Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Tommohawk

Members
  • Posts

    2,250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tommohawk

  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!!
  15. Sorry, more questions!! In FC, if I were to save as bayered, the pattern options - -as mentioned above - are RG, GB, GR, BG. But these are just 2 pixel sets - the patterns are normally expressed as 4 pixel sets as per the SER files (eg GRBG) Also, in the pattern you gave in your first reply, two of the pixels are Gb and Gr - I dont get what that means?? Grateful for your input Craig - or anyone else's!
  16. Sorry just realised I'm confusing things a bit when I say "grid pattern". When I say grid pattern I mean a physical grid you can see on the screen. Ill call this "grid effect" going FWD to distinguish fomr Bayer grid pattern! So. yes, I'm using SER player. And looking at the file info in SER player, with the FC unbayered file I get the grid effect, and the pattern in SER player shows as GBRG. With toupsky unbayered I get a greent// yellowy image, no grid pattern, and in SER player it also shows as GBRG So something weird going on for sure. And also I realise now that one image is indeed flipped with respect to the other. Not sure what , if anything, that might mean - but there's a thread out there somewhere about how it can spook the bayer pattern. I thought there used to be setting in FC to flip the image, but I cant find it now - anyhow, this may flip the image and matrix, whereas the issue I'm looking for is an image flipped with respect to the matrix... if that makes any sense at all! One way or another the Touspky recording is totally different to the FC recording even thought the Bayer pattern is the supposedly same. See pic below - FC on the left - you can maybe just make out the grid effect. Toupsky on the left
  17. Thanks for that Craig. IN FC without debayer selected, I get a mono image with grid, as above. If I select debayer, there is then the option to manually choose the Bayer pattern. If I choose RG I get a grid free yellowy image (Though this is with artifical light and no optical system) If I choose BG I get a grid free turquoise type colour. If I choose GR or GR I get lots od vertical coloured stripes. OK that's really interesting and maybe thats the nub of it. But if I'm not using debayer to capture, why is the raw SER file showing the grid? If it's not debayering while recording, there is no grid to get wrong.... ? In the FC log file, Debayer defintiely shows as "No". Maybe I misunderstand this! As above, if I dont ask it to bebayer, there is no grid to get wrong?? I actually do this in PIPP before putting into AS!3 - it's always worked fine in the past. So it seems the only way to get rid of the grid is to debayer, and select "RG" or "BG". The colour balance will presumably always be off in no-debayer mode, because of the greater number of "G" pixels. With toupsky the SER files recorded are green, but this resolves with PIPP. One other thought - I read somewhere that some apps flip the image, and that this can muck up the Bayer pattern. Not sure if thats relevent?
  18. Hi Craig and thanks for your input. TBH I struggle to get my head round the whole debayer thing, not helped because there seems to be lots of conflicting info out there! In the past I worked in mono mostly for planetary, although I did some with a ZWO 290MC and had no problem - that was some time back and I cant recall my FC settings. My understanding its best not to debayer when capturing, although not everyone seems to agree. Even if it did it makes focussing really tricky. Not sure I follow this but here Kokatha Man (Daryl) seems to say to use debayer when capturing? Edit: but just realised this is for lunar, so end result will mono. According to this the pattern is only in preview - but as you can see from my image above that isnt so! But that comment is from Torsten and he should know!! the grid pattern is definitely in both the SER file and the processed TIFs. So I'm baffled. Your info on the bayer pattern is useful, thanks for that - but in the end if you have the wrong pattern that will simply affect the colour - it should cause a grid pattern surely? And looking at the info you posted, is shows Gb and Gr - what the heck is that??? And to confuse things further it all looks fine with Toupsky - maybe a glitch with FC?? Puzzled! Quick follow on - if I set FC to debayer when capturing, the grid disappears.
  19. Hi all. I've been using my Omegon 385MC with Toupsky capture for a while now for planetary imaging. However I noticed that Firecapture, which I'd always used previously, now has Omegon capability. So last night I set up with FC - but the screen showed an odd grid pattern , and I couldnt find any setting which would alter this. I figured it was maybe just a display oddity, and wouldn't affect capture. However, it does. the captured images also display this pattern. I wondered if it was something to do with gamma settings, but doesn't seem to be. It loks the same with gamma disabled/altered. Debayer is disabled. I cant see any other setting that affect it. I hooked up my ASI290mm and that seems normal, and also my ASI1600mm. I don't have another colour camera to try. Would be great to get it sorted - Ive gotten to like Touptek, but Firecapture is definitely better. Any ideas anyone? 2022-09-27-2336_4-U-RGB-Jup_pipp_lapl5_ap150_conv.tif
  20. Nice capture and nice presentation too!
  21. Yes that looks really nice! Not sure what exposure you're using but somewhere around 5ms should be good. So a two minute video should get you around 24,000 frames. With that many frames probably then only use best 5%. That might give even nicer result.
  22. OK thanks for that Neil. Yes it would certainly help if there were some simple objective test that could be done - then I'd know exactly what was what. I read up on mirror testing and it all looked a bit of a black art!
  23. Great, thanks Neil that's really helpful. My set-up seems essentially similar to yours - alas, the results are not! Your capture and processing skills are first class, but even allowing for this I'm pretty sure something in my kit isn't right. My Omegon 385Velox camera has 3.8 micron pixels but I'm using a X5 powermate (at about 4X) so similar image scale. The camera has a built in IR filter, and I've tried adding an external one which - not surprisingly - makes no difference. Scope is a modified SW 250PDS. Capturing at 5ms same as you. My conclusion is that to a great extent it's down to the primary mirror. Yours is 1/10 PV, and I'm guessing you had a more standard type thing previously - do you feel the high spec mirror makes a big difference? I also wonder whether the performance drops off as it cools. This would seem counter intuitive, but last night I was getting really dodgy stars toward the end of the evening. Dont want to hijack the thread, but wonder if anyone has a view on that? I'm going to set up tonight with my "work-horse" PDS200 which has always given great results in the past, albeit with mono. That should give some insight re the mirror issue.
  24. For me, the processing seems spot on - nice detail, not clunky. I'm trying to figure out your processing - so hope you could field a few questions! Is that straight RGB with IR block? Or did you use a LUM layer - seem to recall you use an IR685 on occasion? Also I'd be interested to know what exposure and capture software you're using. And is that a 2.25 Barlow? TBH I've done quite a lot of mono planetary n the past, but I'm having a bit of a fight with my current OSC set-up and trying to glean whatever info I can!
×
×
  • 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.