Jupiter RRGB April 23rd

[neil phillips]

Its a shame I had so many problems with the channels. Green was the pits, even blue was better, however the red was quite good. So I did a RRGB

I might try and keep processing it, but not sure its worth it ?  yes theres, more in the image but ive gone all soft I do like the soft sheen

SW 300p dmk618

[neil phillips]

Heres another ive been working on, I think it works, Full 1.5x  drizzle

[cgarry]

Yuck!!!  The only nice thing I can say about RRGB is it is better than IrRGB!

 

Cheers,

Chris

[neil phillips]

Yuck!!!  The only nice thing I can say about RRGB is it is better than IrRGB!

 

Cheers,

Chris

I know but when you have the problems I had with the image, it was either that or much less detail, I don't often do them Chris, I agree its not the preferred balance. But I think its come out ok. colour balance notwithstanding of course.

you little devil

[cgarry]

LOL.  Oops, I seem to have started a one man campaign against fakery in planetary imaging!  For me it is not just an issue of colour balance, the technique also distorts the relative contrast of different features in an unnatural way.  Ir as Luminance goes a step further and actually adds new features that are not visible in visible light.

I have noticed a lot of RRGB images are being posted (this is not particularly directed at SGL) without declaring them as such.  I think this can lead other beginners into thinking that this is what a Jupiter image should look like and further propagate the problem.

Maybe I am being overly sensitive on this issue, but I always considered planetary imaging to be more about producing accurate images than about producing pretty pictures and we should leave the latter to our DSO imaging counterparts!  

Cheers,

Chris

[D4N]

Yeh I had similar problems with my last image of Jupiter, atmospheric turbulence was really bad.

I ended up with LR(G)B as the green channel was completely useless I ended synthesising it.

It still turned out pretty awful mind.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[neil phillips]

LOL.  Oops, I seem to have started a one man campaign against fakery in planetary imaging!  For me it is not just an issue of colour balance, the technique also distorts the relative contrast of different features in an unnatural way.  Ir as Luminance goes a step further and actually adds new features that are not visible in visible light.

I have noticed a lot of RRGB images are being posted (this is not particularly directed at SGL) without declaring them as such.  I think this can lead other beginners into thinking that this is what a Jupiter image should look like and further propagate the problem.

Maybe I am being overly sensitive on this issue, but I always considered planetary imaging to be more about producing accurate images than about producing pretty pictures and we should leave the latter to our DSO imaging counterparts!  

Cheers,

Chris

Lol Chris though I tend to agree with almost all the points you make. The notion of complete accuracy in processing is a little bit subjective even on straight RGBs as a comparison your recent image posted to my eyes looks to have too much red, and not enough blue in the mix. Is so overly smooth to actually look like a digital rendition of a planets texture, as is of course a noisy rendition. Of which I am guilty by the dozen.

So the point being, Even straight RGBs will to a degree fail to be completely accurate, That neither I or you doing straight RGBs is really actually achieving. No matter what ideals one may have.

Of course one could say RGBs are closer to being totally accurate.  Which I agree they are, But as far saying its not about fakery, its always going to be  that certain problems one may get during processing Even in straight RGBs to a degree will not be totally accurate, as such even doing any kind of digital manipulation to a image, noise control smoothing colour heaviness in any particular direction contrast enhancement. Will to a degree all be fakery. As such I feel we are all doomed on that front.

But hey you may disagree with all that fair enough.

As I said, I rarely do these, mainly because I don't like the balance they produce.. Stuart suggested trying a green, which I had already tried on occasion. Which does produce a better balance. But  I do believe we have to be careful not to be too judgmental on processing when a lot of it is complete  fakery, as soon as digital manipulations of any kind are implemented.

The proof is in the pudding, I don't want to be overly critical but while we are being honest.

I think your latest image looks very inaccurate as far as being as close to what a planet might look like if we could look outside a window of a spacecraft for example.

Many images by amateurs I see on here some from the more experienced camp don't to my eyes look  particularly accurate. If one wants to talk about balance or accuracy. I believe Emils images are a lot closer to accuracy, than most of what is on this particular page. Me included.

Perhaps this is a one man campaign to realize. Those ideals are a little doomed from the outset, in 90% of the images  posted on here.

But I assure you,.You will not be seeing a lot of RRGbs from me, as I just don't like the balance. Not because I think they are fake.

[cgarry]

One again Neil I think we are in agreement.  I was actually going to touch on some of the issues you raised about what is an accurate RGB image in my previous post but the dog was demanding his Sunday afternoon walk, so I kept the post short.  Probably a good thing as it could have ended up being a somewhat rambling post.

D4N, I think the quality of an image largely depends on the quality of the green channel.  I know a few guys who actually capture the green channel more times than the red and blue channels (possible thanks to WinJUPOS) just because that channel is so important.  This fact is quite depressing when you get a great red and blue channel but the green is poor, but I don't think there is anything to be done in that situation.

Cheers,

Chris

[si@nite]

Yuck!!!  The only nice thing I can say about RRGB is it is better than IrRGB!

 

Cheers,

Chris

I too have been guilty of the rrgb brigade Chris but i must admit rgbs are better when seeing allows, maybe just mono shots could become the order of the day!

[cgarry]

The notion of complete accuracy in processing is a little bit subjective even on straight RGBs as a comparison your recent image posted to my eyes looks to have too much red, and not enough blue in the mix.

That is an interesting and potentially useful point.  I think I mentioned that I have had some issues knowing which of my laptops I can trust when judging colour as there is a lot of variation.  On this laptop the images you have posted here look to be totally bright blue with some very pale orange in the bands.  This is the same laptop I use for my images so that would explain why they would have too much red.  I feel I shall have to look into calibrating the display colours so that I am closer to others in what I actually see.

Cheers,

Chris

[D4N]

Well synthesising it gave a much better image than using the data I acquired with the green filter. I would have taken another G but Jupiter went behind a tree.

In theory using L and subtracting R and B should give a G which is a bit more accurate than blending R & B.

Hopefully the jet stream stops hovering over me soon so I can get the scope out again.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cgarry]

I too have been guilty of the rrgb brigade Chris but i must admit rgbs are better when seeing allows, maybe just mono shots could become the order of the day!

We have all been guilty of it at some time or another, especially after getting a mono camera for the first time in my case.  Back in the day I produced some RRGB Mars images that I was particularly proud of, that was until I realised that in doing so I had magically removed the clouds.

Cheers,

Chris

[neil phillips]

That is an interesting and potentially useful point.  I think I mentioned that I have had some issues knowing which of my laptops I can trust when judging colour as there is a lot of variation.  On this laptop the images you have posted here look to be totally bright blue with some very pale orange in the bands.  This is the same laptop I use for my images so that would explain why they would have too much red.  I feel I shall have to look into calibrating the display colours so that I am closer to others in what I actually see.

Cheers,

Chris

I wouldn't judge my colour balance as being accurate in the slightest Chris, the reason you are seeing too much orange, is contrast stretching, I do it often because of the poor data I have been getting. With very good data I may well produce a better more accurate colour balance. But better data isn't something I seem to have got a lot of.

I really should backtrack perhaps on detail retrieval, and let the image be more of a natural colour. But I hate detail less, images as much. So there's a conundrum.

I too have differences in colour when I switch to my other lappy. It does indeed show too much blue. I think this laptop I do all my work on is slightly blue lacking. But the other laptop, has way too much contrast which I hate even more so I just put up with it, which is annoying. If one wants to talk about colour balance. Emils images are pretty close to what I personally believe  is closest to colour accuracy. But being subjective, of course its just my personal belief.

Having said that Software does often take a good stab at seeing colour inbalance.  registax for example. sees your image as too red and blue light. Which to my eyes on this laptop looks right to me. on the other lappy it may not. Though often registax can guess wrong so one has to be careful to rely on it. But I often use it myself.

[cgarry]

Well synthesising it gave a much better image than using the data I acquired with the green filter. I would have taken another G but Jupiter went behind a tree.

In theory using L and subtracting R and B should give a G which is a bit more accurate than blending R & B.

