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 8th July- good seeing

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,884
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 09 July 2020 - 08:02 AM

Despite upper level clouds, the clarity was excellent and Jupiter looked impressive. Hopefully my results reflect this.

 

Gear: Celestron 9.25

ASI224MC

3X Teleconverter

 

gallery_218407_320_29487.jpg

 

upped the saturation by 5%

 

gallery_218407_320_70113.jpg


  • Carol L, Achernar, yock1960 and 16 others like this

#2 petert913

petert913

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,385
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Silverton, OR

Posted 09 July 2020 - 09:09 AM

Nice steady air.  Great shots



#3 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,884
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 09 July 2020 - 02:26 PM

It's getting to the nice time

#4 kevinbreen

kevinbreen

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,598
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2017
  • Loc: Wexford, Ireland

Posted 09 July 2020 - 04:45 PM

Jesus Christ. That's amazing

#5 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14,967
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 09 July 2020 - 07:00 PM

I prefer the more smoother processings you've posted for some threads Amrit - but no denying there's lots of detail in these..! waytogo.gif waytogo.gif waytogo.gif


  • yock1960 likes this

#6 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,884
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 09 July 2020 - 07:34 PM

Ha! I knew you would say that! These are the same wavelets and processing. The difference is the lack of Sahara dust. That how much contrast the dust steals from images.

You should see how easy it is to focus when there is no dust.

#7 yock1960

yock1960

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,065
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2008
  • Loc: (Crossroad of clouds) Ohio, USA

Posted 09 July 2020 - 07:34 PM

Ditto what Darryl says. These are really nice, but if you backed off some, they could be even better!

 

Steve



#8 PhotonJohn

PhotonJohn

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,956
  • Joined: 11 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Viera Florida

Posted 09 July 2020 - 07:48 PM

Beautiful Amrit.

#9 PXR-5

PXR-5

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 45,738
  • Joined: 28 Mar 2008
  • Loc: Lower Earth Orbit

Posted 09 July 2020 - 07:50 PM

NICE!!!

#10 sunnyday

sunnyday

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,276
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2019
  • Loc: the Canadian nebula .

Posted 09 July 2020 - 07:53 PM

superb details , wow, thanks .



#11 Kokatha man

Kokatha man

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14,967
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2009
  • Loc: "cooker-ta man" downunda...

Posted 10 July 2020 - 05:16 AM

Ha! I knew you would say that! These are the same wavelets and processing. The difference is the lack of Sahara dust. That how much contrast the dust steals from images.

You should see how easy it is to focus when there is no dust.

I wish I could read my mind - I have no idea what's going on in my head a lot of the time..! lol.gif

 

Your response is a bit puzzling though bro...just personally speaking, the images appear very heavy & overly-contrasted - I find it hard to follow your logic but as I said before, regardless there's lots of details in these images! waytogo.gif



#12 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,884
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 10 July 2020 - 08:27 AM

The second one with the saturation bump might look a bit heavy.

 

 

What I have noticed is the sahara dust makes everything look softer. So the wavelets look a bit heavier when the dust clears, because the details are much sharper. I may need to create a new wavelet group that isn't as heavy. 



#13 dhammy

dhammy

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,024
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Puerto Rico

Posted 10 July 2020 - 09:22 AM

Nice detail :) 

 

It might be your monitor/laptop screen that makes what we see different to what you see. Do you have another way to see the images you are producing? 

example: if my monitor where i do the processing is low contrast, then my final image might look fine to me, but when someone else looks at it online through a monitor with correct contrast, they will see it with much more contrast. 



#14 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,884
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 10 July 2020 - 10:25 AM

I use my laptop, and if I view it through a phone it looks very contrasty.

 

 

But on my work monitor, it looks well balanced.



#15 Tom Glenn

Tom Glenn

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,953
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2018
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 10 July 2020 - 11:53 AM

 

What I have noticed is the sahara dust makes everything look softer. So the wavelets look a bit heavier when the dust clears, because the details are much sharper. I may need to create a new wavelet group that isn't as heavy. 

Amrit, there's no such thing as a "wavelet group", so I'm confused by your repeated reference to such.  The processing used on different sets of data is always different, otherwise the results will show extreme variation.  Some of your previous images (to which Darryl makes reference) are among the best amateur Jupiter images we see, certainly in your aperture class.  Many of your other images, such as these in this thread, look completely different (heavy and overly-contrasted, to borrow Darryl's phrase, with which I agree).  It's not about the dust, it's about the processing.  But as others have said, the raw data here is excellent, with lots of detail!


Edited by Tom Glenn, 10 July 2020 - 12:06 PM.


#16 dhammy

dhammy

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,024
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Puerto Rico

Posted 10 July 2020 - 01:53 PM

I use my laptop, and if I view it through a phone it looks very contrasty.

 

 

But on my work monitor, it looks well balanced.

That could well be the issue then. It might be worth seeing if you can calibrate both your laptop and work monitor. My laptop screen is terrible and I only capture with it. I do all my processing on another computer with a monitor that, honestly, I'm looking to change too as it's just a cheap one that isn't close to 100% sRGB and also has contrast issues. I'm now checking my images on my ipad which is 105% of the sRGB spectrum and contrast wise much more accurate.  



#17 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,884
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013
  • Loc: Trinidad

Posted 10 July 2020 - 02:28 PM

When I use the term wavelet group, I mean the wavelet settings in Registax. I call each preset a "group". May be a misuse of the term on my part. 

 

 

 

I will try to do a reprocess and post later



#18 Tom Glenn

Tom Glenn

    Mercury-Atlas

  • -----
  • Posts: 2,953
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2018
  • Loc: San Diego, CA

Posted 10 July 2020 - 03:16 PM

When I use the term wavelet group, I mean the wavelet settings in Registax. I call each preset a "group". May be a misuse of the term on my part. 

 

As many people have said before, if you use the same exact settings in Registax to process images taken on different days, and under different conditions, you will get wildly inconsistent results.  This is also true if you try and use the same settings on different planets, even if they were captured at the same time and conditions.  So, it is not surprising that your results reflect this, since you seem to prefer using preset values in R6.  Also relevant, however, is the degree to which personal preferences in image outcomes vary.  Many (if not most) experienced imagers prefer softer processed versions, that arguably look much more natural, while others (including yourself much of the time) seem to prefer more heavily processed and contrasted versions.  These preferences can change over time.....with most people migrating to the softer versions.  But regardless of these choices, you have excellent detail in these outcomes.  


Edited by Tom Glenn, 11 July 2020 - 03:24 AM.



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.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics