Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Jupiter GRS -@ sunrise, Wow - best 2 minutes of my 2018 - 16 inch Dob

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#51 wavydavy

wavydavy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2017

Posted 10 February 2018 - 09:38 AM

ps: Let me know which Curve Width you thought gave the best sharpening deconvolution outcome in the animated examples above! lol.gif

 

There are other aspects that were a bit too involved to incorporate into that animation in the post btw...you really should move the image in the preview windows around if your program allows that, to examine what is happening to the limb when you apply various amounts of deconvolution: also important for those who have AstraImage is that my version is rather old now (works fine however!) but newer versions have a different formula evidently & you apply many more iterations as I understand things...

WILL do for all of that ...time for a bike ride ..I just blew thru 300GB of data for the Io transit today .... THANKS AGAIN ..



#52 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10638
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 11 February 2018 - 12:34 AM

I managed to locate a "typical"  R6 wavelets' settings using the ASI224MC & C14 from early 2016 - this is what Dave said he took as one pointer to his own settings above.

 

Of course there are always going to be some differences, but remember that I originally said these guides were for decent quality data, drizzled 3X & from a scope of some aperture (C14 here) & a sufficient number of quality frames...

 

This image had some "dross" left in it btw because I used it with the very next capture for a WinJupos integration of the 2 - which allows for some noise & limb amelioration, meaning each sharpened stack does not have to be so refined. wink.gif

 

I'll post this in Dave's other thread as well because it seems like some folks don't read too much of anyone's threads..! lol.gif

 

I won't comment further on 8bit & Hi-Speed etc...I promised Sam not to advocate employing hi-speed but I will say that when first trialling the various cameras - 120MM, 120MM-S...174MM I used H/S & rarely found any difference in image outcomes: your mileage may vary as they say but if you encounter low elevations etc you might want to experiment...which is always advisable!

 

I think you need to click on the image here. smile.gif

 

R6_Example.png


  • Lacaille and wavydavy like this

#53 Sunspot

Sunspot

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8039
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2005
  • Loc: Surprise, AZ

Posted 11 February 2018 - 11:31 AM

Sooooooooo.....High Speed Mode...worth a try and decide for our self?  laugh.gif



#54 RedLionNJ

RedLionNJ

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2220
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2009
  • Loc: Red Lion, NJ, USA

Posted 11 February 2018 - 11:50 AM

Very nice, Darryl - I use precisely the same techniques in both R6 and AstraImage (usually on far poorer quality stacks).



#55 John Boudreau

John Boudreau

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1512
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Boston Area, MA

Posted 11 February 2018 - 01:34 PM

Sooooooooo.....High Speed Mode...worth a try and decide for our self?  laugh.gif

As I recall, the High Speed Mode introduces a bit more noise and some loss of dynamic range. But I'd think that these issues may be overcome simply by having more frames to work with due to the FPS boost achieved with High Speed ON.

 

In the now all too rare cases of good seeing around my location, the good moments usually only occur for bursts of a few minutes--- there's just too much inconsistency in conditions for me to try both High Speed ON and then OFF and do a comparison. So I've always shot with it OFF.


  • RedLionNJ likes this

#56 wavydavy

wavydavy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2017

Posted 12 February 2018 - 11:42 AM

 

ps: Let me know which Curve Width you thought gave the best sharpening deconvolution outcome in the animated examples above! lol.gif

 

There are other aspects that were a bit too involved to incorporate into that animation in the post btw...you really should move the image in the preview windows around if your program allows that, to examine what is happening to the limb when you apply various amounts of deconvolution: also important for those who have AstraImage is that my version is rather old now (works fine however!) but newer versions have a different formula evidently & you apply many more iterations as I understand things...

WILL do for all of that ...time for a bike ride ..I just blew thru 300GB of data for the Io transit today .... THANKS AGAIN ..

 

Hello , Darryl ....it seems like 1.7 or 1.8 are the sharpest ....



#57 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10638
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 12 February 2018 - 09:57 PM

I suppose "your mileage may vary" Dave lol.gif but tbh I would choose "1.6"...it can take a while but you should not confuse contrast with fine detail resolution - this was my (friendly) criticism of your original processing & a common mistake where folks think heavy contrast equates with good detail/resolution.

 

Similarly with iR images where the contrast is stronger...but we know that resolution is actually diminished the further we venture into longer iR wavelengths! wink.gif

 

Consider that little squiggly little line with the little barb on the right hand side of it that I have circled in the "1.6" curve width iteration...I "think" upon careful study you will find it is more defined than any of the other c/w's displayed. wink.gif

 

DeconDetail.png


  • ArekP and wavydavy like this

#58 wavydavy

wavydavy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2017

Posted 13 February 2018 - 09:08 AM

I suppose "your mileage may vary" Dave lol.gif but tbh I would choose "1.6"...it can take a while but you should not confuse contrast with fine detail resolution - this was my (friendly) criticism of your original processing & a common mistake where folks think heavy contrast equates with good detail/resolution.

