Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Full Moon, 29 September 2012

JamesF

By JamesF
in Imaging - Lunar

Recommended Posts

JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

I'm struggling to get a balance with this one. It either looks a bit indistinct or it looks over-processed and I don't seem to be able to find a happy medium. The seeing wasn't stunning last night when I took raw images -- the image of the Moon in live view was rippling about all over the place, so perhaps it's because the raw data just isn't good enough.

Anyhow, 120 images of 1/1000th @ ISO400 taken with the Canon 450D and 127 Mak, RAW files processed with PIPP, 58 stacked in Registax v6.

moon-2012-09-29-2-small.png

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cgarry

cgarry

Posted
Posted

It certainly does not look over processed to me either. I have found that it is much harder to get images of the full moon to be as visually pleasing as images taken a day or so before or after the full moon. That is to be expected I guess.

Out of interest, do your individual images show a large quality difference between them? I have found that often there is very little quality difference between subs, this I put down to the fact full disc lunar imaging is not done at very long focal lengths compared to planetary imaging.

Cheers,

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It certainly does not look over processed to me either. I have found that it is much harder to get images of the full moon to be as visually pleasing as images taken a day or so before or after the full moon. That is to be expected I guess.

Out of interest, do your individual images show a large quality difference between them? I have found that often there is very little quality difference between subs, this I put down to the fact full disc lunar imaging is not done at very long focal lengths compared to planetary imaging.

It's growing on me having left it for a few hours. Perhaps I was being excessively critical having spent a lot of time stacking and re-stacking because I wasn't happy with the results. After a while all you see are the things you're not happy with. Every time I look at it now I see more detail that I'd not picked up on before which is, I think, a good sign :)

In the main the images were very close in terms of quality, yes. I had a few that let the side down because they just happened to be taken when there were contrails drifting across the moon, but otherwise it was a close call on which to pick as the reference to stack against. I've always put it down to transparency. Yesterday's solar images still left me with 50% of the originals to stack at a 98% quality level, whereas I've had days when a 90% or 95% quality level would only give me less than a dozen.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'd certainly say so. What went in to Registax and what came out are very different, certainly :)

You may have to experiment with the exposure lengths and so on to suit your camera and scope. I know for instance that Steve Ward and Bizibilder use quite different settings from those that I use for our solar images.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.