that supports it is slanted. Its initial position is the same as usual, and its RA and DEC axis will describe rotations in exactly the same way as usual. Or am I missing something?

[@blschneider]

Cuiv, The Lazy Geek An eq Mount is an equatorial mount placed on top of an alt az Mount. When we initially adjust the alt and az bolts and level the tripod we are adjusting the home position of the eq mount’s pointing model. In order to properly set home for the eq mount we need to achieve spatial orientation in all 3 degrees (alt, az, and mount level) of the alt az base that the eq mounts sits on. When we perform our initial star alignment or plate solve we are correcting the eq mount’s pointing model to make up for errors in polar alignment (x, y) and level (z) of the alt az base. Assuming perfect polar alignment and level, star alignment is unnecessary. Bottom line, properly leveling the mount and adjusting the alt az bolts during polar alignment will put the initial alignment stars closer to their intended target and decrease the time of the initial plate solve. Cheers!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@Brian Schneider Mmmh, while I agree with most of what you wrote, I disagree with the statement that when we adjust the alt az bolts as well as the level of the tripod we are adjusting the home position of the mount. When we mess with those, we are only adjusting the direction of the RA axis of the mount. Yes, it will be easier to do so if the mount is level (especially if using drift alignment!). But once the RA axis is parallel to the Earth's rotation axis, it doesn't matter how this was achieved. Once it is done, it is done. I can then set the mount to its home position (e.g. counterweights pointing down to the ground, and scope pointing to celestial pole for my mount), and the initial alignment stars will be just as close as usual (I have done that before). The mount doesn't rely on the tripod level for its initial "default" pointing model (the z you mention is already included in the polar alignment). It just assumes (for EQ6R): RA axis is parallel to Earth's axis, DEC is at +90 degrees and orthogonal to RA, counterweights are pointed at the ground (that last one is the only relationship it has to leveling). None of these depend on the tripod being level. Initial GoTos to alignment stars would work just as well on this contraption for instance: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iau8Zap-nLuBgrs , or worse, this one: pixelstelescopes.wordpress.com/lacerta-equatorial-pier-1000/ .

[@blschneider]

Cuiv, The Lazy Geek I take your point but it really depends upon the mount and how the setup is described and carried out. If your mount literature describes leveling the ra and dec axes first and reassigning the zero point manually (like the EQ6R pro) then you don’t need to level the mount base. If the home position is predetermined and marked (like the AVX), the mount manufacturer recommends leveling the mount first and using that level as the z axis before returning the mount to its home position as marked on the axes. In either case, you are setting a z based on your level to the ground which provides the final coordinate necessary for localization in a 3 dimensional space.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I see what you're saying, and makes sense! Agreed - if you're using a mount with marked home position, and you blindly setting the home position based on those marks regardless of tripod level, your initial star alignment gotos will be off! If you think about it and adjust the home position to account for the unleveled tripod (e.g. not following the marks on the mount anymore), then z is accounted for and initial alignment gotos will be fine

[@christianvulpescu1398]

I just roughly level my mount. I use plate solving only and it works perfectly as long as I am polar alined. By the way, I do it with Sharp Cap`s polar aline tool, which also uses plate solving and leveling is also not necessary to get a perfect polar aline. Thank you for this informative video. CS

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Great to hear - so Sharpcap is experimentally not affected, thanks for the feedback!

[@christianvulpescu1398]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yes. I have the Pole Master and Sharp Cap. Both aline excellent. Especially Sharp Cap. The precision is unbeatable. Sharp Cap wants to know your rotation axis on RA and plate solves the stars. For imaging I use SGP. 😀🖖

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@christianvulpescu1398 Great! It's part of my todo list to actually PA with Sharpcap, and then validate with drift align - I'll see another day, when we have some stars :)

[@christianvulpescu1398]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek 😄👍 Bon honneur, Cuiv.

[@lindolfi]

Thanks Cuiv for a great channel and the unique way you explain things. Heart warming. Just a warning when anyone uses the polar alignment procedure available in the Asiair pro or plus: when your tripod or pier is not level, and you get perfect polar alignment with the procedure in the Asiair, while your tripod has a roll angle (around the north south axis) of say 0.6 degrees, the average pointing error of a slew to any target in the sky is 80% of that roll angle according to my simulations (software available if you are interested). So even if you have a modest roll angle of only 0.6 degrees, the full moon is most likely outside your field of view if that field has the size of the full moon. Now in practice that gets compensated with plate solving and a few attempts of the software of repointing your telescope, but that takes extra time and if plate solving is impossible (like when imaging the sun, moon or when it is too light still and you want to focus on a bright star), you may have a problem. The other angle error of levelling (the rotation of your tripod around the east-west axis) is not a problem in the Asiair procedure, since it is taken care of by the polar alignment procedure, when you turn the latitude knob on your mount. However, you may ask yourself if the time spent on turning iteratively that knob is worth it for not leveling your mount in the first place. I do understand your hesitance to change the length of the legs, since with a heavy mount and telescope, things may start to slip. But if you just use a stack of thin boards, leveling can be done in a stable way.

[@celestromel]

I agree with you, Cuiv - I try never to extend the legs but I do use a Vixen 200mm extension tube between the mount head and my SkyWatcher AZEQ 6 mount. This gives me maximum stability, removes the risk of counterweights colliding with the tripod leg and gives me a very comfortable working height. One of my most valuable tweeks!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks Melvyn! This is a very good point - a little pier is something I have considered in the past, but for the moment things have worked decently well as is. I might get tempted in the future!

[@celestromel]

Concerning the EAF - mine has absolutely no backlash. I suggest you return it to ZWO for repair, replacement. Or at least discuss the problem with the ZWO folks. Good luck.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@celestromel Thanks Melvyn! While working on the Autofocus routines in N.I.N.A., I helped a lot of people with their EAF, and because I had direct access to their focus curves and data I could measure the backlash. The one with the least backlash had around 30 steps of backlash, the one with the most had 800 or so, but that was an outlier that got replaced. The non-replaced biggest backlash was around 250 steps. Mine has around 95 steps of backlash. It's fine for electronic focusers to have some backlash (heck, even both Moonlite focusers I've owned had a couple of steps of backlash), so I'm not too worried about it in the end!

[@FrootyRecords]

Another revelation video from Professor Cuiv :) I had never considered that. I suppose then the main advantage for me is I like to just follow the '"Adjust mount Up/Down/Left/Right" commands from Sharpcap rather than looking at the line on screen when doing the PA. If the tripod wasn't perfectly level, then up would not be up, down would not be down etc.. Having said that, it is nice to be able to add another procedure to the "Don't worry about it too much" list! Cheers Dave

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, Professor Cuiv! Exactly, having the tripod level helps in performing the PA, but once the PA is dialed in, it doesn't matter much (unless the tripod tips over!). So rough leveling is fine!

[@Avocettech]

On grass or softer ground I use three IKEA YPPERLIG candlestick bases under the points of my unextended tripod (SW AZ/EQ5 GT). They are diecast aluminium with a neoprene base layer, and the ‘terraces’ on them are at 4mm spacing i.e 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20mm above the base level (the candle holder socket is ignored). So I lay down the three YPPERLIGs in a triangle and place the tripod feet on the centres of the YPPERLIGs which coincide with the 12mm ‘terraces’ as a starting point. Rough levelling adjustment, if needed (shown by the bubble level if accurate), can be made by lifting a foot and placing it on a higher or lower ‘terrace’ until a reasonable level is reached. The 4mm steps seem quite fine enough adjustments in practical use. By the way Cuiv, I guess your balcony is sloping about 1% (1cm per m) to ensure that the rain drains away and doesn’t lie in puddles!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Wow, Ikea candle holders for tripod leveling, now that is next level! Thanks for the tip, this is awesome! I might buy those next time I go to Ikea :) I'll need to check my balcony! 1% is not something I'm going to be worrying about though :)

[@pnjunction5689]

Thanks for letting me know, where this whole misconception about leveling was coming from!! I have to admit, that before I got a permanently installed pier, I never really thought about the topic and the guy who introduced me to astronomy (and whom I now blame for the sad looking balance of my bank account) would always go above and beyond when comes to leveling the tripod and so I too spent a good amount of time leveling my tripod as well. But if you start thinking about the tripod head just being a plane, it becomes very simple: Every deviation from the normal plane can be split into two vectors: one pointing in the same direction as the altitude adjustment and the other one pointing exactly east or west. The first one is taken care of by the polar alignment routine and the latter one is just a mismatch in sidereal time and is compensated by the pointing model for the mount.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

You summarized it perfectly! That's exactly it.

[@itaialter]

Hehe I liked the disclaimer at the end. The astrophotography equivalent of "This is not a legal advice" :) Thanks for the vid. At first I was worried about my Skyguider's crooked bubble-level, but I asked around and people assured me that it's not critical as long as it's not terribly unleveled. I ended up marking where the bubble was when I've put the Skyguider's base on a leveled surface, and I just move the bubble close to that marking when leveling.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I think that's a great strategy Itai! You get decent level, repeatably with that method, which is just what's needed!

[@JeremyTaylorNZ]

It always amazed me how much effort some people seem to go to to level the mounting platen for their mount on top of their pier for permanently mounted scopes, instead of just using the alt and az adjusters to get the RA axis polar aligned, which is as you pointed out, fundamentally, all that is required

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Exactly - of course a level tripod makes polar alignment easier in the first place, but no need to spend a long time on it, adjusting each tripod leg carefully, etc. And of course, if having a pier, no need to create a rat cage to level the pier top!

[@andywray3446]

I sort of agree, however being badly unlevelled will affect other things such as SharpCap polar alignment etc.. For me, it only takes a couple of minutes to level the tripod well using a good old fashioned spirit level, so why not do it? Also, as an engineer, extending one of your tripod legs one inch or so will have no impact on its rigidity (as long as the clamps hold well. The diameter difference of the inner tube is only slightly smaller and you are only adding a very short extension of that slightly smaller diameter.

[@GordinhoTube]

I was always worried, not sure if the tripod was perfect level. Now I can relax. Thank you :-)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Glad I can make you relax and be lazy :D

[@nikivan]

Another great video. I applaud your bravery taking on one of the biggest myths in this hobby.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks Nikivan! Well, it's not bravery when it's backed by facts :D

[@DennisCarmody]

I’ve never even remotely tried to level the mount beyond the tiny bubble that’s built in being approximately near correct (which it always is unless I’m on the side of a hill). Only reason to level it is to keep the center of balance near the middle to reduce the chance of it all tipping over. My mount is currently set up semi-permanent in my observatory in my back yard on a tripod and the guiding is perfect. Good enough for me!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Good enough is exactly what's needed :) Thanks for the feedback!

[@douggardner4723]

I use a bubble level to level my tripod for two reasons: 1) Polar alignment is easier since the adjustment on each axis is then isolated. 2) I've found that the bubble level build into my EQ6-R is inaccurate.

[@astrotimber8925]

100% level mount only so much as you don't risk tipping the rig. The only thing that matters is the ra axis is parallel with the Earth's rotation. Super easy these days with iPolar or polemaster or sharpcap.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Absolutely!

[@BigBadLoneWolf]

To me, east/west level is a lot more important than north/south, as the alt adjustment when polar aligning, will ensure the correct level for the ra drive

[@pompeymonkey3271]

I cut off approximately 30 cm of the top part of the tripod legs on my HEQ5 so it fits in the suitcase when I take the mount abroad! :)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, that poor tripod! But yes, that makes sense!

[@tacomaastro7462]

In that position, your RA position to the West when slewing to a position would be high (above your target) and to the East, low ( below your target) and you would not be able to track an object without PHD guiding to keep it on target.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That is incorrect :-) Since I have adjusted my RA axis home position (CW shaft pointing to the ground regardless of tripod angle), and my RA axis is parallel to the Earth's rotation axis, how my tripod is configured does not matter. My Gotos work, and so does the tracking (and yes, I have actually tested it, I think I will do it again and record that). The only thing that matters is rotation of the RA axis vs rotation of the Earth. Everything else is a means to an end.

[@tacomaastro7462]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek I think I've got it, as long as your polar is set and you've compensated for the rotation angle, the rest is not at issue.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@tacomaastro7462 Yep, exactly!