 

Similarly with iR images where the contrast is stronger...but we know that resolution is actually diminished the further we venture into longer iR wavelengths! wink.gif

 

Consider that little squiggly little line with the little barb on the right hand side of it that I have circled in the "1.6" curve width iteration...I "think" upon careful study you will find it is more defined than any of the other c/w's displayed. wink.gif

 

attachicon.gif DeconDetail.png

thanks ....true i guess if I was focusing on the finer details, which i prob wasn't, that is true resolution rather than the overall "feel" of the image ...maybe i am near 50 and blind, shiza ! I hope not :) - THANKS again ...I appreciate the dialog and obviously MANY others listen to your gospel and read these posts as well - RIDE the viral 1300 view rating here ...you will get eyeballs :)  ---- next EASY QUESTION - what is your max/normal effective focal length or f / ? with ADC, filter etc ... with my 16 FC gives 9300mm, w 224 cam  and all of my junk. -  like f/25 ish ... THANKS !



#59 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10638
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 13 February 2018 - 07:37 PM

My point really is that heavier contrast does not equate with better resolution Dave...& is often not as "aesthetic" although I'll readily concede that is a much more personal concept for everyone.

 

And although those other curve widths might appear a bit bolder due to the increased contrast (ie, they appear slightly darker) the "1.6" is more delicate/refined/detailed...well, to my nearly 70 year old eyes anyway! lol.gif

 

The image here where I displayed R6 applications was shot at 7750mm using the C14 which is almost smack on f20...I don't know if we used the ADC but I imagine we did because the elevation of Jove was only in the high 40's...

 

But it's impossible to use words like max/normal in many ways when you consider different cameras & the size of the pixels in each of them: the 290MM (or MC) has pretty small pixels, smaller than the 224MC, 2.9uM compared to 3.75uM: f25 is higher than that suggested f20 rough "ideal" (5x pixel size) but you might find your higher f/l's beneficial - we're using roughly f16 on the smaller-pixelled 290MM atm which does conform to that rule of thumb...but seeing rules everything as you know!

 

This might mean you can get away with, or even benefit from, significantly greater image scales/focal lengths in excellent conditions - or not! lol.gif


  • wavydavy likes this

#60 wavydavy

wavydavy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2017

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:38 AM

My point really is that heavier contrast does not equate with better resolution Dave...& is often not as "aesthetic" although I'll readily concede that is a much more personal concept for everyone.

 

And although those other curve widths might appear a bit bolder due to the increased contrast (ie, they appear slightly darker) the "1.6" is more delicate/refined/detailed...well, to my nearly 70 year old eyes anyway! lol.gif

 

The image here where I displayed R6 applications was shot at 7750mm using the C14 which is almost smack on f20...I don't know if we used the ADC but I imagine we did because the elevation of Jove was only in the high 40's...

 

But it's impossible to use words like max/normal in many ways when you consider different cameras & the size of the pixels in each of them: the 290MM (or MC) has pretty small pixels, smaller than the 224MC, 2.9uM compared to 3.75uM: f25 is higher than that suggested f20 rough "ideal" (5x pixel size) but you might find your higher f/l's beneficial - we're using roughly f16 on the smaller-pixelled 290MM atm which does conform to that rule of thumb...but seeing rules everything as you know!

 

This might mean you can get away with, or even benefit from, significantly greater image scales/focal lengths in excellent conditions - or not! lol.gif

OK so you were at 7750mm cool ...when I am using 3x barlow & ADC w 224 color I get 7800 in FC, and mono setup zwo290 with 3x gives 7500mm ...so we are all tied up ...

--- The BIG difference besides seeing , is your C14 must be riding something nice ...while I am bronco busting with my Orion goto dob , my tracking is not in the same league as yours ...So my overall thought is i lose finer details to Gem and other SCT on alt/az mounts ...I make up for it with some extra shutter speed to still motion ...but that only can go so far... BUT the rig has made amazing images ...and I just got started with this hobby a bit more than a year ago ...having a blast. You have been super helpful, and in the FB group amateur imagers ..etc. that I post to..lots of people are getting their feet wet trying this stuff out.....asking questions .which is great



#61 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10638
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 14 February 2018 - 03:52 PM

"No" is the direct answer to your comments about the mount Dave!

 

As long as there is no field rotation occurring in the alt/az mount, then the type of mount should have no effects whatsoever beyond the fact it "might" be harder to keep the planet on the screen/camera.

