neil phillips

Cheers Wouter

lol. Couldnt see it at first. Your eyes are good. Its faint but its there.

Lovely crater often neglected. From 2016 ASI 290M SW300p Autostakkert. two captures joined on pipp. 14000 frames stacked 900

Your certainly one for numbers Vlaiv. But yes your correct i likely was oversampled. I was using lots of different combinations back then 3 or 4 different cameras I should probably have thought a lot more about Focal length. Its something i will be thinking about when i start hi res again. Infact i was calculating this recently for when i start hi resolution again. Some have even suggested like Christophe Pellier that oversampling isnt always all bad. But i will leave that for others to debate. Certainly when i start again i will be thinking a lot more about What camera i am using with any particular focal length.

Now your making any separation gains to the eye identical but doing it in reverse the result will be the same. Nothing It was a long time ago i never kept the stats. Often i would put in tube extenders for more Focal length. So am unsure of the exact focal length ?

What bugs me is if i put up a 150% resize. Why does SGL Software resize it to more like 200% ? losing the balance i was trying to achieve ?

Fair enough. But dont forget by downsizing the drizzle you are negating any effect or separation improvements to the eye gained by drizzling ? ( especially these old eyes) Agreed separation of close fine detail isnt really showing ( at full size differences ) in these examples. But i strongly suspect it could on occasion with the right data, and two points being hard to separate by eye.

True to a degree. But more aggressive sharpening certainly can make small detail far easier to see. I have had many instances where i have under sharpened, and the small fine detail is impossible to see. Only with more sharpening did the detail become more apparent. If your suggesting more sharpening can not reveal more detail. I politely disagree. Its very easy to prove this is so. if i redo a version of this and use 2 on the top registax wavelet scale. Highlight a area were the detail is borderline to the eye. Then do the correct amount of sharpening to allow that borderline detail to be seen. The detail in the under sharpened image will be totally missing. Infact think i am seeing this effect here. Without having to under or over sharpen to prove it ? Btw drizzle or resizing can make separation easier to see too

Interesting Craig, thank you for giving me your honest veiw. I wonder a lot about perceptions. I prefer the top. there is less detail but has that slight natural softness, so many including me try to achieve. There is no wrong and right. Different strengths and weaknesses In both approaches. Thought i had lost this footage. i reprocessed it on here a while ago. But that was just levels from a tiff. More interesting from scratch. And actual ser files. More control of any outcome

Joined 4 avis together using PIPP and stabillized. total frame count 32000. Stacked 900. Did a 150% drizzle Auto stakkert. Box size 24. Registax linear top wavelet only. Further sharpening and noise reduction image analyzer. Light level adjust image analyzer. Not as natural perhaps as the original. But showing a touch more detail maybe in certain areas ? still like the dark and moody original mind. What a large mass produced chinese Newtonian can achieve. The best capture i ever got. The scope cost me £100 SW 300P ASI 290m camera. Neq6 mount. Altair planet killer IR Filter Wonder what size craters i am getting down to on this ? Notice how not worrying about smoothness as a goal driven pursuit. It is allowing it to take on a fine sandy appearance. This is not possible with over smooth processing. Or at the very least very difficult. I miss that old scope Top image 150% drizzle SGL Resizes this to around 200% as a guess ? Bottom image pushed harder (not as natural ) 100% SGL Resized to 150% as a guess.

Yes concerning when your spending more money. If the reviewer is correct ? But i note he owns all those binoculars. Uses binos a lot, many different ones. He also said out of the cheap options against the two Celestrons the Opticrons were the best. I like you got The Celestrons new. They also were out. Replaced them for the Opticrons lo and behold they was far better. sharper for sure. I never tested the pros version of the Celestrons though. He says the Opticrons are working at 70mm ? Uk reviewers put them at 76mm. The pro Celestrons are working at 80mm. So worth considering. But with a tiny sweet spot compared to the Opticrons. For the price performance the Opticrons are worth considering. I like em

Thought this was interesting read APM MS 20x80 ED - A Brief Comparative Review - Binoculars - Cloudy Nights

I did Craig, Never run comparison tests mind. Working in winter would negate much impact for lunar anyway i would have thought. ? Summer imaging. The noise levels may benefit in theory ? Deepsky probably the fans biggest advantage. But as i say would need testing and comparing for the lunar question. Cheers

Yes credit to Emil and Autostakkert here. Its fun running old data. Just discovered my old SW300p Clavius data that i am presently messing with. A lot of fun. Cheers Mike

Captured ages ago. Just looking on a old hard drive. Average to poor seeing 10" Orion Altair Hypercam 224 colour camera

Ive been winging it for years. Used to hate burnout or clipping religiously. Lately ive come to realize for the most dynamic brightness levels a little bit of clipping on certain craters in sunlight can not really be avoided. If you drop the histogram to a level where there is zero clipping in direct sunlight craters. The dynamic range will suffer. As of april 2021. I am now of the opinion that clipping should be tolerated ( within reason ) to allow a full dynamic range across the lunar surface. Its a change from my previous position of avoiding clipping so religiously. Hope to show what i mean when i get going proper in about 6 weeks time. But next chance you get Craig, try some shots allowing direct sunlight crater rims to clip, ever so slightly. (And i mean slightly ) For the reason of increasing the dynamic range in areas that are not fully illuminated. You should see your images not only not too dark. (under exposed) But the vitality brightness levels, and dynamic range will look a lot more inspiring to your eye. Try see if you agree. Just trying to share with you my experiance and current position on balance.

Lovely sharp detail. Tonally nice on this one

Lovely data Craig your making me itch to do hi res again. Got to wait for a pandemic delivery now. Watch the gamma or brightness to compensate for dark images it can get a bit tonally whited out. Dynamically flat. Thats some lovely hi res captures there though Craig. your Newt rocks for sure

How many of you are confident Adam is not talking about there telescope ? I will kick this off its not my Celestron 114 Newtonian. Or my Evostar 120. Though that is a lttle soft. As most F8 medium size achros are. How well do you know your equipment. How confident are you about your images ? I am guessing its some deep sky images. But could be wrong. I have seen one very expensive telescope appearing to under perform. But one has to be careful about soft images, because focus and seeing can mimic soft optics. Just read Adams update. After posting lol

Update ive been informed by TS germany that this mount is not called a EQ 3 but is called EQ4 Or skyview Comparisons pictures underneath. Do my pics (on the bed) look like this comparison picture of a EQ4 ? skyview. Apparently they do have a RA motor to fit it. But there is somekind of 1mm discrepancy (12 mm to 13 mm ) Which i didnt fully understand. I will post the relevant part of the TS message. Hoping someone can concur with what i am being told by them. And or understand this 1mm difference in size, having to use a socket of somekind ? to bridge this gap. Anyway there email response is The motor will be coupled on the bolt which is on the side of the mount. The Motor has a 13mm hole - my engineer remembers that the bold was a little smaller (about 12mm) so you will have to us a socket to put them together.... Cheers for any feedback guys

Get the Oregons no question

Collimate Celestron Skymaster Binoculars - YouTube

Hopefully you got them for a good price, which might be worth trying to collimate. New i would send back.

Ive seen youtube vids you could try that

You might want to check collimation closely. They do have a reputation of going out of collimation. Not sure the clips holding the prisms are very consistent. replaced mine from new with Opticron Oregons. Lots of happy users of the Celestrons out there. But there reputation is not the best if you want honesty