Friday, January 13, 2017

Astrophotography resolution: what should "good" look like?

One of the interesting challenges of astrophotography is that there are so very many factors that go in to the result. Basically, it can be difficult to determine what went wrong. Pull down your face shields, we're going to do something similar to science...

I'm going to use my rig as an example, because, well, I did this math already. But that's ok because you can use use it to get some idea of things. I'll give you the math if you're really inspired to scribble on a big chalkboard and draw diagrams to impress your ladyfriend (or gentleman friend...and.... like other species geeks and nerds come in a variety of standards and even non-discrete units- gender/sexuality can't be determined by Millikan oil drop).

The non-variables:

  • I have a 6" f/4 telescope with optics of unknown quality
  • Through these optics, each pixel represents 1.46 arc-seconds of sky/star
  • My tracking scope (ST80) and its little camera reproduce 1.93 arc-seconds per pixel
  • I have some messy data from my tracking scope in operation (used below)
  • The angular diameter of Sirius is 0.006 arc-seconds
I obtained the arc-seconds/pixel numbers for the two scopes by plate solving images taken from them using the wondrous tools at

So very simply, if the angular diameter of Sirius is less than one pixel of the sensor, and if everything was amazingly perfect it should look like this when magnified:

Not real life

If you claim to have seen such a thing you're a liar and a scoundrel.

Any telescope's resolution is limited by the physics of light, simply because the quality of an optic, and how cleanly it reflects is proportional to the wavelength of light itself. Even if the optic is beyond the light's wavelength, the pinpoint of light will reproduce a central disk with rings of interference around it in a ratio of 84% in the middle, 16% in the rings. How long you expose the image will determine how bright the rings are, up to a point that they no longer appear as rings on the sensor and are instead a larger disk. This is why images of bright stars fill more pixels than dim ones. The size of this disk is determined by the diffraction limit, which is:

1.22x wavelength(cm)

in radians. So light somewhere in the middle of the spectrum: 0.00005cm and diameter of 15.2cm, we get 0.83 arc-seconds. Astro-Tech lists the scope's resolution as 0.76 arc-seconds. Isn't that interesting? At any rate, that's the area of the central disk. So in theory a short enough exposure would still render a single pixel. The diffraction rings, which look a bit like this:

Not to scale with the other fake pixels

would render as pixels something like this with sufficient exposure:

Real life if you're in space

That's looking more like a star in a telescope like we're used to. This takes care of your Dawes numbers, Raleigh, or whatever else you subscribe to. Don't get too picky on the differences between those, we're taking pictures from the bottom of a deep pool.

Being in Florida I'm looking through about 30 feet of water in a best case scenario. It's a swampy, swampy state with a lot of dense, wet air starting at sea level. This produces  "seeing" quality issues. The dense/wet air refracts light the same way that a glass (refactor) telescope does, except that it is constantly shifting with air currents, hundreds of times per second. If I were on Mauna Kea again that would distort the location of a given star (and its diffraction rings) by about 0.4 arc-seconds on a good night. Here? It's probably 2 arc-seconds on a good night, and likely 3 most of the time. Let's go with 2.5, or 1.7 pixels. Yes, I'm skipping over the concept of FWHM here because it's a calculus problem and you don't really need it for this sort of back-of-the-envelope look at things. Maybe another time. New image:

Scuba/Swamp Vision

That's basically my expected detail if I get everything else completely right with a significant exposure. Shorter exposures of course could render a smaller image. In fact if the exposure was shorter than the frequency of eddie currents causing the seeing conditions (and I got lucky with a current that got very little distortion), and short enough to not expose the diffraction rings it could take up a single pixel. Instead, this is what I've got:

This should really only take up 4 or so pixels

The shift of colors from red to blue tells me there's chromatic aberration, and because I can see it on other more significant things in that image comatic aberration as well. How do I know the stretch isn't tracking?

PHD2 unfortunately doesn't like my camera and won't let me put in a pixel size value for it, so it only reports deviation in pixels. Since I was able to plate solve an actual image from the camera though, it's easy math (arc-seconds = 1/(pixels per arc-second*deviation)):
  • Average deviation of 0.45 pixels = .87 arc-seconds
  • peak deviation of 1.5 pixels = 2.95 arc-seconds
Those are for the ST-80, so arc-seconds being the common here that means going the other way for for the AT6IN/Fuji combo:
  • average deviation of .87 arc-seconds = ~0.6 pixels
  • peak deviation of 2.95 arc-seconds = ~2 pixels.
The image is stretched over at least 3 pixels, so the only other candidate beyond my optical issues is focus. I'm focusing using a Bahtinov mask, which results in one of those scientifically accurate levels of focus that I can't determine by looking at pixels alone.

So...collimation, optics, aberration.

For reference, here's a bright star with a longer exposure. It's a little harder to tell what's going on there, but you get the idea:


Thursday, January 12, 2017

Astrophotography updates, buying problems for myself

New optics!

The main scope (for imaging) is an Astro-Tech AT6IN, and the new tracking scope is an Orion ShortTube-80, or ST80. There's a dozen versions of the ST80 of different names, all made by Synta for the various retailers.

I wanted something with a wider field of view, in this case the focal length is 610mm. Where the previous scope (a Celestron C6 SCT) rendered about 1.1 arc-seconds/pixel on my Fuji X-T1 camera, this renders closer to 1.5. In other words, it sees more sky.

This offers a few advantages:
  • Tracking does not need to be as precise (we'll get to how much...)
  • I can image larger objects, such as the Pleiades, Rosette, and Horsehead/Flame nebula
  • Being the same aperture (6") but wider, that also means it's getting much more light every second the shutter is open.
How much more? If the previous scope was more or less F6.3, and this is F4, that's about 2.5x more light. So if I needed a 60 second exposure before, this would need a 24 second exposure. 

And now I'm going to tell you why this was a terrible decision.

A short focal length Newtonian is a mess. It naturally has a ridiculous amount of comatic abberation, which is inherent in all large optics, but is exaggerated the shorter the focal length. Without a corrector this scope is basically worthless.

The coma corrector (made by GSO) mostly helps this...but your collimation (having all the optics at perfect angles to each other so that the light path is focused evenly/flatly on the image sensor) has to be really, really perfect. I've seen some estimates that at F/4 the image breakdown occurs when the light path deviates by as little as 0.45mm from accurate.

0.45mm. Let that sink in. You know how wide the bullseye is on a typical laser collimator? About 4mm. Part of that is because the output optic for a typical laser diode is 3mm.

So what you're doing is taking a really nice, wide angle image that should be able to get beautifully sharp and subjecting it to something that will begin breaking down at a level of accuracy that is 8-9x more accurate than the equipment you're going to calibrate it with.

Now suppose you're like me, and are the type that will stretch a thin film over your collimator so that you can see when the return light path, which is focused to much smaller than the exit light path, makes a nice bullseye in the exit path. Assuming you also loaded your collimator in a lathe at some point and centered that path to within a few mm at 50ft, you're probably able to get it within the margin of error.


If the rest of your optics are aligned correctly, which... mine were not. Worse, they were not able to be: if you have a closer look at the image above you'll spot some extra holes where the secondary is mounted. My secondary mirror was too far down the tube to align correctly. Yay.

And then it still won't be good enough.

You'll hang a heavy imaging train off the side of the scope, which will cause the focuser to flex off of center on its mount. Your imaging train will have to be especially awkward because there's a heavy corrector optic in it, which then has a spacing of about 75-80mm (mine does best at 78mm) before it finds an imaging plane, which is probably a mirrorless camera or DSLR. This will shift things out of alignment by a couple mm. Which is enough to notice.

I think Newtonians might just be a bad idea anyway.

Once you've done all of this, you'll have a system which is very out of balance for the mount. The camera will sit at a different axis from the finder and tracking scopes (otherwise it will be in their way). You could add weights opposite of the focusing assembly, but of course this stresses the mount even more. what?

I don't know. I'm going to keep playing with it for the moment, and try not to get any farther down the rabbit hole unless I think I can make it truly work out. I have managed to take a couple ok-ish images with it, but far short of what I think my setup could otherwise do:

Pleiades, stack of several 180s exposures from the Astro-Tech AT6IN and Fuji X-T1. Of course from my fully light polluted Central Florida skies.

I like the wider field of view very much. Note: this was taken when I was still trying to get the coma corrector spaced out just right, so it shows worse on here than it is in some of my tests.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

360 degree microphotography

Summary: we took a microscope objective to my camera, built a focus stacking rig, and then combined it all with a miniature lazy susan / turntable to create a 360 degree rotation animation of a microscopic thing (in this case a common green long-legged fly, which has some pretty spectacular colors).

Quick details:

  • Each frame is a stack of 70 images
  • 160 frames (about 2.25 degrees of rotation per frame)
  • Final is the product of 11,200 frames (though we took well over 20,000 while testing/developing)
Gear setup:
  • Fuji X-T1
  • nameless eBay macro photography bellows
  • nameless eBay RMS adapter
  • AmScope PA4X microscope objective
  • Arduino Nano
  • Misc stepper motors and motor drivers
  • Custom motion control rig for focus stack and rotation

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Astrophotography: Solving Some Problems, Finding New Ones

I made something I like!

These are some of my changes:

  • Better polar alignment; not seeing field rotation. This is my longest exposure too, at 480 seconds, which I would think would show that sort of thing if it were off by much at all.
  • Neodymium filter for light pollution, it blocked quite a bit!
  • More spacers between the reducer/corrector and the camera to reduce the vignette problems to a minimum.
You can see I haven't fixed the primary tube reflection yet, still waiting on materials to be delivered.

I plate solved the image using Astrometry and came up with a 1.1 arc-seconds per pixel. The theoretical limit of my 6" scope is around 0.9 arc-seconds. Seeing conditions were much worse than that, and for where I am will probably never be better than about 2 arc-seconds.So I think we are in a good place.

I also calculated out an effective focal length of 926mm f/6.2, not far from the advertised 945mm f/6,3 the reducer/corrector is supposed to get. I didn't try plate solving previous images, but I can tell you with some certainty that the Celestron recommendation of 105mm between the corrector and focal plane, as well as the internet's prediction of 85mm are wrong. Total distance from the back of the corrector to the surface of my sensor is 155mm. If you have a Celestron C6 and the standard f/6.3 reducer this is probably about where you want to be, at least if you are using an APS-C sensor sized camera.

For pure resolution, however, our tracking is not quite perfect. Here's a single color channel from the image above, cropped to the center of the nebula where the trapezium stars are very close together:

And the same spot, but with a quick 1 second exposure:

You can clearly see all four stars as separate in the 1 second shot. This means that either my guiding isn't reacting fast enough, isn't predictable enough, or doesn't have enough resolution to keep things perfectly centered. I suspect the latter is my issue. I will probably need to get a small scope with a longer focal length to keep up with the main telescope's resolution. Seeing conditions are at play here too, but unless I was particularly lucky with that 1 second picture they should be effecting that image similarly.

For reference, the two stars closer together there are 8.7 arc-seconds apart:

Also, now that the field rotation is gone/minimized I can see we have some comatic aberration on stars at the outside edges of the frame:

Note that's coma, not chroma. This is the nature of the telescope. Stars in the center of the field focus to the same point from anywhere the light is gathered on the lens, but at the edges of the field those stars are focused at slightly different places depending on how close to the center of the lens the light was gathered. The reducer/corrector may be helping this or hurting it, depending on how much you believe I have moved the camera away from the "optimum" focal distance. There are additional correctors to help this, but this is so subtle I'm going to leave it alone for now.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Cheap light pollution filter

As soon as you say "filter" the public perception is that the images are photoshopped, or a little bit fake. I'm not one for heavily processing my images for other kinds of photography, and I'm more interested in being able to show what's up there in the night sky on the familiar terms that the general public is familiar with. There will always be limitations to this: "Is this what I would see?" doesn't exactly work in the world of nighttime photography in general.
  • Your eyes are more sensitive, but they can't accumulate light over time like a camera. So things can be much brighter in pictures.
  • Your eyes see vivid color in the day time, but the darker it gets the more your eyes rely on the "rods" of your retina, which are monochromatic; things appear a bit more blue than grey, but sensing reds, greens, and vivid blues is out.
  • You're looking through a telescope, which is a form of filtering on its own. Your viewing angle is cut down from maybe 170 degrees to 1-2 degrees. Your effective pupil size is also expanded from a few millimeters to the diameter of the telescope to gather more light.
But none of those things speak to real filters, which is what I'm adding to the system but going to try to keep the color "real" as much as possible, at least for now.

Astronomy filters can be very specific, and the cost of even the simpler ones is very high. I'm only a few miles outside of the city and live where the air is quite thick, which means street lamps add an orange glow to the sky and really get in the way of seeing what's up there. The goal is to take pictures of things outside of our atmosphere, not the atmosphere itself, right?

The orange comes from sodium, and the good news is that there is a cheap solution to this. "Red enhancing" or Didymium filters are made with neodymium. This happens to block that range of light without blocking much else. Amazon had the 52mm version for $23, which happens to be exactly what I need. I just had to remove it from the threaded lens mount so I could put it in to the telescope:

You can see by looking at the white cloth under the filter that it doesn't change the color very much.

I wedged it in to the T2-FX adapter and used some cardboard as a spacer. I will replace the cardboard with something better and less reflective soon, but this was more than enough to test with.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Image artifacts: Astrophotography is touchy

Once I tied the camera to the back of my telescope and set up guiding I found plenty of new problems to solve:

I've boosted that image up a bit to make the flaws really obvious; this is a narrow view of the Pleiades. Surprisingly you can see some of the blue wisps of nebula around the stars (ignore the horseshoe shapes, those are artifacts)!

My scope setup is:
  • Celestron C6
  • Celestron f6.3 focal reducer/corrector
  • Standard Celestron SCT-T2 adapter
  • T2-FujiFX adapter
  • Fuji X-T1
Tracking is:
  • Really cheap Orion 9x50mm
  • Even cheaper Microsoft LifeCam with the filters and lenses removed
  • PHD2 giuding software
  • GPUSB-ST4 box
Everything that's wrong:
  • The orange-brown glow is my light polluted skies. We get nights that are clearer than that, but I think a filter would go a long way.
  • Stars in the center are nice and round, but the farther from center they are they are radially stretched. I believe this is a testament to how well autoguiding works. The system is locked on to the center star, but the alignment was off and so after a long exposure (300 seconds) the scope was not rotating exactly in tune with the skies. This makes the field seem to spin.
  • This thing that's going on:

    is vignetting; light is being blocked by the sides of the scope's center passthrough tube. This might mean the camera is the improper distance away from the focal reducer (I don't have this without a focal reducer, but then my field of view is crazy narrow). The outlet of the scope is also narrow, which will force me to put the camera at a not-so-optimal focal point.
  • This one is light reflecting off of the inside of the telescope:

    looks like a mix of the main body (very pale, I might not bother) and the primary mirror passthrough baffle. It's black but a bit glossy, and this is apparently a common complain for the C6. There's even a very light reflection inside the reflection going on for the brightest off-axis star, that's probably the T2 adapter tube.
The solutions are going to be a mix of things:
  • Better polar alignment when imaging
  • Light pollution filter of some kind. I'm guessing 90% of sources are sodium based.
  • Move the camera back from the scope until I don't have vignetting; this turns out to be pretty far back. I've heard the "correct" number quoted at either 85mm or 105mm, the first place I found it vignette free was close to 140mm between the corrector and image sensor plane.
  • Black out the primary tube with protostar stick-on flocking. This might never go away completely, apparently SCT style scopes often have this issue. Sadly I don't have access to that crazy science grade paint that blocks 99.99xx% of light. If you do give me a holler.
Overall I think this is going pretty well, but I'm sure I'll find new problems once I fix some of these...

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

"I accidentally a good equatorial mount."

That's the gist of it anyway. I bought a Celestron AVX mount for peanuts because it said it was defective. I figured that the mechanics of it were well liked on the internet, but that some of the early versions had electrical problems. My goal was either to fix the control boards (if I could find something fixable) or to replace it all with my own control system.

When it arrived on my doorstep I disassembled it completely and started looking over everything. Checked all the components that were check-able with a multi-meter and couldn't find a darn thing wrong. The control board was also the brand new version...something just didn't add up.

The mount came bare (no tripod, motor cables, power adapter, hand controller, weights, etc), so I had to get a few things before I could test it. Here are some mysteries I spent too much time researching, but solved:

  • The 8 pin, RJ45 connector between the DEC motor and port is, in fact, just a standard straight-through cable like those used for networking. I made this to size using some CAT-5 and connectors I had.
  • The Nextstar+ hand controllers are all the same, the two model numbers for EQ and ALT-AZ are basically just there to let you know which firmware was loaded on the board. I know this because the budget friendly used one I acquired turned out to be loaded for ALT-AZ and gave me all sorts of trouble before I reloaded it (twice, the update software defaults to what it has regardless of which mounts it detects). Note the "+" though, the non-plus ones use different things inside and probably won't run the newer firmware.
  • You can use a regular 12v power adapter and ignore the fancy thread-on-overpriced one Celestron sells. I recommend tying it off though, the clipping part of it is rather weak and you don't want it to get pulled out of the connector if you can help it. I will probably replace this connector with either a standard one or a waterproof one in the future.
Once I plugged everything in the darn thing fired right up. I pointed it around during the day until I was satisfied there was nothing wrong with it, and then later on that night I tried to align it. That's when I discovered the ALT-AZ vs EQ firmware thing. Even though "EQ North" was a tracking option in the menu, it has no idea how to deal with the mount.

I managed to get a few images out of it with nothing more than a "that looks about right" aiming of the scope at Polaris and then manually pointing it at things, but nothing to write home about.

Orion Nebula: Fuji X-T1. 30 second exposure, ISO 1000 @ 200mm F4.8
Things are forgiving at 200mm. It takes a lot more to get things right through a real telescope...

Monday, November 9, 2015

Minor Note...

Having just tossed that last post on here as a convenient dumping ground, I couldn't help but skim my old content. I haven't added anything in a little over three years and I can't get my head around how much has changed.

  • I'm still working on a lot of little projects, but in totally different ways.
  • I still love hiking and camping, but ghud ghawd I have learned a lot. These days I sleep outside just because I want a good night's sleep.
  • Which has helped me to travel this world a bit, nothing like the freedom of being able to get on a jet plane to anywhere with nothing but a backpack and a smile. I could, and probably should write books about how to do this.
  • I have definitely grown as a photographer. This has become a very important part of my life and I'm pleased to see this. I think drawing is a core of my approach, so I have worried that by not doing much drawing I wouldn't improve.
  • As far as I can tell I didn't write a thing in here about my physical activities, which are also central to my life at this point. I'm certain this started (restarted) in 2009, but apparently it was sometime after 2012 that it became apparent that this is essential to my self expression. Mind and body are not separate, at least for me.
I have no idea if anyone actually follows this blog after all this time, and I suppose don't care either way. Blogging for a day is good fun or narcissism, but blogging over years is something else entirely.

Data dump: Dew Heater Edition

I have a number of projects going on right now, which I will hopefully have more to say about later on. Right now I think it's important that I get a few pieces of information and findings out there on the internet both for my own benefit and for other people who might be working in similar things.

First: Here in the deep, deep, swampy south the dew point outside is typically one degree or less below air temperature. This means anything outside that has a view to the open sky will build up dew on it within a few minutes of exposure (the physics of radiative heat loss, maybe another post on another day).

In my case I'm concerned about my telescopes, which means I want heating but not enough to cause visual distortion: air of two different temperatures creates a lensing effect at their boundary, think ripples of air over hot asphalt on a summer day. Remember this?

That's colder/lighter gas distorting the air. Supposedly this happens significantly enough at 2 degrees F or less, but I don't have good data on that. Either way, the right answer is to keep a telescope as close to the air temperature around it as possible.