 

Others like RAC who use alt/az with really larger scopes (20"+) report no issues with field rotation if I remember correctly...& it can be dealt with in AS!2/3 & other software if it is present.

 

That said, unless you have a good drive system/control, our own personal experience is that alt/az "can" be a p.i.t.a!

 

We now use an EQ8, but the EQ6 sufficed for a number of years before that & we never bother with proper PA & often rely on constant hand-controller corrections to keep the planet onscreen...to my mind this "wandering" during capture is actually beneficial & is somewhat akin to dithering... wink.gif

 

We have been "pushers" of the high frame rate creed since we first starting shooting Saturn at the previously unheard of speed of 180fps+ several years ago when we were the first to test the newer cmos cams on this target btw...it does have a lot of benefits much of the time smile.gif

 

Seeing trumps everything tbh, although good elevation goes hand-in-hand with that a lot of the time! wink.gif


  • wavydavy likes this

#62 wavydavy

wavydavy

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2017

Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:28 PM

"No" is the direct answer to your comments about the mount Dave!

 

As long as there is no field rotation occurring in the alt/az mount, then the type of mount should have no effects whatsoever beyond the fact it "might" be harder to keep the planet on the screen/camera.

 

Others like RAC who use alt/az with really larger scopes (20"+) report no issues with field rotation if I remember correctly...& it can be dealt with in AS!2/3 & other software if it is present.

 

That said, unless you have a good drive system/control, our own personal experience is that alt/az "can" be a p.i.t.a!

 

We now use an EQ8, but the EQ6 sufficed for a number of years before that & we never bother with proper PA & often rely on constant hand-controller corrections to keep the planet onscreen...to my mind this "wandering" during capture is actually beneficial & is somewhat akin to dithering... wink.gif

 

We have been "pushers" of the high frame rate creed since we first starting shooting Saturn at the previously unheard of speed of 180fps+ several years ago when we were the first to test the newer cmos cams on this target btw...it does have a lot of benefits much of the time smile.gif

 

Seeing trumps everything tbh, although good elevation goes hand-in-hand with that a lot of the time! wink.gif

we definitely share that philosophy ...with the movement of air and scope on mount ..why wouldn't I want a high shutter speed and fps ...kind of like a wildlife shot or anything else using big telephoto ...aperture wins by giving you the high shutter speed / mag...my drive system is bottom of the line ...but it beats manual for sure ... --*** Do you ALAWAYS  3x drizzle and then reduce for your better videos ? - thanks



#63 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10638
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:01 PM

...short answer Dave is "yes." wink.gif

 

What is really means is that unless the data can support 3x drizzle it isn't up to scratch imo - I could post the image from yesterday morning which almost came up to scratch but not quite - not surprising because of the fast Jetstream overhead! (we were at home.)

 

I can't do it atm because I'm online at a public library 50 miles from home waiting for our car service to be finished & killing time - probably a dangerous description when one is approaching 70! lol.gif - just to emphasize the point I might reprocess it as a non-drizzled outcome later today or tomorrow & post it to prove my point...or maybe disprove it if it comes out as acceptable..! lol.gif

 

But in general I normally think that if it doesn't work at 3x then it's not worth bothering with...remembering that now with 12 weeks till opposition, I'm only just starting to think Jove imaging enters the "serious" phase where I think the 12 weeks before & after opposition is (usually) the most effective imaging period...so I probably flick this stuff up to now if it isn't very good. wink.gif

 

The couple of images I have posted so far this apparition are my "junk time jobs" & were done with the ASI224MC - we're now using the 290MM which I much prefer tbh although the 224MC is a very good performer & much easier to set up with the ADC when Jove is lower...

 

Btw, for anyone reading this...when reducing the scale of drizzled images for the final image I often mention the importance of applying any final de-noising (Gaussian Blur etc) after the scale/size reduction!  


  • RedLionNJ and wavydavy like this

#64 RedLionNJ

RedLionNJ

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2220
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2009
  • Loc: Red Lion, NJ, USA

Posted 14 February 2018 - 09:41 PM

 

My point really is that heavier contrast does not equate with better resolution Dave...& is often not as "aesthetic" although I'll readily concede that is a much more personal concept for everyone.

 

And although those other curve widths might appear a bit bolder due to the increased contrast (ie, they appear slightly darker) the "1.6" is more delicate/refined/detailed...well, to my nearly 70 year old eyes anyway! lol.gif

 

The image here where I displayed R6 applications was shot at 7750mm using the C14 which is almost smack on f20...I don't know if we used the ADC but I imagine we did because the elevation of Jove was only in the high 40's...

