yelsac

5 minutes ago, OK Apricot said:

I'm not really sure but the likelihood is that organic material is more reactive than say airborne dust etc. It's recommended to remove pollen, I'd guess for the same reason - organic lovelies can damage and degrade the coatings. 

It's a doddle to clean, just take your time with warm soapy water, gently using a few finger tips to massage the surface - you will get a feel for the larger and more stubborn specs this way, so you don't end up scraping these across the surface and damaging the coatings. You won't feel like you're cleaning anything, but after a rinse with distilled water it will come up gleaming 😊

Yes I've done it once before, just a lot of bother as I've just bought a new camera for imaging Jupiter. Might try & leave it for a few weeks hopefully it won't do to much to the coatings. Happy days 👍

Unless anyone else suggests it will damage it sooner 🥴

8 minutes ago, Varavall said:

I leave the cap on. Keeps the blighters out. Hmmm....maybe that explains the dark images I thought were black holes 🤔

Oh the cap is left on, the blighter somehow sneaked in between the mirror & base of the reflecter where the collimating screws are, stupid creature 🫣

7 hours ago, OK Apricot said:

Coming from a living creature I'd clean it if it were me. Mirror out, shower head on warm, dish soap and a gentle massage, rinse with distilled water. 

Do you think that will damage the mirror surface?

2 hours ago, DaveL59 said:

+1 for cleaning that off since its organic.

So far not had this on a scope but a fair sized one did wangle its way into the smart cat-flap a couple years back. Woke one morning to find my kitties sat in the garden complaining as they couldn't get back inside. Darn thing had slithered across the control board and fried itself, wiping the kitties chip codes in the process, or at least scrambling them. Was a devil to clean the slime off and sort it all, with the added fun of 2 grown kitties who really really didn't want to cooperate so I could re-scan them back into the system 🙄 

I've since filled every opening with BluTak which has been effective, but because of that I don't leave any scope electronics attached when stored in the conservatory - somehow slugs seem to find their way in, esp in very wet weather.

Interesting so the fact it's organic does that cause more of a problem?

9 minutes ago, GordonD said:

Yes agree that needs a clean and soapy water should shift it. Did it get in through the gap between mirror and tube? I had a spider get in that way and leave a mess on the mirror so I found some elastic stool covers on amazon which have worked well and stopped them. Can't find the exact ones any more but if you search for "round stool covers stretch" you will get the idea. I took a guess on sizing.

Yes I think it did, I found 4 dead very small slugs where I store my scope. hadn't noticed them before.

Thanks I'll have a look

A bit late to the party.

First light with new camera QHY5III 462c.

Seeing was awful windy, misty, strong jetstream etc..... but just had to have a go at the double transit. Trying to get used to the new setup, but even though it wasn't idea conditions I could still see the improvements over the old QHY5LIIc. I'm excited about what could be possible on one of those clear nights if we ever get one!

setup- 10" f4.8 reflector, QHY5III 462c, UV/IR cut, 2.5 Rev barlow, 120 sec avi, pipp, as3, image analyzer.

A few all a little on the noisy side I'm afraid

Unbelievable, silly slug has left it's trail all over my primary mirror 🤦

Anyone else had this, if so what did you do? Leave it, clean it? 

Stupid slugs, as if we don't have enough to struggle with in the sky 😡

Great

So am I right in saying, when I open the stacked image & enter the date/time & my long/lat then save, is that it? Or do I have to do more?

On 17/10/2022 at 04:27, neil phillips said:

Thats Debateable. Both works well, image de rotation might be the ultimate. Craigs technique of multiple 90 second captures work well.  But i would suggest so is what i am doing. I just prefer to not muck about so much. I find one image measurement and waiting for a new de rotated vid. Is pretty easy. Plenty of tutes out there if you get stuck just put a post up, 

Quick question Neil

I've got a 6min Avi which I'm trying to put through winjupos. I've put it through pipp & quality which has reduced it a bit. Then in WJ I've selected the de-rotate of video, entered the start & end time but no idea how to get the image measurement of the Avi, do you have to stack it first to get an image?

Really nice detail on that, I've recently purchased the QHY 462C so I apologize in advance for the dreadful cloudy nights coming! It's all my fault 🫣

Excellent, what camera are you using?

14 hours ago, Eris said:

Hi,

I thought I would have a crack at your original image and see if I could denoise it a little.  I put it through Registaks again and applied some gentle wavelets and then another with a little denoise on channel 1 of the wavelets.  Put them both in to Photoshop and blended a little. 

  

Hi Eris

Appreciate you having a go, it does look a little less noisy than mine 👍

5 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

Its not just about noise either. As 70.000 frames can be run through pipp quality sorting. Which is cherry picking. Improving the overall quality of a capture by reducing large frame counts into lower frame counts. higher quality assortment.

Image de rotation also works. Even using images captured from video de rotation. Or just straight image de rotation

Interesting so which is better de-rotating an image or a video?

33 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

6 minute video de rotation is way better than a two min video. Also 5000 or more frames isn't always enough. Especially when a lot of post processing sharpening is used. Hence de rotation

 

Must have a go at winjupos, next session I'll try a 6min vid 👍

52 minutes ago, symmetal said:

What's your exposure yelzac? It needs to be around 5mS to help freeze the seeing conditions and to allow a high framerate. 5mS should give a framerate of 200fps at your ROI, ( 1 / 0.005) assuming your camera and capture computer can cope with that. Increase the camera gain to achieve around 60-70% on the histogram. The gain may end up being quite high, such that the preview is very noisy but that doesn't matter much as stacking a few thousand frames will remove that noise.

Use 8-bit capture resolution, and if your camera has a high speed mode then select that as it uses a lower bit conversion rate like 10 bits which is fine if you're capturing in 8 bit. Don't enable gamma correction or debayer during capture to maximize fps. Most capture programs by default, do disable debayering during capture, although the screen preview can still be seen debayered.

A two minute video at 200fps will give you 24,000 frames and stacking the best 20 to 30% will give around 5000 frames or more which should be enough to allow a fair amount of processing before it starts looking noisy.

Alan

Thanks for your reply Alan

Yes my exposure is at 5ms but the maximum FPS is around 68, I can get it up to 120fps if the video size is 320x240 but that's too small for me to capture.

Appreciate your other thoughts 👍

23 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

I am capturing at 200. to 250 frames per second.  capturing 6 minuets and doing winjupos video de rotation. capturing around 70 to 90.000 frames stacking anything from 15.000 to 40.000 frames depending on quality. So of course a lot more

Woooow a lot more! Do you use this IR890 CH4 filter that you can get with the 462C?

4 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Just tried a few things but can't get a result any better than what you're doing. If anything, mine looked far worse. Wouldn't be happy putting it up here. Probably used to my own data I am not sure.

Focus doesn't look too bad.  Though As you say its noisy

Thanks for having a go Neil really appreciate it 👍

I know it sounds obvious but I'm wondering if getting a more sensitive camera with a much higher frame rate is what I need.

With my QHY5L-llc I take roughly 9k frames per avi at around 67fps at 640x480. Then cut that down with quality estimation to around 6K in pipp. Depending on the quality graph in AS3 I tend to take the percentage about 50% which normally is around 30-40% leaving me with around 1500 to 2000 frames that actually get stacked.

Do you mind me asking with Jupiter what Video size & fps you get with the 462C? Also what percentage roughly (I know it depends on seeing etc..) you stack in AS3?

On 14/10/2022 at 18:44, neil phillips said:

Starting to get some nice fine detail coming through

Yes there's a little, still really frustrating though.

Can't tell if the focus isn't quite there or if it's just ME! with my processing 🤔😁.  Also I'm not sure if the scope is correctly aligned. I've bought a laser collimator which I've tested to make sure it itself is collimated but after using it & when I do a star test it looks slightly out!