[@davidaylsworth8964]

Like you, I prefer not to extend the tripod legs more than required to achieve a level base for the mount to set on. I NEVER use the built-in level on the tripod or mount head because I’ve found that they are notoriously inaccurate. I use a framers protractor level instead of a bubble level, to make sure the indicator is centred along the three principle axis on the face of the tripod. As much as possible I will only extend one leg to achieve a level surface. After that the rest of the telescope assembly is completed. I do firmly believe that a level platform for the mount head is critical to getting an accurate polar alignment. Just my finicky preference I suppose.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Oh you are absolutely right about getting accurate polar alignment - it will be easier with a properly leveled tripod, especially if relying on the instructions from Sharpcap PA for instance. There will be more iterations with a tripod that is not properly leveled until the PA is achieved - and then it may make sense to run PA on Sharpcap again just to be sure. But once PA is achieved... there will be no more difference (unless the tripod is so unbalanced that everything falls over :D)

[@yosmith1]

Well, now that I devoted a large portion of this year to level my mount....phhtt!! Thanks for the information!! :)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, sorry I should have made this video sooner, but it didn't come to mind at all! :)

[@stevehunter6059]

Me to, carefully laying a spirit level at each leg. At least I will be able to build a better wall :)

[@talktogreg2020]

Have never extended my tripod legs either. That would count as an extra setup and pack down step, which would counter our desire for laziness.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Very good point Greg, laziness is king :D

[@dankahraman354]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek lazy masochists. It makes sense.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That sounds like an oxymoron :-) I would argue about extending the legs to regain rough level if on very uneven ground though

[@Martinko_Pcik]

I was just wondering, because nobody is mentioning it and some don't even have bubble levels or they are quite useless. Great explanation!

[@pamelawhitfield4570]

Ooo this made me wince! A little out of level is no big deal but having the centre of gravity so close to vertical over the legs is living a bit close to the edge for me. 😳 I went back to extending the legs on my tripod purely for security in case the setup got knocked - I never got comfortable with a narrow base when unattended. I’m too big a wimp! 😁

[@chhupparustom]

One reason to extend the tripod legs is to not having to bend one's back to be in the frame with the OTA!😊

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Mwahaha, true!

[@OrionM42]

Very logical n practical one....👍🏽

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

My pleasure, glad it is helpful!

[@Froobyone]

Saved me precious seconds. Thank you.

[@jodyschultz5870]

Agree on all points. I came to exactly the same conclusion but then I am a fellow paraglider so what do you expect.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha great flying minds think alike;

[@JasonJohns]

Hey Cuiv, thanks for these videos! I remember you mentioned in a video (or I dreamt it), somewhere, that you would put a link to your tripod leg extender/supports (the one you put at the bottom of the legs to hold them out and keep them stable). Where do I get one of these?

[@materialdialectics]

Woohoo I can be lazier when setting up now! Much appreciated.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Absolutely! Enjoy the extra laziness :)

[@astrotechnique1]

I for one has to level my mount properly otherwise it wont polar align accurately. I like 2 do it twice in sharpcap. Start from home, rotate, adjust and start again from there and rotate to home. If the Tripod isn't levelled properly, it will give an error in on of the directions and it doesn't guide well at all. What could be the reason?

[@adventureswithfrodo2721]

This assumes you have a level surface your setting the tripod on. Your really doing the leveling to allow easy of doing the polar alignment.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yes I believe this is what I was saying in the video :) Or in summary, polar alignment is what matters, rough leveling (regardless of whether the surface is level or not) will work fine, and make polar alignment sufficiently easy.

[@rogerwilkinson2818]

I’m shocked, I always level my mount 🙈. How would it effect sharpcap polar alignment tool if it’s not near perfectly level?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Don't worry, leveling your tripod/mount is not a bad thing! It does make PA easier too. And if you're into fixing cone error, it is important. But I just don't spend much time on it. The final precision of the sharpcap adjustment, as far as I understand it, should not be affected (or if it is, it will be by a couple of arcseconds), as it uses stars so close to the celestial pole - however, the directions (left / right / up / down) will not be exactly perfect (moving left-right will also impact up-down measurements), so you will need to rely more on the star to center itself rather than the direction instructions. It will be frustrating if you rely on the direction instructions!

[@trevorgreen2232]

Hi Cuiv thank you for another easy to follow video. I have a question though and that is why is your tripod legs setup so that your centre leg is behind the mount and not in front ? I have seen and also nearly experienced (mine started to fall as I was setting up and I was lucky to stop it ) my entire setup falling forward because it was setup this way and the weight of the mount is forward of the tripod . Good to see you back too by the way

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Tripod arrived like that, and the peg simply didn't want to be unscrewed to go on the other side

[@stormingbarney4498]

Was nervous when you lifted the tripod leg lol

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

A lot of people were! I did practice before the video to make sure it wasn't even close to tipping! :-)

[@GrundleStiltSkin]

always level an EQ mount, polar alignment corrections are easier

[@nn1982in]

Thank Cuiv for making this video. Would this be true even for some of the portable setups such as star adventure or skywatcher?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

It is true for such portable setups as well - as long as their RA axis is parallel to the Earth's rotation axis, it works. Of course, it is much easier to do that polar alignment if the tripod is somewhat level, but not essential either.

[@TheWonkyAstronomer]

I have a Celestron AltAz mount (CPC1100). I've heard that if you align with 3 or more stars then the software can compensate for the mount not being level. However, I have not found a definitive source to confirm this. I might do a test to find out if this is true or not.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks for the feedback! Yeah, just like for the AZ Mount Pro, LX200 or the AZ-GTi, you can compensate for tilt in Alt-Az mode after the star alignment, which is used to model the sky. The initial alignment Gotos will be off though so it's a bit more painful. I've tested that on my AZMount Pro, and it worked pretty well!

[@jesuschrist2284]

Not sketchy at all ty :)

[@qlifee]

Thank you for the excellent topic, what about AltAz mount like iOptron AZ Mount Pro? How sensitive is it to leveling?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

The AZ Mount Pro is supposed to be quite sensitive to leveling, but in my experience it can compensate for poor leveling to some extent: its initial 360 degrees turn in Azimuth seems to be measuring the level of tilt. I remember the Cube Pro being quite sensitive to leveling, but my AZ-GTi seemed to be perfectly fine with rough leveling. And my old Meade LT-6 and LX200 also didn't seem to mind rough leveling. I think the star alignment, with sky modeling, seems to take care of a lot of leveling roughness, even with AltAz mounts. It depends on the mount of course!

[@qlifee]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek thank you for the information 👍

[@andyrawlins]

Hmm - interesting but I'm struggling to get my head round this. I guess the way you have 'unlevelled' the mount is effectively to move it in RA so, as you say, if you start off in the proper 'home position' you are correcting that. However, if the levelling was out front to back this wouldn't work would it? It appears to me that what you have is a 'special case' that just happens to be OK. Any case that was wrong in any other axis than RA would not work - I think??? Obviously, if you are guiding, it makes little difference but we are presumably just talking about equatorial tracking here.

[@andyrawlins]

Though thinking about it, polar alignment would fix that :)

[@majortom4338]

Hi! Is Go-to affected when not levelled?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

AFAIK Goto is not affected as long as your home position has the counterweight bar pointing straight to the ground (rather than parallel to the tripod)!

[@schmuak]

I do not extend the tripod legs too... OCD. I am at 1 degree Latitude and most mounts do not work here. The tripod need to be tilted slightly to work and need not be level.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Wow, intentionally making the tripod unleveled is not something I had ever thought about! How much to you have to make it uneven for it to work? That sounds really hard... Clear Skies!

[@schmuak]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Hi Cuiv, Just slightly. I did it just enough so that there is some room for fine tuning on the elevation adjustment knob. I use the EQ6-R Pro too!

[@angryBOT]

It is okay to have short legs. You don't want your mount jump around like Legolas, but want it to stand stable as a rock like Gimli!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Makes sense to me! Gimli won their contest at Helm's Deep, so he is definitely superior :)

[@LM-ek2hb]

Something doesn't seem right about this; The DEC axis scribes an arc across the sky that matches the rotation of the earth once polar aligned. If you lift one side (tripod leg), that arc is now low at one end and high at the other. Kind of like using a drawing compass to scribe an "x" using two arcs. The arc of Earth rotation and the DEC axis no longer line up with each other. The further you point toward either horizon, the more inaccurate your goto would be. How can you alter the path of the DEC axis and still be aligned??

