Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Tommohawk

Members
  • Posts

    2,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,367 Excellent

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    East Sussex

Recent Profile Visitors

5,664 profile views
  1. Very useful follow on comments - thanks Pete / Geof / Stuart. What strikes me in particular is that Image Analyzer has managed to significantly improve an image which has been already processed. Make me wonder what it might achieve with the original image. I had another look in my recycle bin and found one of the SER files so I'll have another go, and download IA. As I mentioned the original images were sub-standard due to poor seeing/short runs, so I'm not expecting too much. Meantime if Stuart would be be kind enough to share tips re the settings that would be great!
  2. Hi and thanks for that - definitely an improvement! I'll have a play with it when I get a minute - I see theres a PS plug in. Is that what youre using or the standalone version?
  3. Thanks for that. TBH the original images aren't noisy - it's really only artefacts from the aggressive sharpening. I wish I'd kept the original images for comparison but they weren't great so I deleted them. I did try Registax - thats what I have used mostly in the past - and the results were no better. I'm not familiar with image analyser - is that a product name? Not used Astrosurface either ... found it easily and will check it out next time I have some fresh pics.
  4. Hi all. Have had a break from all imaging this year for various reasons, but with Jupiter looking so inviting I thought it had to be worth a go. I've abandoned my 250 project scope (camera mounted at primary focus on spider) because the helical focus was too awkward and I decide any advantage gained by the smaller central obstruction is lost if the mirror isnt top grade. So - back to the trusty SW P200 and first proper comparative go with the Omegon 385MC. First night was a bit hazy and cloudy and then got worse. Only got one run. Second night was clear briefly but I didnt get focussed quite spot on. I got a second run once focussed nicely, but only about 90 second before dense cloud spoiled it. Not the best images but pretty good for a 200P and I think comparable to when I did mono planetary with this scope some years back. Captured with Firecapture - huge thanks to Torsten Edelmann for enabling Touptek/Omegon cameras on FC! The final shot is possibly the best - about 27,000 frames put through PIPP (best 50%) then AS3! (best 16%) then PS. Gain about 3000, 4ms exposure. I think - deleted the log files when tidying up... oooops. I used a novel sharpening method which I found somewhere on a PS tutorial - by loading the same image in 4 duplicate layers, converting each layer to "overlay" type, and adding a highpass layer to each layer, its possible to apply sharpening which can be tweaked subsequently per layer. I thought it worked quite well - the original unsharpened images really weren't great. thanks for looking!
  5. Thanks again for taking the time to find those details. I couldn't find any options to choose drivers? Can you point me to where that option is in FC? Or maybe it's in Windows device settings? I'm out at the moment so can't check anything. To restate, Toupsky does provide the expected high frame rate. It's only on FC that it's slow. My Zwo cameras work fine on FC.
  6. Thanks again for that Alan. I used to do quite a bit of planetary imaging with mono so am familiar with most of the setting options that you mention - always good to be reminded though! I'm using 8 bit, SSD, USB3, buffer and heap settings as normal. Its just this Omegon camera which is giving me grief with frame rates BUT only with FC. At 5ms exp full frame on Toupsky I get 120 fps as advertised, and 197 fps for 640x480 ROI. On FC full frame is a very flakey 60fps, and 640x 480 ROI is 136. I'll try messaging Torsten and see if he has any thoughts. TBH my main issue here is trying to evaluate the camera - it doesnt seem to quite perform as well I would expect, and I'm not sure whether its something to do with Toupsky - so would be good if FC was working optimally.
  7. Thank Alan for all that - very helpful. One of the issues I have with astrophotography (and life in general!) is that my memory isnt so good these days. I find myself going over issues that I've either solved, or accepted that I can not solve, at some time in the past. So, on Google searching these issues I now find a similar thread I posted some time back, and a response from your good self!! That query had more to do with Bayer patters, but one conclusion I reached at that time is that for some reason FC can't deliver the frame rates that I get with Toupsky, and although FC has been updated, it still doesnt give fast rates - maybe because there is no USB traffic option for the Omegon camera. Heap size and buffer settings look good, and tweaks make no difference. TBH I've always found frame rates on FC slightly variable, even with my conventional ZWO cameras. Touspsky seems to perfomr much more consistently re FPS. Cant think why as FC is obviously very sophisticated. I wondered if Toupsky was somehow cheating by compressing the files or something, but I dont think so - file sizes all look sensible. I can live with the lack of on screen WB, and just fix in processing - just got to be careful not to clip any channel. So if only I could get the frame rates up with FC that would be great. Not sure if you have any thoughts on that? Maybe mention to FC dev, Torsten I think?
  8. Thanks for that Alan. Problem is I dont have those red and blue sliders even under "more" settings. I dont have another OSC camera to compare it with, but I'm guessing its something to do with Omegon SDK - not that I particularly understand what thats all about! Is there no way of just manually tweaking the gain per channel under the histo settings?
  9. Hi all. Have been offline a while, sort of lost my Astro Mojo. But with Jupiter looking good thought I'd get set up again. I got an Omegon 385MC couple of years back which works quite well but when I last used it I could only use Toupsky to capture. To be fair it's pretty good, but I now see that Firecapture can use Omegon cameras and thats what I always used to use in the past when doing mono.... so I'm trying to get set up with that - some of the tools like image stabilisation when focusing are really useful. Anyhow, I'm struggling with white balance and cant find a way to auto white balance or balance channels manually - does anyone know how? Toupsky had an auto white balance that works really well. I've searched around, and I dont seem to have the WRed Wblue sliders that I've seen out there on the tutor type forums. TBH I neve really understood if the WB affects the recorded image or just the screen. Anyone got any thoughts please?
  10. Yeah I have electric focusers and would certainly prefer this - however I can't do this with my latest planetary rig. It's a Newt but with camera mounted on a helical focuser where the secondary would normally be. The idea is that I have a smaller central obstruction (43mm from memory cf a 250mm primary) It works nicely except for the focuser headache and for that reason I will likely abandon this design. (It was a prototype for a larger version) I have checked focusing before and after doing a run and I cant see any changes - and I'm pretty OCD about this! Of course this doesn't prove that it stays in focus when slewing.
  11. My current set up for planetary means I have to focus manually - which at high mag is pretty much impossible - so Bahtinov on a nearby star is really the only option. For the life of me I can't see why it wouldn't be appropriate, from an optical standpoint, for planetary imaging - the Bahtinov image lines are nice and crisp and tiny focusing adjustments throw the alignment quite markedly. Yes, focus will vary due to turbulence etc - but it will for any method. I know some of the top planetary imagers prefer to focus subjectively, but I'm not sure that means a Bahtinov is inappropriate or innacurate. The only issue is if your scope/train suffers flexure such that moving from the star to the planet shifts things - and this may be a real problem in some cases.
  12. Hi Alan and thanks for the further useful info. The scope I'm using is one I've had for some years - 200PDS + powermate 5x, which is actually working at 4x. It's given much better results in the past with the same set up and capture technique, but using ASI290MM + filters That capture was done at 4ms, ~250fps and I joined the best adjacent 2x 90 second runs to make a 180 sec file with ~45000 frames, then stack in AS!3 best 10%. (no better with more or fewer frames) Gamma off. I agree that focus looks off - but I focused using both Bahtinov and / or manual fine tuning using the excellent autoalign feature in FC. It's the same method I've used for years with good results. At least I've solved the fundamental capture issue in FC which is excellent - I've got used to Toupsky and it does have some features which FC doesnt have, but overall for planetary FC is better I think. That said Touspky gives my max frame rates from the outset, where FC can can be quite flaky especially when capturing without ROI ie full res. Anyhow, many thanks for your input!
  13. Hi Alan, and once again thanks for your input. The point with the two approximately yellow looking SER images (yes I didn't check the exposure/gain etc) is that to get that result youll see the Toupsky one on the left shows as GBRG and the FC one the right shows as RGGB (bottom right of the image) This seems inconsistent and I think there may be some misinterpretation in the capture software, similar to your experience with AstroArt. My guess is that this is caused by a flip in the axis prior to the bayer pattern being applied. You can see in the images of jupiter a few posts back that one is definitely flipped with respect to the other. In any event it looks like I have a fix.... so more testing tonight provided the sky clears! Later next day ... sorry I thought I'd sent the response above! Anyhow, I have a result. Fanfare etc. In FC I set it to debayer for viewing only, and record undebayered using RG. PIPP then deals with this as ever it did, and equalises RGB which I find very helpful. Then to AS!3 with the bayer pattern set to auto. Everything works fine now I have the original recording sorted. Some folk say its better to let AS!3 debayer - better algorithm. But I tried this and couldn't see any difference - though to be fair the data isnt great. Also FC doesnt equalise RGB and I struggle adjust that nicely in PS. FC has "align RGB" feature which I assume means laterally shift channels as per Registax rather than align histo? TBH there's lots I still struggle to understand, primarily why telling FC what the pattern is makes any difference, when it isn't actually saving as debayered. Is it because it stores the pattern as a header, which is then applied - rightly or wrongly - in the next stage ie PIPP or AS!3? Here's the result - done with my SW200PDS and Powermate x5 (set at x4) Not as good as my mono results from some years back, and if I'm honest a bit disappointing. Sharpened to death and reduced to 0.9x. Seeing was pretty good and 34 degrees alt, so .. I must need a bigger scope! Any comments welcome - thanks Alan and Craig for bearing with me!
  14. hi Symmetal and thanks for such a detailed response - it's very helpful. I have now tied myself in complete knots with all the tests I have done, and whilst it looks like I may have a solution I'm not sure why. Starting with the easy bit toward the end of your post, your explanation of the 2 character definition of the 4 pixel group in FC makes perfect sense, as does the explanation about Gb and Gr pixels. Got that, brilliant. However: But why don't I get this grid effect with toupsky, either when capturing or viewing or processing the file? The toupsky SER file is definitely not debayered, because when I open it in PIPP it offers to debayer. My Q in the previous post still stands. Why does the undebayered Toupsky SER file look different to the undebayered FC file - there is no grid pattern. Undebayered is undebayered.. right??? Maybe not!! What difference does it make if its not actually debayering?? And if in FC I do select GB I get this, and a grid effect on the saved undebayerd SER file: If I select RG I get this, and no grid pattern - this may be the solution: BUT... having types all that I realise that I can change the debayer options in SER viewer. If I load the SER file with nasty grid, ie when debayer set in FC to GB, but then change the debayer options in SER manually to RGGB it fixes the grid, and then has the expected yellowy green hue. What this means however, is that if when recording I set debayer in FC to RG, the images look great ... BUT... when viewing these SER files in SER player the debayer patterns for toupsky and FC dont match. See below- the Toupsky file is on the left, the FC on the right: My conclusion, which is probably 100% wrong, is that FC somehow has the pattern wrong due to the image being flipped. Hilariously, in all of this I was running out of disc space, so I deleted all the "no good" FC files I took when Jupiter was at meridian. Grrr. Please do offer further thoughts/ corrections!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.