Imaged at Sedan on 21st December in good seeing & transparency, where after spending (perhaps "wasting" ) 17 minutes on an iR850 recording after collimating, Uranus had sunk to 42° for this 10 minute capture at 70fps in iR610nm...fairly warm at over 18°C still for this capture.
We include as we often do nowadays the RAW stack in Registax6 with wavelets sharpening...also appended to the side of this R6 screenshot the FC .txt file: & although faint, observers will discern the N.P. collar amongst other banding as well as the full compliment of Uranus' major moons, including tiny Miranda.
I'm also posting my full critique of Phil & Anthony's claim to Quote: <"Positive detection of the Uranus ring"> in this thread.
With no further response to my last comments in their thread I think it polite to
allow them to let it lie so to speak, for whatever reasons...
but the matter has an important bearing on how we as amateurs should advance the integrity of
I refer to their images & adaptations of such, but do not post any I have made;
believing it is Phil & Anthony's sole prerogative to make public such images.
For those who bother to read the following in its entirety
our own image from 21st December 2016 - captured with
87% gain has significant relevance herein..!
This critique is not intended to be in any way personal - but I see it as extremely important to air: & despite all 3 of us living in Australia (it is a BIG country!) we don't communicate very often.
I have assisted both Phil & Anthony this last year when both of them were struggling with aspects re Uranus & Neptune & had contacted me "out of the blue"...Phil on how to use the ASI224MC & Anthony in appreciating the difference between "genuine" WJ Neptune animations & those where a "skin" is created & stretched over a globe to create what one professional deems (appropriately) "movies."
I spend an almost inordinate amount of time responding to emails etc on imaging & processing, with especial focus on Uranus & Neptune where I "think" Pat & I have established a fair reputation over the last few years...thus my passion re anything about the "Ice Giants."
I have no "axe to grind" with both these people whom I respect for their own planetary imaging achievements...
But I have to state that I am surprised that so many people have accepted Phil's images - processed by Anthony - as "Positive detection of the Uranus ring" to quote Anthony's website assertion.
This doesn't totally exclude the possibility that some indication/indicator is present...but it is an immense leap between what is produced as "evidence" & this statement of "positive detection" by Anthony.
On lesser notes I'm concerned that the seeing appraisal shifted from "excellent" to "perfect" over time - finding all the "reasoning" highly speculative & anecdotal with simple questions not addressed, Anthony in Posts #11 & #16 of the CN thread http://www.cloudynig...ings-of-uranus/ completely avoiding my questions.
My responses to his obfuscations were pretty blunt tbh - but again I emphasize that my critique is in the manner of the rigorous debate these sorts of claims should be subjected to!
My eyes are "skeptical" as Almir Germano said when he sent me his own Uranian Ring attempts back in November for my opinion: but if we as amateurs wish to maintain any vestige of objective, professional conduct in these matters, skepticism is an essential ingredient.
Studying Phil's images carefully, I see NO real similarities with (eg) Bernd Gaehrken's in 2011 where the clearly illuminated ansae are defined within those areas of highly-elevated brightness.
Of course it was a much larger telescope (800mm) & a methane band filter was used... a similar situation with the Pic du Midi captures: however, filters & aperture aside, in essence we are asked to consider that they captured a portion of one ring ansae which even the Pic du Midi could not evince as any brighter!
I do "imagine" (more on this below) the faintest appearance of a brighter "arc" within the general area that could be deemed as near to one of the ansae & which does correspond with a section of the Uranus Ring Viewer's ring simulation.
However, there is also a darker area adjacent to the over-exposed disk at approx. the 5:30 to 7:00 o'clock positions: this tends to encourage the eye to "interpret" something in the highly-illuminated (ie amplified, scattered light) areas nearby - ie, this "arc."
It is, however, quite ephemeral at the very least & extremely problematical to be anything more than a "light artefact" amongst all the uneven light-scatter surrounding the disk, especially when the elevated applications required to create these aspects of the image are taken into account.
Carefully removing this dark, roughly semi-elliptical area virtually removes any real appearance of this element as "a faint bright arc" nearby, incidentally...
As well, if you look at an un-annotated 250% enlargement of their image (anyone can create this - btw, annotations can easily be visual "cues" that are equally deceptive interpreters) you will find that it is easy to "imagine" other "faint bright arcs" at various locations around Uranus' disk as well - attesting to this dark area most likely being merely a deceptive factor to assist us in imagining a faint, bright arc nearby.
Incidentally, this darker semi-elliptical area itself does NOT correlate with the area inside the Ring Viewer overlay btw, even though it will "rotate" in a re-orientation: it is axially displaced from those areas inside the rings for starters - & it would be extremely unlikely for such a capture to detect this even if it did correspond with that area... meaning we should reject any notion that it is objectively "real" also!
Quickly summarising, if we were to concentrate only on any perceived elliptical brightening to mark the actual ring detection (as per Bernd's 2011 images) as opposed to the remote likelihood of finding an actual segment of the ring ansae in the light-scatter around the planet...we would be better off considering that bright area nearer 4 o'clock - except of course that area is not commensurate with the ring ansae - & a very subjective interpretation of what is relevant suits these claims much more!
I refuse to address the relevance of the other image subsequently "produced" following Phil's image release: Bernd's methane band 2011 image with 800mm of light-grasp is not much more definitive than this "creation" with 1/4 the light-grasp & 610nm filter...I don't believe in Father Xmas either incidentally...although I did want a "drawing set" when I was a child!
One simple experiment that Anthony could carry out is to reprocess Phil's data for disk definition: readers might imagine that employing 36/48db gain would ruin this capture's chances of creating an image with good disk detailing (technically, good albedo variation) - but this is not so!
36/48db is a gain of 75%...several days ago (21/12/16) Pat & myself imaged Uranus at 87% gain (see the thread image below) where Uranus had descended to 42° (much lower than for Phil's image) in seeing we would describe as "good" (most certainly NOT "perfect" - we include the focused star from collimation as we always do, 88 Piscium in this case, to provide a gauge of the seeing)
Transparency was good enough for Miranda to be evinced & the darker N.T. band, the brighter EQ defined as being that brighter strip sandwiched between said N.T & the darker S.T. southern extremities of the visible disk...along with the N.P. collar that we have picked up in many of our images over the last few years.
All this definition we would rate as a good outcome: the image was (roughly) 30pxl in diameter (Eq) with our TeleVue barlow operating at about 1.2X to 1.3X in our variable amplification unit of the C14's imaging train.
Anthony, as long as you "Normalize Brightness" to around 60%-70% maximum when you re-stack the capture data you will find no problems in evincing good disk banding despite the gain used.....that is, if the data is as good as you claim, taken in "perfect" seeing & at much greater elevation than we can attain down here...& able to detect the ring system..!
Incidentally, NO vestige of anything remotely like ansae appendages/ring detection could be evinced from our own data below...
Certainly an acid-test for the data you claim shows "Positive detection of the Uranus ring" (sic) to quote yourself Anthony!
Then again you could make the capture files or RAW stack &/or processing regimen you used available to some of us...otherwise those memories of "Cold Fusion" claims would seem more comparable!