 

But it's impossible to use words like max/normal in many ways when you consider different cameras & the size of the pixels in each of them: the 290MM (or MC) has pretty small pixels, smaller than the 224MC, 2.9uM compared to 3.75uM: f25 is higher than that suggested f20 rough "ideal" (5x pixel size) but you might find your higher f/l's beneficial - we're using roughly f16 on the smaller-pixelled 290MM atm which does conform to that rule of thumb...but seeing rules everything as you know!

 

This might mean you can get away with, or even benefit from, significantly greater image scales/focal lengths in excellent conditions - or not! lol.gif

OK so you were at 7750mm cool ...when I am using 3x barlow & ADC w 224 color I get 7800 in FC, and mono setup zwo290 with 3x gives 7500mm ...so we are all tied up ...

--- The BIG difference besides seeing , is your C14 must be riding something nice ...while I am bronco busting with my Orion goto dob , my tracking is not in the same league as yours ...So my overall thought is i lose finer details to Gem and other SCT on alt/az mounts ...I make up for it with some extra shutter speed to still motion ...but that only can go so far... BUT the rig has made amazing images ...and I just got started with this hobby a bit more than a year ago ...having a blast. You have been super helpful, and in the FB group amateur imagers ..etc. that I post to..lots of people are getting their feet wet trying this stuff out.....asking questions .which is great

 

There's very little benefit to taking the estimated focal length figures in FC without a few grains of salt. The best way to determine focal length is to measure the resulting image in Winjupos to get an image scale (arcsec per pixel) and derive the effective focal length from that.

 

While FireCapture does an excellent job of estimating focal length, its calculations are based upon the predicted apparent equatorial diameter of the planet (which is fairly accurate) and assumes the planet is oriented on the chip with the equator parallel to the horizontal AND the seeing is relatively stable. If either of those conditions is not true, then the FC estimate should be treated cautiously.

 

As far as maximum f-ratio for a given pixel size goes - the "5 x" maximum suggestion is based on the physics of the wave nature of (visible) light and a sufficiently-sized primary. Even under the best seeing conditions and perfect optics imaginable, you cannot pull out more detail. A longer focal length (larger f-ratio) at this point will simply spread the existing detail out over more pixels - no additional detail will be revealed. All you will do is require longer exposures or higher gain to fill the pixels (push the histogram) to the same fill values.  And this is assuming excellent seeing, too. When the seeing drops below excellent, you need the fastest frame rate possible (within reason) to come close to the maximum resolution. And on many occasions, you simply can't - the seeing doesn't permit it.

 

I know Darryl doesn't agree 100% with all of this - and there's no doubt his images are superior to mine (most people's). But I approach this aspect of the hobby as a (genuine) physicist and my (first-hand) experiments have displayed nothing to contradict the theory.


  • Lacaille and wavydavy like this

#65 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10638
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 15 February 2018 - 03:39 AM

I know Darryl doesn't agree 100% with all of this - and there's no doubt his images are superior to mine (most people's). But I approach this aspect of the hobby as a (genuine) physicist and my (first-hand) experiments have displayed nothing to contradict the theory.

 

Well, actually there's nothing I disagree with that you've said here at all Grant! lol.gif

 

That "5x" rule is what we use for either the 224MC or 290MM as I said above...I was being somewhat whimsical when I suggested to Dave <"This might mean you can get away with, or even benefit from, significantly greater image scales/focal lengths in excellent conditions - or not! lol.gif ">

 

Of course also inherent in it was that sometimes your results may appear* to defy the "Laws of Physics" & experimentation is often a good thing. wink.gif

 

* usually encompassing some other aspect(s) not factored into the general equation. wink.gif


  • RedLionNJ, Lacaille and wavydavy like this

#66 RedLionNJ

RedLionNJ

    Vanguard

  • -----
  • Posts: 2220
  • Joined: 29 Dec 2009
  • Loc: Red Lion, NJ, USA

Posted 15 February 2018 - 01:08 PM

 

I know Darryl doesn't agree 100% with all of this - and there's no doubt his images are superior to mine (most people's). But I approach this aspect of the hobby as a (genuine) physicist and my (first-hand) experiments have displayed nothing to contradict the theory.

 

Well, actually there's nothing I disagree with that you've said here at all Grant! lol.gif

 

That "5x" rule is what we use for either the 224MC or 290MM as I said above...I was being somewhat whimsical when I suggested to Dave <"This might mean you can get away with, or even benefit from, significantly greater image scales/focal lengths in excellent conditions - or not! lol.gif ">

 

Of course also inherent in it was that sometimes your results may appear* to defy the "Laws of Physics" & experimentation is often a good thing. wink.gif

 

* usually encompassing some other aspect(s) not factored into the general equation. wink.gif

 

Have a lot of pedants in Oz, do we? :)

 

Seriously, though - I love this!




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.







Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics