Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Uranus - reprocessed


NorrinRadd

Recommended Posts

I think my first version of Uranus had been blitzed a bit too much in the wavelets, even though I used very little ! 

The mirco size of the original has meant a whole new super delicate learning curve to process using only small changes and I re stacked using a lot more frames as they were all fairly consistent.

Apologies for posting again and for the lack of exciting detail, I just wanted to get a confirmed capture of something from the surface and I'm convinced I have especially as the sideways orientation has come out as it should have.

Thanks for looking and please tell me if you think this is better, despite having less overall work done, less is more inpost-19615-0-21855800-1417020132_thumb.jpost-19615-0-23219300-1417020145_thumb.j this case I think.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you :laugh:

Yes I did. It was a C11 HD , with 2xpowermate 2" , Ir 685 filter and Blackfly sony 692 chip binned as the light was too dim not to and was at 10-13% in capture 4.5fps.

This showed a clear crisp disc on screen albeit small but big enough..just. The Ir filter also took the light away but I think its essential to cut through the atmos.

I wanted to use my 2.7 barlow and on screen the size was fairly decent at 7,560mm  but the loss of light really killed the fps down to sub 1 per sec and so grabbing frames in the seeing and just from wobble was too much of a stretch and in addition the data was pretty useless as the histogram in fire capture was showing about 2/3%. Whilst I think its possible to grab something form 2/3% the lack of faster frame capture meant it would be smudged to bits as well as being full of crud. 

I was delighted that data came out and on its side which was re -assuring, but processing was so hard for such little thing and so sensitive as any normally applied  wavelet  levels were too aggressive hence my re -working which I used less and I think is much more accurate.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is really a fantastic image Simon. Great work indeed. You have brought Uranus to life!

                              Best regards,

                                                     Ralph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Simon - I've been very circumspect about commenting here before because whether it's how I say things or merely an extremely sensitive reaction from some folks the experience hasn't been enjoyable... :(

But I'll take a punt and emphasize that the following comments are intended to be constructive and not derogatory...I commend you for targeting Uranus and even though it's a few degrees lower than here decent results should be possible with decent seeing (using 52°N as a reference point for the UK, I have no idea how often decent seeing occurs for you though!)

On cursory glancing the image does appear very promising - but with such small, dim targets and the ways that processing can create strange outcomes I suspect that what happened was some sort of bizarre end-result that could be mistaken as a good outcome...

My main concern is that apart from the image's oblate appearance being the reverse of what Uranus should be (ie, the polar axis should be shorter than the equatorial & nowhere near as pronounced) there is a darkening of the N.Pole where there should be a brightening, along with other similar anomalies.

Reading from this and your other thread I gather you used multi-point alignment - this might well be an issue as the disk is far too tiny to employ more than one AP encompassing the planet.

Another aspect might be employing a barlow of 2X with the C11 and using the 685nm filter...here is the card for a Uranus image employing that filter last week - ignore the f/l displayed, it was in reality about 1.25X...even at that magnification the C14 would only turn out 6fps...

Again I emphasize that this is intended as constructive criticism - nothing derogatory whatsoever! :smiley:

I'd be happy to correspond via pm and give you some processing suggestions if you're interested...

post-3551-0-70729700-1417397267.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Kokatha, I was hoping you would see it. There are very few people who attempt this and to me it seems you are one of the world leaders  and I am very keen to get closer to achieving something credible. 

I was aware of the orientation peculiarities but the fact that it keeps coming out with a distinct shaded sideways curve from all of the many processes I experimented with, which lead me to think it could be nothing else but some kind of data or why the curve but that seems unfounded. :unsure:

I will PM you as I completely value your opinion and would really appreciate any pointers you have for processing as I've learnt that tiny captures definitely require a different approach and these picture are more about any kind of reliable data rather than pretty pictures for me, so this is what I'm after. Thank you, very much appreciated.  

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.