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I don't quite understand. The arc described by the DEC axis doesn't depend on the tripod - it depends on the orientation of the RA axis, with which the DEC axis has a 90 degree angle. As long as the RA axis is parallel to the Earth's rotation axis, AND the home position is properly adjusted to factor any tripod leveling issue (e.g. the CW shaft y component points straight down, parallel to the gravity vector), DEC doesn't know or care about what the tripod is doing (unless it hits the tripod, but that's another story).

[@LM-ek2hb]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek This would be pretty easy to prove out. Do your best leveling/polar alignment. Select a star midpoint between zenith and horizon, guide on it and keep the log. Lift one leg of the tripod and re-polar align. Guide on the same star and log it. The guide log should look roughly the same for both logs.

[@StarlancerAstro]

I always feel sort of but not that critical. I always feel like when I'm very level my RA guiding is really nice but my DEC seems to be a tad worse *shrug*

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

I think shrugging is the best thing to do about this :) In theory there should not be more stress on the DEC axis, but the overall unbalance may be causing more vibrations to resonate into the tripod? Not sure!

[@StarlancerAstro]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yes, I suspect some sort of resonance that maybe gets cancelled out easier with more RA movement, but who knows

[@Ken_James_SV]

I have found, by experience, that extending the lower legs and using the locking screws actually damages the lower legs putting them out of round causing them to become a tight fit and sometimes making them jam inside the upper leg tubes. I have had two Skywatcher EQ6 tripods ruined because of this. For the last 10 years I stopped extending lower legs.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

That is a very good point as well - my own AZ Mount Pro tripod has to be extended for comfortable viewing, but the lower legs have started to really have trouble sliding around. I sure hope we can have locking mechanisms that do not damage the legs (like those used on photo tripods)...

[@Hegegutt]

Great video! Where did you buy those spreaders? :D

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thank you! The spreader is from TPI Astro: www.tpiastro.com/spreaders.htm

[@deanbrown6887]

I don't understand - if the tripod is off-level, then the RA and Dec circles will not follow the correct paths.

[@mackiemesser9304]

The axis is still polar aligned, so the rotation occurs around the correct line.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

What @Mackie said! Once PA is done, regardless of the leveling of the tripod, the RA axis will be parallel to the Earth's rotation axis, and the DEC perpendicular to that... as it should be!

Thanks for the video Cuiv, another useful one. But I have to tell, ASPA is a garbage. I use a Celestron AVX for 20 months, 4 months I make visual observations and try to know AVX(*) 12-13 months photography with a DSLR and recent 1 month with a QHYCCD163M. I do not see polaris from my balcony, where is facing to south-east. ASPA never ever worked. Drift align of PHD2 is more effective and powerful, although meridian (and south direction) is just in critical edge of my balcony and east horizon is blocked by another building. You can forget ASPA. (*) However I still have no idea how to set autoguiding rates, anti-backlash settings, goto approach setting, using PEC and a few more specifications.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks for the feedback on ASPA! I had heard good things about it from others... I had an AVX a while back, and unfortunately it was a bad sample, suffering from a bad case of jitter/jump in RA after each slew. Slapping the couterweight bar after each slew fixed the issue (I know it's weird!). It was very noticeable even in visual! Since then I haven't tried Celestron mounts, although the CGX had attracted my attention in the past. Maybe one day I'll have another Celestron mount to test!

[@lunawatanabe5311]

I don't care if it's worth it or worthless; my perfectionist brain DEMANDS that I do it PERFECTLY... it ends up taking way more time than if I had just done a very rough levelling...

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, in that case, being lazy for you means leveling perfectly! I respect that :-)

[@spookydonkey2195]

Good to know I’ve been overdoing it, thanks for a lazier setup! I like the totally collapsed leg plan, will use that from now on. I’m 51% sure a level base is important to doing a star drift alignment but I’m no expert 😅

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

My pleasure! But indeed you are absolutely right, the drift alignment will indeed be more difficult, as each movement will affect both azimuth and altitude, making it much harder to do the adjustments. Once polar alignment is done though, it's fine!

[@AstroDenny]

So this is technically okay if you're guiding- Like you said, the Az axis is not parallel so you'll have constant dec axis corrections- Do this with an observatory grade mount like a Paramount or a MyT where you can get a 10m sub unguided and you'll see why it's important. Test it yourself with a side-by-side with a 1m guided and unguided sub.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks for the feedback Denis! I disagree however - once you are polar aligned, e.g. once your RA axis is exactly parallel to the Earth's rotation axis, how this was achieved (and whether the tripod head is level or not) doesn't matter. Of course, if your tripod head is not level, this will be more difficult to achieve. But, once achieved, and your RA axis is properly parallel to the Earth's rotation axis, then unguided imaging will work just as well as usual, and there will be no more DEC corrections than usual for guided imaging ( you will get more corrections in DEC if you are not properly polar aligned). Check this for more information (and a longer explanation in the comments replies): kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4DIfaGbmLSAm8k , at around 6 minutes and 20 seconds in. After all you you use contraptions like this and still have perfect tracking pixelstelescopes.wordpress.com/lacerta-equatorial-pier-1000/

[@dankahraman354]

Do we have an equilateral triangle here or? Is it a truncated triangle?

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, the mathematical mind at work - how about looking at it as a triangle fitting a conic section? :D

[@dankahraman354]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek that would answer our questions about the quantitative impacts of leveling errors. I suspect it is a non linear relationship and since in most cases we instinctively aim for a level patch of ground our leveling deviations will not be very large. Excellent PA+guiding should more than compensate for this....IDK about a 20 degree error.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Yeah 20 degrees is exaggerated - it puts uneven stress on the tripod legs. Still from the mount motors' point of view nothing should have changed. Could there be more resonance of vibrations? Of course, instinctively, we try to keep loads balanced - unnecessary stress is avoided.

[@dankahraman354]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek Resonance would introduce another wild-card into the situation. Harmonics or math relating to same. This hobby takes you places you had never even conceived of undertaking...cutting edge on multi fronts.

[@darrenwilliams414]

you forgot to mention a important thing the earth is a ball and everyone the world can be polar aligned at the same time, relative to each other no one is level and anywhere up to 180 degrees off

[@enriquebechet1]

I like your videos, but you did not prove unleveled affects or not. I use a polemaster. I might do the whole test.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Thanks Enrique! Let us know how the test goes for you! I think it's difficult to prove generally since any issue would be linked to the tripod rather than the mount itself. I can however confidently say that I have never leveled my tripod well when going to darker skies, and never saw any issue with guiding. Good luck!

[@grahamwhite75a]

Thanks Cuiv, another gem of a video. By the way I think a tripod is an anti gravity machine. Also I know the real reason you don’t extend tripod legs......you are too lazy ;-)

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

You're right Graham! The tripod is indeed an anti-gravity machine :) And yes, you found the real reason why I don't extend my tripod legs, or even level my tripod.... laziness, pure and simple :D

[@Fam2014Ch]

please NEVER EVER do that with the BABY... tilting the tripod makes me goosebumps !!! I guess you apologize to your precious after the video !!!!... Yellow card for equipment abuse !!! ahjahajhajahjah... Salute amigo !!!!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, don't worry the equipment gave me written consent before the video! The mount was actually very excited at the idea of doing such acrobatics! ;-)

[@Fam2014Ch]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek always good to try something new ahhahahahaha

[@andrewweller5119]

what is the point of this argument? you can level a mount in seconds?!

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Some people spend a loong time getting the mount perfectly level on uneven ground, but it's not necessary. It's also long been a debate on CN, etc. that was annoying me!

[@andrewweller5119]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek i agree that spending a Loooong time on it is over the top but spending the two minutes (or less) it takes gives peace of mind and less trouble shooting. it's also a trigger for me 🤣🤣and my OCD threatens to explode my head every time I see this question raised 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@dankahraman354]

I would aim for a level tripod as much as possible and excellent PA in whatever routine you use. Your 20 degree off of level for the sake of making your video scares me.

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

Hahaha, sorry for the scare! Excellent PA is critical - but rough leveling/eyeball leveling of the tripod itself is fine. Especially when setting up in a hurry, close enough is good enough!

[@dankahraman354]

@@CuivTheLazyGeek I agree on both "levels".

[@CuivTheLazyGeek]

@@dankahraman354 Good one :)

[@skye7690]

I'm going to say tripod leveling is not worth it.