The plan is to make a nice microcontroller circuit that measures the air temp and scope temp, and if the scope temp is low turn on a heater. This doesn't need to be terribly quick or smart or use PID since there's a lot of thermal mass involved, and I've designed the heaters to be very mild.

I collected up most of the parts to do this, but a good test night rolled around first so I grabbed a cheap temperature controller I got from Ebay a while back just to get the heater kicking. Finding information on setting this up was difficult (it probably came with printed instructions, which don't last long in my possession). So here they are, if you have a cheap Chinese controller that looks like this:

Mine is labeled W2020 temperature controller, but let's assume it's China and there are 300 model numbers for the same product. Pressing "Set" once will let you use the arrow keys to change the desired temperature. Pressing and holding it for 5 seconds will enable a menu, which works like this:

CodeCode descriptionSetting rangeFactory setting
P1Hysteresis setting0.1-302.0
P2Highest setting upper limit120120
P3Lowest setting upper limit-55-55
P4Temperature correction+10~-10C0
P5Delay start time0-10minutes0
P6buzzer switchon/offoff
P7Value holdon/offoff
P8Restore factory settingson/offoff

Change P0 to H since we're heating an object, and P1 (how far above/below desired temp it kicks on) to something nice and low since we want to keep it pretty close to our set temperature (in fact the temperature will likely spike above our set a little bit because the heater wire has some thermal mass).

Oh, and the hookups on the back: NTC is the temperature probe, OUT is the heater (neither of these are polar since they are effectively resistors) and IN is power supply, with the little "o" denoting the positive side.

There are commercially available telescope products to do all of this, but being the telescope world they are stupid expensive and probably don't have a lot of active development going on with them. Sorry astronomer friends, but that's the world I can see from here: once something "works" the discussion is done, even if it means using parts that haven't been produced in the last decade. Also for the disciples of Carl Sagan the physics of things is not often considered too deeply.

My own complaining aside, the groundwork is solid. The internet tells me commercial heaters are about 0.75W/inch of circumference. This results in a heater that will just barely get warm to the touch, but seem like it isn't even working when stuck to a cold metal telescope. If you're lazy on math like I am and using a 12v power supply:

amps * ohms = volts
amps * volts = watts
desired resistance (ohms) = 0.75watts / inches
desired resistence @ 12v = 192 ohms/inch of telescope circumference
Adjust if you're in a place that is freezing cold and humid, or if you're insulating the thing to start with, or not using 12v or whatever. I'm only here to solve my own problems.

I grabbed some rolls of nichrome laying around the lab (doesn't everyone?) and came up with nice long wind of 18 gauge 80/20 wire. Pro tip: other websites will tell you to make a mess of parallel heaters or funky ways of staggering your wire to come up with enough length for a given resistance. Easier way: buy a few different thicknesses of wire, thicker stuff will end up with a longer length for the given resistance. If you have a small bodie'd thing like a spotting scope you probably want 26+ gauge, bigger scopes might be 16-20 gauge. Note that having too short of a run also means you will be putting all of that heat in to a smaller area, risking damage by making a miniature toaster coil for your precious equipment. Get the right wire for the job. It will make your life easier.

I also didn't like the idea that the commercial heaters only heated the very front of the scope: the whole scope gets soaked here, which I don't want it dripping on to other electronics, rusting, mildewing, or just generally being gross to carry back in to the house. There's also some general nonsense about trying to radiate heat back across the glass from in front, which sounds nice except for the body of the scope (and therefore the back of the glass) having a big thermal gradient as a result. Keep the body of the scope, inside and out, at air temperature and things will be much happier:

Kapton tape is cool stuff: extremely heat tolerant (we use this stuff on the heater part of our 3d printer, which spends hours at 260+C), durable and thin. Once I had figured out about how many winds of wire would go around the scope I marked out the appropriate distance between them and laid down a couple layers to electrically insulate the wire from the tube. I wrapped the coil and a top layer of kapton together leaving just a couple of ends exposed for connection. You can see that by having some 14 feet of wire to provide the appropriate wattage I had a lot more flexibility than "just the tip" heaters like astrozap, kendrick, dewbuster, etc. Plus my cost was $10 for the controller and 'it was collecting dust' for the wire, say $10-20 if you had to buy it (you will have a lot leftover if you do). A roll of kapton tape is only a few dollars, and you should have some just for the fun of it. They sent that stuff to the moon, you know.

The test was pretty simple: I set the scope up outside and let it cool down until dew formed on the front glass (less than 10 minutes). This was a rare night in which outside was colder than inside (everyone else talks about letting the scope cool down after being inside...I get that for a couple months each year here). I turned on the heater and 5 minutes later the controller shut off: the glass was clear. Yeehaw. I left it outside for a few hours and the heater would click on and off every few minutes, scope never showed a hint of dew again.

The upside is that it does the trick, the downside is that I have to manually set a temperature. Next step is making a real controller to automate an accurate temperature setting.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Raspberry Pi, the Second Helping

Have you ordered yourself one of these yet? No? Well what's wrong with you? They're fun. I'm going to proceed to be a really lousy inspiration for you to get one by telling you about some of the things I've done and had trouble with.

First of all I decided to stick with Raspbian as the OS simply because it is pretty far along and has a lot of support right now. In the mean time Gentoo has starting making releases, and I expect they will be another very popular option.

I dedided a good challenge would be to replace my Windows based server (previously mentioned Intel Atom in a spacious rack mount bay). The main features it would require are:

  1. Remote Music Player (accessible by phone/tablet)
  2. Web Server (HTTP, PHP, PERL, MySQL)
  3. FTP Server (FTP/SFTP)
  4. Download Server (accessible by phone/tablet)

Looking down these they all are things to be accessed remotely, and I would have very little use for a desktop environment for them. Since a desktop takes a lot of overhead I decided I should stick to the command line. And I haven't booted the desktop environment since. Fun right? No, seriously. It's fun. You just forgot. Like I did. Because most of us only crack open a terminal window every now and then when someone hasn't made a button to do something for us. Or perhaps check our IP address or something.

This also means at some point I unplugged the mouse and couldn't think of a reason to plug it back in. I replaced it with an external hard drive, which, BTW, needs to either have its own power source or be plugged in to a powered USB hub. The 'Pi doesn't have much juice on the ports.

The web server and FTP seemed like a good place to start, so I pulled in the packages for this:

sudo apt-get install apache2
sudo apt-get install php5
sudo apt-get install mysql-client mysql-server
sudo apt-get install postfix

And that was pretty much it. Apache is the http stuff, PHP is a useful programming language for web that things like wordpress run on, MySQL is database, and postfix is email (which is useful for having your pages send messages out). I made some minor adjustments to /etc/apache2/httpd.conf and /etc/apache2/ports.conf using a command line text editor, example:

sudo pico /etc/apache2/httpd.conf

(You make your edits and then press ctrl + x and follow the prompts from there. There are other command line editors besides pico, so dig around and find one you like. Or don't. I mean it's editing things with a keyboard. There probably isn't a text editor that will make unicorns shoot out of your pupils.)

Speaking of, this is where I noticed my first "oops." It turns out that the default keyboard setup is for Britain, and so my Amuricah the Keyboard had a few keys rearranged and inaccessible (*nix is hard to work with when you don't have a \, ~, or |, even if you can find they swapped # and @ to other places Plus it means you have to curse at the machine without censoring). Fix this by changing "gb" to "us" in /etc/default/keyboard. Unless you're British. In which case chortle at the yank' luddites.

A quick check by going to the Pi's local IP address from another computer confirmed I had web service running.

Next up was FTP:

sudo apt-get install vsftpd

I had to edit this one a fair amount to get users added to the system. You can find a lot of info about this by reading about VSFTPD, it's not difficult but this post is going to be long enough already.

At any rate I did manage to get it working, got permissions set on the folders that would be used, and made an alias to the web server's www directory using

mount --bind [a] [b]

where [a] = what you want to link from and [b] is where you want to link to, in my case /srv/ftp/www and /var/www respectivly. This knowledge will come in handy later when you decide you want large folder of files to not reside on the SD card.

More to come...