Jupiter from last night. Seeing was average.
Equipment used: Meade 14'' RCX400, PM2,5x, ZWO ADC, ASI462MC, filter Baader L.
Location: Krakow, Poland.
Przemo.
Animation, time UT: 20:29 - 20:37.
Capture size.
Resize 66,7%.
Posted 20 January 2025 - 07:00 PM
Jupiter from last night. Seeing was average.
Equipment used: Meade 14'' RCX400, PM2,5x, ZWO ADC, ASI462MC, filter Baader L.
Location: Krakow, Poland.
Przemo.
Animation, time UT: 20:29 - 20:37.
Capture size.
Resize 66,7%.
Posted 20 January 2025 - 08:18 PM
Hi Przemo,
Welcome to CN's Planetary Imaging forum. Those are impressive Jupiter images; I like the animation.
Your Meade 14" RCX400 is proving to be a quality scope. Could you post a photo of it and your imaging train.
Thank you, Dan
Posted 31 January 2025 - 09:05 AM
Hi Przemo,
Welcome to CN's Planetary Imaging forum. Those are impressive Jupiter images; I like the animation.
Your Meade 14" RCX400 is proving to be a quality scope. Could you post a photo of it and your imaging train.
Thank you, Dan
Hi,
You can see some photos here:
https://www.cloudyni...ere/?p=13942665
Posted 31 January 2025 - 10:06 AM
Very nice. If I might make a suggestion, look into incorporating WinJUPOS into your workflow. That is some really nice data. You can combine ALL of it, resulting in a much better SNR, and still preserve the ability to animate.
Posted 31 January 2025 - 10:22 AM
Very nice. If I might make a suggestion, look into incorporating WinJUPOS into your workflow. That is some really nice data. You can combine ALL of it, resulting in a much better SNR, and still preserve the ability to animate.
Thanks.
Do you suggest using de-rotation of video's or images? I tried using image de-rotation tool but there was more blurry/fuzzy details. Single stack was better.
Posted 31 January 2025 - 10:29 AM
Thanks.
Do you suggest using de-rotation of video's or images? I tried using image de-rotation tool but there was more blurry/fuzzy details. Single stack was better.
Yes, de-rotation of images. If there were blurry/fuzzy details after de-rotation, it implies one of two things; either your image measurement (wire frame alignment) was poor, or you are confusing noise in the image with sharpness of the image. A higher SNR image may look softer than an equivalent but noisier image (for example in my lunar images I prefer to leave them a bit noisy, as it gives the terrain the appearance of texture or grain that makes the image appear sharper). The higher SNR image can typically take more sharpening, which is why I first deconvolve the individual frames, and then make a second (subtle!) sharpening pass after image de-rotation.
Edited by Borodog, 31 January 2025 - 10:30 AM.
Posted 31 January 2025 - 10:49 AM
Thank You for explanation. Maybe I'll try with images from the above animation.
Edited by Przemo23, 31 January 2025 - 01:02 PM.
Posted 31 January 2025 - 01:15 PM
Ok. I tried to do derotation and my conclusion is that if you don't use all good, equally sharp photos for the animation, the result will be worse a bit.
In the above animation the first frame is the best, adding more improves the SNR overall, but in some areas the details got worse.
![]() Cloudy Nights LLC Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics |