I recently became the owner of an Celestron C6 SCT (150mm/1500mm), and therefore have been able to explore the world of planetary AP. For acquisition, I have been using an cheap Astromania SGCMOS series color camera which markets itself towards planetary imaging. The specs are as follows:  I also own an ZWO ASI183MC Pro, which has a drastically larger sensor size that comes with higher resolution, albeit smaller finer pixels than the camera listed above (2.4um vs 3.75um).  My question is, when set to the same or similar capture resolution in software (SharpCap), is there any difference or advantage of using a "planetary" camera versus a general purpose Astro came such as the ZWO? When doing the math, the resolving resolution / pixel and FOV are comparable between the two setups, as demonstrated by this image created using astronomy.tools calculator: (blue rectangle is Celestron C6 + ZWO ASI183MC Pro @ 1280x720px, violet rectangle is Celestron C6 + Astromania SGCMOS @ 1280x960px)  Theoretically on paper I could use my ZWO ASI183MC for planetary capture?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Yes, yes you can. Smaller pixels are an advantage too; they should give you finer detail. Mostly the advantage for planetary camera is they are cheaper and simpler; smaller resolution, no cooling. But if you already have a camera that matches those specs, just use that instead.
You should probably also not use the reducer when doing planetary video. Well, depending on whether you'd want the moons in a capture of Jupiter :-)
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Yes, yes you can. Smaller pixels are an advantage too; they should give you finer detail. Mostly the advantage for planetary camera is they are cheaper and simpler; smaller resolution, no cooling. But if you already have a camera that matches those specs, just use that instead.
You should probably also not use the reducer when doing planetary video. Well, depending on whether you'd want the moons in a capture of Jupiter :-) Thank you for confirming my theory! The reason I configured the preview calculator with a reducer was to achieve a similar FOV and resolution, but yes you are correct using without a reducer would yield even better results.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
+1
Smaller pixels are better for lunar/planetary work. I just picked up a qhy5111715C and it has a pixel size of just 1.49 microns. This means that on my 8" SCT I won't need a Barlow to get the correct oversampling. I'm chuffed with the idea of eliminating that element from the imaging train.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Fabian Butkovich:
ASI183MC Pro Hi Fabian For planetary there are a number of critical points you need to look at to choose your camera. First you want to collect data at 12 bit or more, for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, there is a wide dynamic range in these targets, so the more bits the better. You also want to have an f-ratio of 5 to 7x your pixel scale. So with 2.4 micron pixels you want to be at f12 to f17, I would suggest a 1.5X barlow as a good point, the higher the f-ratio the dimmer the image, a 2X barlow would be too much. At 3.87 micron pixels you need something like a 2 to 2.5x barlow to get to the same point. Either is fine in this regard, either way you get a similar signal to each pixel. Your diffraction limited resolution is about 0.9 arc-sec, so your sensor resolution should be fine in either case, no matter what the pixel size. Note this aperture is on the small side for the best planetary images, but good images are possible. You need as many exposures as possible in as short a time as possible. For Jupiter and your setup only 2 to 3 minute videos, as planets are rotating which blurs the image. Stack the images in AutoStakkert. You can take multiple videos, stack them separately, and then derotate them in WinJupos to reduce noise, which really helps. Saturn perhaps 3 to 4 minutes at most for each video to stack, Mars maybe 5 minutes. Ideally for Jupiter you want to be at 10 ms exposures, so 100 fps is ideal. Saturn you might need up to 30 ms, so at least 33 fps. You can reduce your field of view in SharpCap with the ROI to try to get to the frame rate you want. This is key though, if your frame rate is too slow you will not get the best images. One advantage of planetary cameras is they have smaller FOV and fast frame rates than non-planetary cameras. I'm new to this too, so I have spent a lot of time to get up to speed. I have shared more details in my image of Jupiter, here: https://app.astrobin.com/u/rveregin?i=ck8bmf and there is a link there to my Saturn images that shares more details. I do use a 2 um pixel size in my setup with my C925 and a 1.5x barlow. Hope this helps Rick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Rick Veregin:
You also want to have an f-ratio of 5 to 7x your pixel scale. So with 2.4 micron pixels you want to be at f12 to f17, I would suggest a 1.5X barlow as a good point, the higher the f-ratio the dimmer the image, a 2X barlow would be too much. At 3.87 micron pixels you need something like a 2 to 2.5x barlow to get to the same point. Either is fine in this regard, either way you get a similar signal to each pixel. I'm not well versed in planetary imaging, but shouldn't focal lenght be the focus here and not the f-ratio? Or are you giving f number that correspond to the OP telescope?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
The pixel size is ok, but I gagged when I saw the max frame rate of that SGCMOS camera. For planetary Lucky Imaging, you can (and must) get better frame rates with a better camera. Processing a 3 minute video of Jupiter or Mars with 10,000 frames rather than 3000 frames will result in MUCH better results…
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Frame rate matters little if the seeing isn't good and if it is really good then it matters little (let's say above 30 fps). Bit depth isn't that important, if at all.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I recently got a C6, attached my 533 to it with a Barlow barely screwed on nose piece. With a tight ROI on Jupiter it kicks out 160fps. As a noob, My images rubbish images are limited by my ability to focus (or not) and my astro surface processing skils  Give it a try and see. You can always upgrade to a smaller pixel camera later.  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
TiffsAndAstro:
I recently got a C6, attached my 533 to it with a Barlow barely screwed on nose piece.
With a tight ROI on Jupiter it kicks out 160fps.
As a noob, My images rubbish images are limited by my ability to focus (or not) and my astro surface processing skils
Give it a try and see. You can always upgrade to a smaller pixel camera later.
Not a bad image at all! Lots of color in the bands. You should check out Wavesharp2 for sharpening, it's the successor to the widely known Registax which is no longer available or supported. There are some great tutorials on Youtube.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Médéric Hébert:
Rick Veregin:
You also want to have an f-ratio of 5 to 7x your pixel scale. So with 2.4 micron pixels you want to be at f12 to f17, I would suggest a 1.5X barlow as a good point, the higher the f-ratio the dimmer the image, a 2X barlow would be too much. At 3.87 micron pixels you need something like a 2 to 2.5x barlow to get to the same point. Either is fine in this regard, either way you get a similar signal to each pixel.
I'm not well versed in planetary imaging, but shouldn't focal lenght be the focus here and not the f-ratio? Or are you giving f number that correspond to the OP telescope? Think about it this way, for a camera sensor and resolution, we need to consider the sampling of the image by the sensor. It turns out this is determined by the F/D ratio= pixel size*5 to 7 (it actually depends on wavelength too, but this 5 to 7X metric is a good guide). Your aperture determines your telescope resolution. For whatever aperture you have you then set the F/D ratio to make sure you sample your telescopes resolution well, using 5 to 7*pixel size, and that determines your optimal FL. Not having a high enough F/D will undersample, you won't get your full resolution, while adding a bigger barlow than you need will to get more FL just makes the image fainter, and increases your exposure (reducing your frame rate), without any benefit. Of course this depends on seeing, without decent seeing you won't get the resolution you should, even with lucky imaging with ms exposures and a good sampling. I larger aperture gives you a more resolution and at the same F/R a larger FL and plate scale, so more pixels/arc second, which is helpful. Best aperture is probably somewhere in 300 to 600 mm, but good images can be had below and above this, with a proper setup and good conditions. Christophe Pellier has a lot of information on planetary imaging on-line, I encourage everyone to look him up if you want more information. If anyone is really serious about planetary (you may get hooked like me), I recommend his book where he compiles everything. The book is amazing: Planetary Astronomy: Observing, imaging and studying the planets. It is a wonderful resource with everything you might want to know, including processing. Hope this helps. Rick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I'm still not following you.
5 to 7 times the pixel sizes for your focal ratio will put you way past the Dawes/Rayleigh limit of you telescope.
I agree that focal length (and sensor size) is important since it determines your FOV, but I still don't see how, assuming ~3.75micron pixels, a 160mm f/22.5 would be adequate while a 600mm F/6 wouldn't be.
They both have a focal length of 3600mm giving 0.21arcsec per pixels.
The Rayleigh limit for the 600mm would be ~0.23arcsec
For the 160mm it would be ~0.86arcsec
Like I said, I'm still a newbie so I may be getting stuck up on something unimportant, but focusing on f-ratio instead of f-length seems wrong
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
@Rick Veregin Thank you so much for the plentiful detailed advice! I hadn't thougt about taking Jupiters rotation into account, for my most recent capture: 
Jupiter February 28th 2025I captured 10k frames @ 28fps as shown in the Touptek camera specs above, this would equate to 10k/28 = 357 / 60 ~ 6min of video, which is above the rotation threshold as you suggest. I will keep that in mind during my next acquisition. I have considered trying with a 2X Celestron Omni Barlow I have in my kit, however this would make collimation and focusing even more tricker. It's worth a shot.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Médéric Hébert:
I'm still not following you.
5 to 7 times the pixel sizes for your focal ratio will put you way past the Dawes/Rayleigh limit of you telescope.
I agree that focal length (and sensor size) is important since it determines your FOV, but I still don't see how, assuming ~3.75micron pixels, a 160mm f/22.5 would be adequate while a 600mm F/6 wouldn't be.
They both have a focal length of 3600mm giving 0.21arcsec per pixels.
The Rayleigh limit for the 600mm would be ~0.23arcsec
For the 160mm it would be ~0.86arcsec
Like I said, I'm still a newbie so I may be getting stuck up on something unimportant, but focusing on f-ratio instead of f-length seems wrong I am correcting some of my comments, I'm sorry if some of them may have led you astray. I think I can show you how this arises and how it works, by showing the math. A star is spread into the Point Spread Function, PSF, by diffraction through the aperture. In terms of sampling theory from Nyquist-Shannon, for image the FWHM is the best metric to use with the width of the PSF. Another metric often used is the diameter to the 1st minimum, or one could even include the other minima in the spot size, these can make the spot size much bigger. If you look at the angular Airy Disk, the angle theta(@FWHM) = 1.03 lambda/D, lambda is the wavelength, say 0.55 microns, and D is the aperture. So the angular size of the PSF depends on aperture. Note one must be careful in using this equation, as all the units have to rationalized, so there is a constant term not shown that depends on what units you want your angle to be in. Now, what is the resultant spot size on the camera sensor? Well the angle theta is small, so theta = sin(theta)=x/F, where x is our spot diameter on the sensor, and F is the focal length. We now can write: Theta=x/F = 1.03 lamda/D or spot FWHM x = 1.03 lambda * F/D or x = 1.03 lambda * FR. Now we have no angles here, so if lambda is 0.55 microns, the x is in microns and the focal ratio is unitless. Spot FWHM = x = 1.03*0.55*FR= 0.5565 * FR. AT f22 we get 12.5 micron for the FWHM of the spot size. Sampling theory says we need at least 2 to 3 X pixels within the FWHM, so 12.5 micron spot size here would be good with 4 um pixels. Note the full spot size especially if we include some extra minima is larger. Still, the FWHM is appropriate for sampling. The conclusion is the spot size on the sensor depends only on the F/D ratio and the wavelength. The spot size is the same no matter what the aperture is at a given FR. Now Rayleigh resolution is the difference in angle between two equal intensity stars each with overlapping PSF, at that point the two FWHM are nearly touching, while at the Dawes resolution the FWHM essentially are touching. This is the slippery slope because it is very easy to fall into the trap (as I did) that the PSF spot size in the sensor is so large that you cannot reach the resolution of your setup. The resolution is determined by two overlapping PSF, and not directly just taking the width of the PSF. A very good reference for the Rayleigh and Dawes resolution and telescope resolution compared to the FWHM of the Airy disk is: Telescope resolution That reference has some very nice clear figures as well to show the PSF. Again, hope this helps, and sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Rick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
It isn't. If you research the best lunar and planetary imagers out there you'll get the same explanation.
Spot size is determined by f/ratio and wavelength. Remember the term focal ratio takes both aperture and focal length into account which is where I think you are having trouble conceptualizing this. Any F/6 system working at a wavelength of 546 nanometers produces as spot size diameter of about 8 microns. At F/22 this becomes approximately 29 microns. With two different apertures working at the same focal ratio, the larger aperture will have a longer focal length but the resolution also increases thus, the spot size remains the same.
Now take a sheet of graph paper, set the scale of the squares to 3.75, this is you scale in microns. Now draw a circle 8 microns in diameter. You'll see that as described by 3.75 micron pixels it's very blocky. Now draw a 29 micron circle. Notice how it much more accurately rendered it is by the pixels. When using lucky imaging techniques you are really trying to image down to the scale of the airy disk with high fidelity. That's why the numbers are so far beyond what you would normally expect.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Fabian Butkovich:
@Rick Veregin Thank you so much for the plentiful detailed advice!
I hadn't thougt about taking Jupiters rotation into account, for my most recent capture:
Jupiter February 28th 2025
I captured 10k frames @ 28fps as shown in the Touptek camera specs above, this would equate to 10k/28 = 357 / 60 ~ 6min of video, which is above the rotation threshold as you suggest. I will keep that in mind during my next acquisition.
I have considered trying with a 2X Celestron Omni Barlow I have in my kit, however this would make collimation and focusing even more tricker. It's worth a shot. A great start, Fabian, looks good! Glad if I could help. Rick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Fabian Butkovich:
Wavesharp2 i will have a look at it ty. i think my biggest issue right now is know if the video im taking is even in focus  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
TiffsAndAstro:
Fabian Butkovich:
Wavesharp2
i will have a look at it ty. i think my biggest issue right now is know if the video im taking is even in focus If you don't have a bahtinov mask yet, that's a good investment and they're cheap.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
TiffsAndAstro:
Fabian Butkovich:
Wavesharp2
i will have a look at it ty. i think my biggest issue right now is know if the video im taking is even in focus This is an example from my image with my C925 with 2 micron pixels and 1.5X barlow. I got reasonably lucky with seeing, though Jupiter was really moving around from frame to frame. Anyway, this is what it looked like at a 10 ms exposure, just one frame from my video. I could clearly see the bands with nice sharp transitions and the GRS, plus some smaller features. Note the edge is kind of fuzzy, I do not find the edge a good place to judge exact focus. In this case the resultant final image is on the right, which I was very pleased with. What I do is move focus in and out and try to get the view the best I can. If I can see these details I am happy with that focus, it is probably the best I can do. I think the message is if you are still not sure of the focus after doing this, the seeing is not probably good enough, it will be really tough to judge anything. One night of good seeing will help you see what to expect. Rick   |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
wow, ty for this. that final result is amazing. to be fair, my stacked unprocessed image doesn't look a million miles away from yours. but my final result does  i've been trying upping gamma and using focus helper in fire capture which might help a bit. would i recognise good seeing if i saw it? |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
TiffsAndAstro:
Fabian Butkovich:
Wavesharp2
i will have a look at it ty. i think my biggest issue right now is know if the video im taking is even in focus
If you don't have a bahtinov mask yet, that's a good investment and they're cheap.
when i first got my 72ed i really liked the bahtinov mask i bought with it. now, im not so keen on it. could i even use a bahtinov on a planet? wouldn't it bounce around due to seeing?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
TiffsAndAstro:
wow, ty for this. that final result is amazing. to be fair, my stacked unprocessed image doesn't look a million miles away from yours. but my final result does
i've been trying upping gamma and using focus helper in fire capture which might help a bit.
would i recognise good seeing if i saw it? Yes upping gamma helps. Also for focussing you could change color balance to look at only the red channel, that one is less affected by seeing, or only the green channel, that is the strongest signal--in either case this reduces color blur due to atmospheric distortion, unless the planet is very high in the sky. One just needs to remember to switch settings back before your acquisition though. And make sure you fix color alignment in Autostakkert in your processing, it works great. I think one could use a Bhatinov mask, but it is a pain. You need to slew to a bright star, do the focus, then slew back. And if your camera has a small FOV this can be challenging. And if you need to adjust focus again if you are doing mutliple videos it is a pain. Personally I do my alignment, then use the mask on a star, then go to the planet and use that as a base for focus. The mask also helps with umderstanding the seeing, the better the seeing the sharper the diffraction spikes and the more stable the spikes. In poor seeing the spikes will be moving around a lot, hard to tell when you are properly centred with the spikes, and the spikes also go thin, then fat in random fashion, or just look really fat. Once on the planet if seeing is good you will see some details, that should go in and out of focus when you tweak your focusser, just go back and forth so any detail seems clearest. If you can't see much detail and it almost doesn't seem to matter with small tweaks in focus, so you can't tell if you are focussed, seeing is poor. Rick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Get the lowest FWHM you can on a nearby star field and call it good, SharpCap has a tool for that. Planets, stars, even the Moon are objects at infinity focus. Once you get the smallest stars you can get there's no reason to change it when you slew to a planet. If you are setup so that SharpCap can slew your mount then moving back and forth between a star filed and the planet to refocus is a quick and easy process.
On seeing, the more you do this the easier it will be for you to recognize how good the seeing is and if it's even worth shooting that night. There are also free tools out there that will forecast your seeing, among other things. The main thing to look for is the location of the jet stream, when it's over your location the seeing will be generally poor so it's worth checking.
Lastly, because Jupiter rotates so fast you need to limit each image run to just a few min. You want as short a shutter speed and you can get and as fast a frame rate as you can manage to get as many frames as possible in the rotation time limit. Even in good seeing, don't expect too much from a 6" aperture. Don't over process or over enlarge in an effort to bring out detail that isn't there.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
….oh, and don't forget to use a UV/IR cut filter if you are shooting OSC!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Rick Veregin:
TiffsAndAstro:
wow, ty for this. that final result is amazing. to be fair, my stacked unprocessed image doesn't look a million miles away from yours. but my final result does
i've been trying upping gamma and using focus helper in fire capture which might help a bit.
would i recognise good seeing if i saw it?
Yes upping gamma helps. Also for focussing you could change color balance to look at only the red channel, that one is less affected by seeing, or only the green channel, that is the strongest signal--in either case this reduces color blur due to atmospheric distortion, unless the planet is very high in the sky. One just needs to remember to switch settings back before your acquisition though. And make sure you fix color alignment in Autostakkert in your processing, it works great.
I think one could use a Bhatinov mask, but it is a pain. You need to slew to a bright star, do the focus, then slew back. And if your camera has a small FOV this can be challenging. And if you need to adjust focus again if you are doing mutliple videos it is a pain. Personally I do my alignment, then use the mask on a star, then go to the planet and use that as a base for focus.
The mask also helps with umderstanding the seeing, the better the seeing the sharper the diffraction spikes and the more stable the spikes. In poor seeing the spikes will be moving around a lot, hard to tell when you are properly centred with the spikes, and the spikes also go thin, then fat in random fashion, or just look really fat. Once on the planet if seeing is good you will see some details, that should go in and out of focus when you tweak your focusser, just go back and forth so any detail seems clearest. If you can't see much detail and it almost doesn't seem to matter with small tweaks in focus, so you can't tell if you are focussed, seeing is poor.
Rick Not keen, but it might be better way for me. Interesting observation about it revealing seeing conditions not considered that. Just that would be good. I'll post a stack get some opinions on it |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