I think I could do with upgrading to get a more sensitive camera to.

I know this is a real cheek but...... Could I ask Neil if you''ve got a moment or two would you mind having a quick go at processing the same image to see what you think? I've uploaded the original & the drizzled version.

original.tif

Drizzle15.tif

Love the detail on both 👍

250p scope, QHY5L-IIc, 2mins avi at around 65 fps, Pipp 9k frames down to 6k, best 40% from Autostakkert, probably over did it with the wavelets in registax then a fiddle in Image Analyzer. Still trying to get the balance between detail/noise! I find the image is extremely noisy but didn't want to loose the detail I had 🙄.

Its also 1.5 Drizzle & upside down 😂

Any thoughts advice welcomed & appreciated

Love the detail you're able to get, very envious. Looks great 👍

Awesome as usual 👍

22 hours ago, CraigT82 said:

That’s looks nice and natural to me tbh. It’s just one of those things where to get good fine detail with a smooth natural look you really need good seeing. Just gotta keep getting out there and you’ll catch one of those greats nights sooner or later.
 

I always avoid any kind of AI denoising or sharpening , images tend to get a certain look to them when they’ve been used and can usually spot it, saying that though you’re looks nice and you must have been really gentle with it I guess.  AI sharpening can also introduce false detail as into an image too which can make it look good on first inspection but when you look closely you can tell (there was a big hoohaa on Astrobin about it a couple of years ago). I just don’t think the AI stuff copes that well with tiny scale planetary images as opposed to big megapixel dslr shots. 

I really like the Wiener deconvolution in Astrosurface so maybe have a go with that and see if it helps.

Thanks for your reply Craig.

Wiener deconvolution, that's an interesting name, what is the purpose of that? Does it sharpen/blur? I haven't used Astrosurface, but I'll certainly have a look. 

Clear skies (one day/night 🤦)

Jupiter 20/09 with 250p, QHY5L-IIc, x2.5 Barlow, NEQ6. Seeing wasn't great & although the majority of vids were awful had a couple of avi's where the seeing improved a little. Process- Pipp, Autostakket, Registax 6, Image Analyzer.

Still struggling with getting the processing right, can't seem to get to "the natural look". Although its better than previous attempts, I find it hard to keep any sharpness/detail & not have it look over processed. Its trying to get the balance with not overcooking the wavelets in registax but still bringing out detail & having it look smooth. I found that using the AI Denoising in Image Analyzer sharpens the image a little kinder than the wavelets in registax.

Any thoughts or advice would be much appreciated

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

But of course, I was just trying to point out that I wasn't either trying to start an argument on image size.

I mentioned you and used your images because OP first referenced someone with F/6.3 scope that makes excellent large images, so I figured that it must be you.

I do appreciate that some people see the difference between above two images. I personally don't. In fact I don't see the difference even if I enlarge reduced image to be comparable to original and them mathematically subtract the two. Difference between them is just small level of noise nothing else.

1 hour ago, neil phillips said:

Well, that's fine Vlaiv. We will have to just disagree on that. Though I am surprised you are saying that. When it's not one tiny feature I can see on the larger image That I cannot see on the smaller image. But many in fact.

Even the shape of some tiny detail is completely lost on the smaller image ?

I will let other members see if they can find tiny detail on the large image that's getting completely lost on the smaller image or not. And or its correct shape. I tried to explain this to you before. When we have had such discussions. But we didn't agree then either.

As for this quote 

------Difference between them is just small level of noise nothing else.------

All I can say is rubbish. I can tell the difference between noise and tiny features Vlaiv. If you cannot then wow. Anyway, as I said. I agree with everything else you have said. So at least we agree on something. Time to move on. I answered your question. Even though I don't agree. We can't always agree.

Oh dear I seem to have opened a can of worms here......

Well I know we don't always agree which I suppose keeps life interesting but I really appreciate both of your comments & imput. You both have so much experience that is so valuable to ones like me, so many thanks for your advice.

Clear skies