Hopefully the jet stream stops hovering over me soon so I can get the scope out again.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A synthesised G from L, R and B should be as good as a plain G, in theory at least!  Though I find getting a good L channel is tricky at the best of times.

[neil phillips]

We have all been guilty of it at some time or another, especially after getting a mono camera for the first time in my case.  Back in the day I produced some RRGB Mars images that I was particularly proud of, that was until I realised that in doing so I had magically removed the clouds.

Cheers,

Chris

I agree as a ideal that is not good at all. But I don't think we should beat ourselves up over it, If anyone was producing these types of images ALL the time, then yes perhaps  we should think long and hard about it. But considering everything I have already said. The occasional image, just adds to the fakery perhaps. Not exclusively fake.

[Space Cowboy]

Nice detail on those Neil! Chris better cover his eyes when I start imaging Saturn with my red mono/colour cam combinations

[cgarry]

Nice detail on those Neil! Chris better cover his eyes when I start imaging Saturn with my red mono/colour cam combinations

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!  

[neil phillips]

Its all valid. When the data is superb, accuracy can be of a higher order I agree with that.

But without that, we are all scraping the barrel a bit, here and there, in different ways on our RGBs I think.

So many different techniques detract from accuracy, the list is endless.

 not just colour channel choices I am afraid

But hey on a lighter note. Some good detail in the image, from the big beast. But the straight red was better.

[Nick Smith]

Nice shooting there Neil!  Like you say some good detail this late in the day.

LOL.  Oops, I seem to have started a one man campaign against fakery in planetary imaging!  For me it is not just an issue of colour balance, the technique also distorts the relative contrast of different features in an unnatural way.  Ir as Luminance goes a step further and actually adds new features that are not visible in visible light.

I have noticed a lot of RRGB images are being posted (this is not particularly directed at SGL) without declaring them as such.  I think this can lead other beginners into thinking that this is what a Jupiter image should look like and further propagate the problem.

Maybe I am being overly sensitive on this issue, but I always considered planetary imaging to be more about producing accurate images than about producing pretty pictures and we should leave the latter to our DSO imaging counterparts!  

Cheers,

Chris

Do you really consider this fakery Chris?  I do not see any problem in how people arrive at their images.  It is nice if they state the filter combinations, so we know it is not a "true" colour image, but that is all.  And why do you consider RGB to be "true colour"?  It is so dependent on the balance between the three channels it is almost impossible to get the same result twice.  CMY produces similar results with shorter exposure times, but the reason we do not use this as planetary imagers is we would miss our nice sharp red-filtered images

[cgarry]

I would say that if somebody publishes an RRGB image and states that is what it is, then there is no fakery afoot.  As you say it is up people how they generate their images.  However, if that somebody does not state that it is an RRGB image then we are heading towards fakery territory as they are allowing their image to be compared against true RGB images.  I should point out that I started using the 'fakery' term in a tongue-in-cheek way rather than intending to offend planetary imagers.

However, the fact remains I do find RRGB Jupiter images quite unnatural and very obvious, thus I mostly just pass them by without commenting.  I only commented in this thread as Neil was explicitly discussing his RRGB image and I have learned a lot in the past from honest exchanges with Neil.  Therefore I felt that I was able to give my honest, non-positive opinion on his image without causing any offence and that it would hopefully be of some value.

Cheers,

Chris

[neil phillips]

Cheers Nick

[neil phillips]

No offence taken Chris,  we wont all agree on everything we do of course, As long as we can all be respectful. That's all that's required.

[Pete Presland]

Intersting discussion!

Firstly i would say very nice images Neil, they look pretty good colour wise and detail wise to my eye.

I would also agree with Chris to an extent that as long as published images are correctly label as RGB or Lrgb/IRGB ect... there is no problem. i do seem to remember reading using eg. the red channel for luminance can bring out more detail, though it does then loose scientific value.

Although i have personally thought as long as you are only showing the detail that is there and not enhancing something that is not there then most combinations have there place in imaging.

[Space Cowboy]

Detail is detail whether you are using Ha for Solar imaging or UV for Venus. We just use different filters.