Tony Gondola:
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. I'm doing 90 or 120 seconds for Jupiter. I have been stacking at 200% in astro surface but will stop and zoom in, instead. Maybe not stacking enough frames too  Why does jupiter look clearer in my eyepeice than my 533? Maybe my Barlow is rubbish. Or it's an optical illusion.
|
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:
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 use it on a star, then slew to the planet :-)
|
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:
Why does jupiter look clearer in my eyepeice than my 533? Maybe my Barlow is rubbish. Or it's an optical illusion. It's because your eye is not a camera. The human vision system is very adaptive and is very good at seeing fleeting detail. A camera on the other hand records what it sees and as such, can be a rather harsh mistress.
|
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:
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 use it on a star, then slew to the planet :-)
this sounds stupidly obvious, sorry  so if the stars are in focus, jupiter will be? only found out recently edge of moon is out of focus if i focus center of moon
|
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:
TiffsAndAstro:
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 use it on a star, then slew to the planet :-)
this sounds stupidly obvious, sorry so if the stars are in focus, jupiter will be? only found out recently edge of moon is out of focus if i focus center of moon Actually, that thing about the Moon isn't true. As I stated before, the stars, the Moon and the planets are at infinity focus. There is no focus change from the center of the lunar disk to the edge.
|
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.
Hi Fabian, In my opinion, one of your best resources for planetary imaging is the FAQ on cloudynights written by Tulloch https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/812022-planetary-imaging-faq-updated-january-2025/To the points discussed above, generally speaking, star-focusing and bahtinov masks are insufficient for planetary focusing though they get one 'close'. Depending upon the planet, you're imaging, there are certain features(very small but significant ones) that are the differences between sharp and otherwise dull images. From my limited experience, a true-life saver with regards to focusing is the incorporation of a motorized focuser as manually focusing at high focal lengths can cause severe vibrations and shaking. For extremely fine planetary details, the following aspects play a key role(though there are others): - Telescope Aperture
- Seeing
- Collimation
The camera plays a role obviously, but the above really separates some of the finest planetary images from others. Again, most of this will be covered in the aforementioned FAQ, but I hope these details are of use to you. Regards, Bradley
|
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.
Tony Gondola:
Actually, that thing about the Moon isn't true. As I stated before, the stars, the Moon and the planets are at infinity focus. There is no focus change from the center of the lunar disk to the edge. Not really.
|
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.
Brad T:
Hi Fabian,
In my opinion, one of your best resources for planetary imaging is the FAQ on cloudynights written by Tulloch
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/812022-planetary-imaging-faq-updated-january-2025/
To the points discussed above, generally speaking, star-focusing and bahtinov masks are insufficient for planetary focusing though they get one 'close'. Depending upon the planet, you're imaging, there are certain features(very small but significant ones) that are the differences between sharp and otherwise dull images. From my limited experience, a true-life saver with regards to focusing is the incorporation of a motorized focuser as manually focusing at high focal lengths can cause severe vibrations and shaking.
For extremely fine planetary details, the following aspects play a key role(though there are others):
- Telescope Aperture
- Seeing
- Collimation
The camera plays a role obviously, but the above really separates some of the finest planetary images from others.
Again, most of this will be covered in the aforementioned FAQ, but I hope these details are of use to you.
Regards,
Bradley I do agree for planetary imaging one should focus on the planet, focussing only on a star, then slewing, takes time and more importantly changes the orientation of the telescope (in an SCT some mirror wiggle or flop) as well as potentially the air temperature (is the star over hot pavement, then the planet over grass, or a house rooof), and altitude (effects of atmospheric refraction on different wavelengths in particular), and focus does change with time due to atmospheric/environmental changes. That being said, I can't image there is a real focus difference between stars and the moon. There are many depth of field calculators on-line. I did some trials, at F/20 where you would be imaging planets, put in say a 2500 meter distance, and you get a depth of field of 1500 meters. Depth of field is really large at these f ratios compared to the distance, and it the latitude gets bigger the more distant something is. This is another reason to be at a high fratio. I have not been able to find a scientific source though about this for astrophotography, which makes me think it is not a real issue. There can be an effect on an image of the moon for example, which covers a lot of the FOV. The focus at the edge of the field and centre can be different, depending on your optics. 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.
Brad T:
Hi Fabian,
In my opinion, one of your best resources for planetary imaging is the FAQ on cloudynights written by Tulloch
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/812022-planetary-imaging-faq-updated-january-2025/
To the points discussed above, generally speaking, star-focusing and bahtinov masks are insufficient for planetary focusing though they get one 'close'. Depending upon the planet, you're imaging, there are certain features(very small but significant ones) that are the differences between sharp and otherwise dull images. From my limited experience, a true-life saver with regards to focusing is the incorporation of a motorized focuser as manually focusing at high focal lengths can cause severe vibrations and shaking.
For extremely fine planetary details, the following aspects play a key role(though there are others):
- Telescope Aperture
- Seeing
- Collimation
The camera plays a role obviously, but the above really separates some of the finest planetary images from others.
Again, most of this will be covered in the aforementioned FAQ, but I hope these details are of use to you.
Regards,
Bradley 6" sct, no idea about seeing but probably not good and I think I'm ever so slightly out of collimation from going in/out of focus on a bright target. Central circle is not quite dead center but I hoped close enough as a noob. I'm far too apprehensive to try and adjust it, as I'm really just killing time to save for HyperStar when I might have to anyway. Or not, if I'm lucky.
|
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.
andrea tasselli:
Tony Gondola:
Actually, that thing about the Moon isn't true. As I stated before, the stars, the Moon and the planets are at infinity focus. There is no focus change from the center of the lunar disk to the edge.
Not really. I can see that visually there might be a precepted difference between looking at a star and looking at an extended object that could be caused by a lot of things that have nothing to do with depth of field. But I have seen some crazy statements like focusing on the rim of a crater instead of its floor or being able to see stars of different distances coming into focus differently. I just don't buy it. Yes, there is a focal plane shift with different object distances but those differences become so small at astronomical distances that it can be ignored. Example: With a 1 meter focal length the change in focal distance between the moon and Jupiter is approximately 2.6 microns. A high end focuser is capable of steps down to about 1.6 microns with a more typical value being around 3 microns but the critical focus zone for that 1 meter FL system, even at an F/2 is going to be almost 9 microns and a more typical f/5 system will be 55 microns. The tiny focal plane shifts for solar system objects get lost in the CFZ and when you start comparing say the shift to get between Jupiter and even the closest stars the numbers become absurd plus none of the above takes seeing into account.
|
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 am referring to your statement that both Moon and the stars (+ planets) are at same focus. As far as Luna is concerned it is not in my experience. In practice it doesn't matter for most circumstances when you are focusing on individual features such as crater rim or rille edge but in the case of full view that is frought with peril. Witness how I screwed up my last full Moon eclispse image by focusing on the stars rather than on the Moon's surface: https://app.astrobin.com/u/andreatax?collection=2702&i=07zim6It shows clearly the soft focus on the Moon surface (which I improved in post by UM so it was consideably worse in the raw image) but the stars were pretty sharp. Sadly that isn't what the picture was about.
|
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.
andrea tasselli:
I am referring to your statement that both Moon and the stars (+ planets) are at same focus. As far as Luna is concerned it is not in my experience. In practice it doesn't matter for most circumstances when you are focusing on individual features such as crater rim or rille edge but in the case of full view that is frought with peril. Witness how I screwed up my last full Moon eclispse image by focusing on the stars rather than on the Moon's surface:
https://app.astrobin.com/u/andreatax?collection=2702&i=07zim6
It shows clearly the soft focus on the Moon surface (which I improved in post by UM so it was consideably worse in the raw image) but the stars were pretty sharp. Sadly that isn't what the picture was about. The issue with that lunar image had to be for another reason because the difference in focal plane position with the system you used, even from a star 1 light year away is on the order of only 0.000000008 microns
|
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.
Tony Gondola:
andrea tasselli:
I am referring to your statement that both Moon and the stars (+ planets) are at same focus. As far as Luna is concerned it is not in my experience. In practice it doesn't matter for most circumstances when you are focusing on individual features such as crater rim or rille edge but in the case of full view that is frought with peril. Witness how I screwed up my last full Moon eclispse image by focusing on the stars rather than on the Moon's surface:
https://app.astrobin.com/u/andreatax?collection=2702&i=07zim6
It shows clearly the soft focus on the Moon surface (which I improved in post by UM so it was consideably worse in the raw image) but the stars were pretty sharp. Sadly that isn't what the picture was about.
The issue with that lunar image had to be for another reason because the difference in focal plane position with the system you used, even from a star 1 light year away is on the order of only 0.000000008 microns Opps, correction, it should be 0.008 microns.
|
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.
