astrolulu

Honestly, I use Windows myself and I don't know which acquisition programs have versions for other operating systems. It seems to me that the Sharpcap I use does not have a different version, unfortunately. However, FireCapture, which has quite similar functionality, has versions for Mac, Linux and Raspberry Pi.

Thanks, definitely don't give up on color! To be honest, lately I have had a tendency to limit my interference with color. Similarly to sharpening - I still think that I am acting too aggressively and one step back would improve the overall impression of the photo. For example here - I tried to sharpen very gently and minimize color manipulation. Someone may say that it is almost monochrome - but maybe the Moon is just like that? When it comes to color, it is worth remembering the IR-cut filter. ASI 178 has it in a protective widow, ASI 183, which I am currently using, does not. And it gave a visible color difference. I took these photos using a Baader IR/UV-cut filter and the color returned to normal...

Well, the laptop is a painful element of the entire setup. We don't think of it as astro equipment, but we can't move without it... Always too slow compared to expectations 🙂

Sorry, I understood earlier that you are just planning to buy the ASI 178. If you already have this camera at your disposal, forget about the DSLR! A focal length of 4 m with a 20 cm mirror is, in my opinion, definitely too much and there is no point in trying to do it this way. Previously, I've mentioned matching the pixel size to the resolution, but there is also - simply - the question of native, optical resolution of the instrument. A 4-meter focal length will not show you more details at this diameter, it will only reduce the field of view, make precise tracking difficult, and Barlow will soften the image unnecessarily. My advice: hide the Barlow and DSLR cameras deeeeeeeeeep in the drawer, you now have everything you need to get an optimal image!

Hi Mandy, you're making great progress, but you can't beat the laws of physics. Your camera has too large (4.8?) pixel for such optics - such a pixel size would require a focal length of over 4 m to match the image resolution. At the moment, you lose a huge part of crucial small details that determine the final effect. Diameter of 200 mm and a focal length of over 2 m is a good set for a 2.4 nm pixel - such as, for example, the ASI 178 camera, which I highly recommend. It's great that you are investing in optics, but the camera is the "second leg" - and here the expense would not be very large, while the progress in photo quality could prove groundbreaking. Please check this: http://www.wilmslowastro.com/software/formulae.htm#CCD_Sampling

Tycho was captured after a short chase on the same morning, September 5.

300PDS + ASI 178 is a great set that should provide you with truly spectacular results! But - high above the horizon. The larger the diameter, the more crucial it is in my opinion...

Hi Mandy, Your photos are getting better and better! It's worth remembering that the "quality of a razor blade" is primarily due to sticking to simple, though often burdensome rules. One of them is taking care of collimation of course. But the second primary is the height of the object above the horizon. I've learned that I don't even try to start working if the object is too low on the horizon. The impact of this factor is often underestimated, but it is absolutely crucial. This is why I had a longer photo-break. It was just that the Moon only glided over the horizon, and I was limited to viewing it with small refractors.

I don't know if I can reveal his name here. Well, I'll take a chance. As far as I know, the guy's name is Photoshop. 😉

Suggestive...

Hi, correct the white balance settings while taking pictures. This can also be done during post-processing

It took a long time for lunar viewing conditions to become decent - although this now requires waiting at the outpost until morning. But the right height above the horizon compensates for this effort. Look how nicely this simple Nexstar SCT drew small details. They are precise both in the brighter parts and in the shade - on the border of the terminator. In addition, posterization on the edges of objects is practically negligible. I have to say that this 8'' Celestron really surprised me. Although it should also be mentioned that before taking the pictures I fine-tuned the collimation, trying to get the centrality of the diffraction rings on the barely defocused star. I think that we are all reluctant to listen to the advice that the telescope should be collimated before each session, but it seems to bring results...

Another shot from the same night - wider frame, with Teofil and Rupes Altai - all the way to the Rimae Janssen rifts and the south pole of the Moon:

Thanks Mike, for me the key to playing with color is the ability to correct color artifacts, because any attempt to enhance the color mainly amplifies noise, chromatic aberration, traces of atmospheric dispersion, etc. I honestly can't imagine working on color without Photoshop and its color noise reduction filter (optics correction functions in the Camera Raw plug-in also help). And I know that it's not easy to find a filter of comparable quality in other programs - even if it has a similar name. Once you somehow control the unwanted color effects, the fun of looking for *what you want* begins - and that's the whole pleasure. Experimenting and discovering 🙂

Ladies and Gentlemen! And now - one of my favourite views - Mare Australe with the 450km Vallis-Rheita furrow leading to it...

Thanks 🙂 When I look at my photos after some time, I always have the impression that I exaggerated with sharpening. My main concern is to sharpen it so that it looks sharp but not sharpened

Brighter versions are better, but note that you don't have to make everything brighter in a proportional way. Shadows can and should remain dark - just adjust the levels in the histogram to get it.

Hi, the photos look very promising, congratulations! They are well exposed, which is not easy considering the large differences in the brightness of objects on the lunar surface. I believe that the photos would benefit if they were slightly reduced in size and sharpened after such an operation. Right now, on a 1:1 scale, we see graininess and other artifacts, such as traces of atmospheric dispersion. Meanwhile, the topic is the surface of the moon and in my opinion it is worth making sure that artifacts do not distract attention from this topic.

endearing!

Perfect for this difficult to photograph phase!

Beautiful colours. You might consider adjusting the levels in the histogram, which would improve brightness and contrast, and eliminate the background color problem.

Celestron Nexstar 8SE has just joined the group of my 8-inch reference instruments. I just received an almost unused copy of this telescope. I admit that I'm not sure if I need it, but since I dreamed of an "orange Celestron" in my youth, I couldn't resist the temptation to buy it. In the 1980s, when I started my adventure with astronomy in socialist Poland, buying any telescope was out of the question. I only had a home-made refractor (albeit equipped with a very good PZO lens). The only place where you could see the orange Celestron was the library of the university's Institute of Astronomy. It was there, that I browsed with flushed face, probably the only copies of Sky&Telescope in the city. The magazine was full of Celestron advertisements, "orange tube" observations reports, equipment reviews, etc... At the time, I would never have believed that the history would turn out to be the Iron Curtain falling and the orange Celestron suddenly falling into my hands! So let's see what this telescope can actually do. Here is the first decent quality image obtained immediately after collimation. Please click to see the full version:

Thanks! It is very difficult to compare the photo with the image in the eyepiece, if only because the scale of brightness of the monitor or printout is small in relation to what the retina can notice, especially supported by the process of adaptation to the brightness of the image. In order to "catch up" with the eye's capabilities in this regard, the HDR technique is used to bring out details that would disappear in a photograph in the shadow or strong light - similar to how the eye works... For this reason, even the brightness of the lunar formations in the photograph is fundamentally different from what we see through the eyepiece, and the color is difficult to even talk about. Note that when visually observed, the surface of the lunar "seas" appears to differ only slightly in brightness from the highlands, while in photographs mare are noticeably darker. The dominant color during visual observations is warm yellow - the warmer and more orange the lower the Moon is above the horizon. The question is to what extent this effect can be considered an objective "color of the Moon" because we guess that the surface observed from outside the Earth's atmosphere would differ in color. If we take a photo with an ordinary SLR camera, we will notice this yellow color. However, if we use a dedicated astro camera and software to adjust the white balance, the photo will come out almost monochromatic - like black and white photography. And here begins the adventure with color enhancement to bring out something more than "silver". Is there more? In pictures from lunar orbit, we see greens. In the photos from the landing sites, we see only "silver" - the astronauts pose against the background of silvery hills. Where is the truth? You can fly to the moon and check. Or decide arbitrarily during processing in Photoshop. I'm stuck with version 2 for now 🙂 However, I am aware that this is somewhat arbitrary. It's just that in astronomy it's a commonly used methodology. Just look at the images from the Webb telescope. What is their "true color"...?

Image from the next day. Notice how nicely the Sinus Iridum is illuminated:

Thanks, C8-N does a great job on a regular EQ-5 - I use the original CG-5 Advanced mount and it's perfectly adequate for solar system shots. Jupiter's photo is not a native scale - I always scale the image so as to obtain a decent precision of detail and avoid the impression of too much magnification. So depending on the seeing and the quality of the photo, this scale may change.