Jump to content


Photo

Jupiter via Tasco 10K Solarama

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Jason H.

Jason H.

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 26 November 2012 - 09:57 PM

Prompted by the imaging with a Tasco thread, I decided to give a go at imaging Jupiter last night with my 80m Tasco 10K Solarama, attached is the result.

I had to mount it on a different mount, and I can confirm that the weight of an afocal setup on the focuser is disconcerting, luckily I was at zenith so I didn't cause any flexure, which I imagine could happen if Jupiter were lower in the sky? Used an EP adapter and Canon Powershot A590 in video mode.

Regards, Jason W. Higley

Attached Files



#2 greju

greju

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2828
  • Joined: 13 Oct 2005

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:08 PM

Not bad! And some say it can't be done!!

#3 sgorton99

sgorton99

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3469
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Wisconsin, Madison

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:08 PM

Nice Jason!

#4 strdst

strdst

    Soyuz

  • *****
  • Posts: 3907
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Oregon Territory

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:26 PM

Jason,

That is awesome. From someone who just looks and hasn't tried astrophotography since 1965 using a Brownie Starmite (you younger folks may have to look that up) and rolls of 120 B&W film. OK wait now I remember buying a Kodak 35 (rangefinder 35mm camera) used for like $10 in 1967 but the camera would tear out the sprocket holes in the film at about exposure #8 or #9 which effectively ended the roll for shooting leaving 11 or 12 unused frames or endless multiple exposures mid roll. I countered the problem by buying bulk film and loading my own cassettes with short strips of film. It was cheaper than buying another used camera :lol:

Anyway I was asking a question and became lost for a minute. Ah, yes... how does that beautiful image you captured through your telescope compare to your just looking into the eyepiece?

other keith

#5 Jason H.

Jason H.

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 26 November 2012 - 11:06 PM

Thanks greju, sgorton99 and strdst!

And Other Keith, yes, thank goodness for new technology, especially regarding the price of film versus digital storage! Regarding the EP view versus the camera, I'm not a patient viewer, and I've seen hand sketcher's of planets (and deep space too) that prove that other people have a much better capacity of seeing things than I do. That said, I always can see more after processing a video than I can at the EP. The other thing that's on the down side relative to video, is I can pull out some false color with the video that I cannot see in the EP view, and during the processing of this one it went way purple-red (which I decided not to adjust out as I was losing detail in exchange) and of course my heavier-than-normal processing left it somewhat noisier/less natural.

Jason W. Higley


Jason,

That is awesome. From someone who just looks and hasn't tried astrophotography since 1965 using a Brownie Starmite (you younger folks may have to look that up) and rolls of 120 B&W film. OK wait now I remember buying a Kodak 35 (rangefinder 35mm camera) used for like $10 in 1967 but the camera would tear out the sprocket holes in the film at about exposure #8 or #9 which effectively ended the roll for shooting leaving 11 or 12 unused frames or endless multiple exposures mid roll. I countered the problem by buying bulk film and loading my own cassettes with short strips of film. It was cheaper than buying another used camera :lol:

Anyway I was asking a question and became lost for a minute. Ah, yes... how does that beautiful image you captured through your telescope compare to your just looking into the eyepiece?

other keith



#6 Jason H.

Jason H.

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:24 PM

BTW, after I shot that with the 80mm, I immediately switched to the Criterion RV-6, and frankly it perplexes me why both scopes are so similar in price (but I really like both scopes, and thank goodness the RV-6 is a bargain!); see the attached image from the same night via the RV-6. That's Europa and its shadow transiting.

Regards, Jason W. Higley

Attached Files



#7 Nave

Nave

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1252
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2010

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:53 PM

A-W-E-S-O-M-E

#8 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6000
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:40 PM

Great images. Who needs to spend 10K on a scope.

#9 desertrefugee

desertrefugee

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1893
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2007
  • Loc: Arizona

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:55 PM

Image scale aside, there's no contest. The 6" has it hands down.

I don,t think I've ever seen a better shot from a 6.

#10 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6000
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:45 PM

must be that Florida sky.

#11 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1142
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:58 PM

What camera did you use?
The Tasco 10K is colorfree like an APO but the RV-6 is amazing.

#12 tim53

tim53

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9268
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 28 November 2012 - 05:23 PM

Jason,

That is awesome. From someone who just looks and hasn't tried astrophotography since 1965 using a Brownie Starmite (you younger folks may have to look that up) and rolls of 120 B&W film.


I still have the one I bought in 1962 for $5.20 - a couple months "pay" in those days.

-Tim.

#13 Jason H.

Jason H.

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:43 PM

Thanks very much Nave, Starman, Darrell, Saemark and Tim!!!!

And Starman, the thought about the $10K scopes has occurred to me from time to time too. The first time was after somebody in the Astronomy society I used to belong to convinced me to bring a club loaner RV-6 to Chiefland, it dewed up as it was one of the worst dew nights (although it never dews up in my driveway! I once looked through a TEC 200 refractor, talk about an expensive scope, at Chiefland that had terrible views because of a dew zapper, my scope is much less susceptible to dew with the optics so deep in) but the first views through that loaner scope were wonderful and convinced me that optically that particular RV-6 was really nice; I wondered if all of them were like that.

Eventually I found somebody in Central FL selling one in really nice condition, and I think of all the purchases I've made over the years, that one was the best (even though I'm sure I paid more for it than some here would pay for it); I use it much more than the RV-8 (and a couple dozen others), it cools down very fast, is fairly portable, has an amazingly light OTA that you can hold in one hand, and if I had to sell all of them but one, and I'm sure this might sound strange to some, the RV-6 is the one I'd keep (I've already given away more expensive scopes!)

Indeed, I sometimes imagine/hope a new company (and probably also a new optics company) would start up that would put together that kind of newtonian OTA (amazingly light and fast cooling OTA, long focal length planet-killer with great mirror (with admittedly a better focuser being needed), and yes, even a clock drive with clutch (really what's better than that? I've got a bunch of GOTO scopes that are JUNK, and what a pain in the rear to set those up, not to mention if you bump one, uuuuuhhhhhh!) I'd hope a scope like a new RV could make it's own niche so others could know the astro-happiness I currently enjoy in my driveway at such a reasonable price (but I seriously doubt that a scope with the same characteristics could be made at anywhere near the current market value of an RV, but maybe adjusted for inflation, which would perhaps be ~$846, adjusted from 1978 price of $249 for the RV-6? And even at that price they couldn't compete with Meade, but at least it'd be a lot cheaper than some of those high end refractors, and the RV's are truly 'false color' free (you can add your own color if you like with barlows and EP's though :) )

Regards, Jason W. Higley

#14 Jason H.

Jason H.

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:11 PM

Hi Saemark,

Regarding the camera, it's an older Canon Powershot A590. I have newer ones, but that one is reliable and saves directly in .AVI (the video format that the processing program Registax can use, some newer cameras use .mov or H.264/AVCHD which aside from more compression, have to be converted to AVI adding losses, which is why I'm still using the older camera.) Someone recently told me that the Nikon Coolpix still saves in AVI, so I'll probably be picking one of those up soon to experiment.

Afocal imaging is probably difficult, as I don't see a lot of people doing it, but there are some obvious positives too, the biggest probably is that no laptop is needed (and no need to risk dropping one or exposing it to the elements), since everything's stored on the camera. Patience in post-processing the videos can make a significant difference in the outcome too.

Regards, Jason W. Higley



What camera did you use?
The Tasco 10K is colorfree like an APO but the RV-6 is amazing.



#15 saemark30

saemark30

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1142
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

Posted 29 November 2012 - 01:39 PM

Now are you holding the camera behind the eyepiece and scope?

#16 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6000
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 29 November 2012 - 03:43 PM

I should set up my RV6 and see how it performs. I bought one a couple of years ago complete with a set of Criterion eyepieces and never set it up to use it. giving me seconds thoughts that maybe that was a bad choice.

#17 Jason H.

Jason H.

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 29 November 2012 - 10:48 PM

Now are you holding the camera behind the eyepiece and scope?


I'm using an Orion SteadyPix camera holder that attaches to the eyepiece. It's not the highest rated adapter, but it works for me.

Regards, Jason H.

#18 Jason H.

Jason H.

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 23 Nov 2007
  • Loc: Central Florida

Posted 29 November 2012 - 11:01 PM

Hey Starman, I have some Criterion EP's, but I've never used them as they have such a small exit glass (which is not good for afocal imaging.) I've always assumed that they weren't great, but I haven't tested them; I guess I should do that some day :) . I've been using the excellent TMB Planetary II eyepiece available here at Astronomics
https://www.astronom...pieces_c93.aspx

You can see how this 7mm EP performs with a 2x barlow (combined with the camera's 4x zoom) as that's what I used to do the Jupiter images in this thread. You might want to get a higher magnification if you're doing visual. I've been wanting to pick up some other magnfifications, and now that the price is lower, I guess I'll do that.

That EP is an incredible bargain (I don't work for Astronomics, nor do I know them or get a kickback from them) and it's even cheaper now than when I bought it, now only $49.95, I highly recommend it (it's my best EP, and I have some so-called premium EP's from a legendary maker that the only thing that's premium about them is the price! :lol: )

Regards, Jason W. Higley



I should set up my RV6 and see how it performs. I bought one a couple of years ago complete with a set of Criterion eyepieces and never set it up to use it. giving me seconds thoughts that maybe that was a bad choice.



#19 Marc-Andre

Marc-Andre

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 340
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011
  • Loc: New Hampshire

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:09 AM

BTW, after I shot that with the 80mm, I immediately switched to the Criterion RV-6, and frankly it perplexes me why both scopes are so similar in price (but I really like both scopes, and thank goodness the RV-6 is a bargain!); see the attached image from the same night via the RV-6. That's Europa and its shadow transiting.

Regards, Jason W. Higley


WOW! both shots are great! Before you posted the RV-6 photo, I thought I saw Europa's shadow on the edge of the darker band on the opposite hemisphere, with Europa off to the left of Jupiter. Was there time between the shots for it to move that much in transit with the shadow to move correspondingly? Does any one else see the moon and shadow in the 80mm image?

Marc

#20 starman876

starman876

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6000
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2008
  • Loc: VA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 09:20 AM

I am bout to give up doing prime imaging of planets. The only scope that works with is the C14. That provides a large enough image scale. With smaller scopes prime imaging of planets is hopeless.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics