Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

239 Excellent

About johnturley

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Dronfield, Derbyshire
  1. In my opinion (I own both) I wouldn't say that the Contrast Booster Filter gives any noticeable increase in contrast over the Neodymium, and I don't like the view through a deep red filter either. A light yellow or orange filter does enhance the dark features slightly, without making the overall view look totally unnatural, its all very much a personal opinion though, and some observers prefer no filter. I think the larger the aperture, the more advantage you get from using a filter, and that there is little gain with small apertures (100mm or less). John
  2. I don't like the yellow cast the Contrast Booster imparts on planets, and much prefer the Neodymium filter which gives planets a much more neutral looking appearance, John
  3. Thanks Alan I've had a quick look at Magic Lantern, but it does appear a bit overcomplicated for me, however I'll look at in again in more detail later, not sure whether it will help with my planetary imaging, also don't whether the Raw images will work with PIPP and Registax. John
  4. I've had a look at my camera and manual, you can do both the 'ALL' and 'IBP' settings at 1920 x 1080 (full HD), 1280 x 720 (HD) settings, but just IBP at 640 x 480 (SD), which would be best. The 1280 x 720 setting also gives you 50 rather than 25 frames per second, will this be better, just 25 or 24 (in the case of 1920 x 1080) and 25 for 640 x 480. I originally assumed that 1920 x 1080 would be best, my camera is currently set to the default of 1920 x 1080 IBP. John
  5. Superb shot, like you say I don't think that there is a method of doing uncompressed videos with my Canon 6D, unless there is a 6D expert who can tell me otherwise, and show me how to do it. John
  6. I think that I'm inclined to concentrate on getting the best out of my existing system at least for now, I'm just put of by the problems associated with a trailing USB cable in my observatory shed in the dark, rather than the cost of a new planetary camera and laptop. Its a pity that, at least as far as I am aware, no wireless planetary cameras available at present, maybe these will come in time. John
  7. Thanks for the info, I've had another look in Lightroom and had some success with the crop function (see attached image), it wasn't obvious, and this is the main thing I been trying to find out how to do - Many thanks!. With the amount of detail I have captured on Mars, I don't think it would look better if zoomed in any further. I don't think that there is a method of doing uncompressed videos with my Canon 6D, unless there is a 6D expert who can tell me otherwise, and stacking multiple stills would be too fiddly and time consuming for me, and wouldn't alter the image size anyway.
  8. Thanks for the info. There is drizzle function in Registax, which enables you to enlarge the image, however when I tried this the results were awful. John
  9. Nikolay How do you crop to enlarge the image, I've asked this question several times before, but so far nobody has been able to provide an answer, and I was coming to the conclusion that it was not possible. To be honest I'm not convinced that using a Barlow would give better results than eyepiece projection, which is one reason why I'm a bit reluctant to spend £300+ on a 4x Powermate. John John
  10. Hi Nikolay The image size is exactly the same regardless of whether I do a HD video, or take a single shot photo as with my images of Venus and Mercury. The 'Live View' image is actually reasonably bright in the case of Venus, Jupiter, and Mars, but dim in the case of Saturn and Mercury, making focusing difficult. In addition when I tried to take a video of Saturn, the MVI image appeared to be too dim for Registax to be able to find Align Points., and enhance the image. John
  11. Thanks for the information Tommohawk. I forgot that the degree of amplification you get using eyepiece projection partly depends upon the distance between the eyepiece and the camera sensor. Where I currently have the eyepiece positioned, the distance is about 120mm, so according to the calculator, this gives f57 and an effective focal length of about 20,000 mm, so the image would be much smaller even with a 4x Barlow. With my existing eyepiece projection tube I can increase the distance to a maximum of about 140mm, which gives f67 or an efl of about 24,000mm, I think however I've tried this position before, and found that I couldn't reach focus. John
  12. Yes, the Mars and Jupiter photos are taken from approximately 1 minute MVI video runs and have 25 frames per second. I'll give it a go with still images, but I don't think the image size would be any different, attached are a photos of Venus and Mercury taken earlier this year, this time using eyepiece projection with a 12.5mm Plossl eyepiece, and which were taken from single images (not stacked), and processed in Adobe Lightroom. Mercury is very tiny.
  13. Thanks for your reply My 14in Newtonian is f5 with a focal length of about 1800mm, the above photos of Jupiter and Mars were taken using eyepiece projection with a 9.7mm Plossl eyepiece which I would have thought would have given more amplification than a 2 or 3x Barlow, I do have an ES 2in 2x Barlow, and I'll give it a try with that to check. I could consider getting a TV 4x 2in Powermate which would give me f20, but it is quite expensive, and doubt as to whether the amplification would be greater than using eyepiece projection with the 9.7 mm Plossl. What really surprises me is that there appears no software that allows you to increase the image size of a planet, you can increase it when viewing on a computer, but not it appears the saved image. My 14in Newtonian would not actually be very suitable for imaging with dedicated planetary camera with a laptop, due the positions the focusing mount, depending on the position and altitude of the planet, can end up in. My piggybacked Esprit 150 would be better, as the position of the focusing mount in this case is much less variable, but besides a new dedicated planetary camera, I would probably also need a new laptop with a faster processor. John
  14. Have started a new thread called 'Suitable Camera for Planetary Imaging'. John
  15. Have done a bit of planetary imaging recently through my 14in Newtonian using my Canon 6D full frame digital SLR using eyepiece projection, and taking an MVI file which I convert in PIPP, and then process in Registax and Adobe Lightroom. This method works fine for Lunar imaging (see attached image), but for planets in particular Mars, I end up with a very small image size. Is there any way round this problem, or do I need to get a Astro type camera with a suitable sensor size, I really wanted to avoid having to have a laptop with associated trailing USB cables in my observatory shed in the dark. John Alpine Valley and Plato Processed.bmp
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.