AbsolutelyN

Thanks. I'm aiming to keep histogram just over half way when capturing data to try to avoid blown highlights. I just opened all the files on layers in photoshop and used the timeline to make a gif animation. Not figured out PIPP animation yet. Seeing the animation, which has very light processing, makes me think I'm spending too much time trying to extract detail and the natural tones and colours are being somewhat lost.

Brilliant

It's just photoshop. Final version is excellent.

Another Mars. Taken this morning with 250PDS at f/29 with zwo 224mc. Also combined the entire session into a quick animation. It's a bit flickery and jittery. Need to preserve some of the blues in the final image somehow and perhaps lower contrast in darker areas.

Superb Craig. That's an impressive amount of detail.

What focal length are you working at here? The size of the image is huge. Are you drizzling to increase scale?

Loads of detail there, perhaps just ease back on sharpening fine detail just a tad and try to reduce the yellow? It will be easier on original data but perhaps something like this? Then select around mars and fill the background black to get rid of the gradients.

Those are absolutely superb Martyn.

Have become slightly obsessed with trying to figure out how to best process mars so have some up with a third version. Need to get some new data to play with now.

Well PIPP is certainly a very handy little program, thanks for pointing me to that. I combined 5 5000 frame files spanning 10 mins of rotation into a single AVI and limited it to the best 50%. Then did similar processing as with the Win JUPOS image. The Win Jupos version had one more 5000 frame file added but that was captured about 20 min later on so assume it would have rotated too much to use. There isn't that much in them to me though I prefer the Win Jupos one. That could be those few more frames or that I just did a better job processing. Top pole is better with PIPP. This amazing image by Łukasz Sujka was taken at about the same time so a good comparison of features with way more detail. https://www.astrobin.com/full/et9ouu/0/?nc=user

Thanks - never used PIPP before .... will see if I can figure it out.

That's a good point, quite likely because there are more images stacked just as in standard deep sky stacking. How do you stack multiple videos? Do you stack the resulting stacked image of each video in PS or is it possible to stack multiple avi's in AutoStakkert to a single image? Sorry, new to these apps.

WinJupos seems to be working for me. I stacked 5 5000 frame clips over about 20 mins. Then derotated them and sharpened. The result to me seems better than any one individual frame. Maybe all the detail is in a single frame but feels easier to tease out.

Just had a second go at processing this image of Mars and think I've pulled out a bit more detail. 5 images run through WinJUPOS. Managed to pull out the clouds at the top which I've seen in other images taken at same time.

A 6D is a great camera but better suited to deep sky images as it has a large pixel size. You'd be better with something like the ZWO 224MC which has a much smaller pixel size. You can then select a much smaller area of the frame and run at a much higher frame rate. Prime focus with a barlow will probably give better results. I'm sure others can answer much better.

I had another crack at Mars last night after collimating my new 250 PDS. The mono camera was busy with the RASA so this is with the 224MC and RGB only rather than with IR. I used a 3x barlow and then once centered I added a second (old and cheap) 2x barlow. Does that make 7200mm?! I used to think a 400mm lens was long 🙂 Version three: Second attempt: Original:

It's better than my last Jupiter the other day. Suspect it is simply because Jupiter is currently so low in the sky and you're looking through tick turbulent atmosphere?

Thanks Gerry. I aligned with cheshire and it was only slightly off with a star test. Hopefully now spot on. Thanks

Superb image Goran. Also great to hear you got sharp starts to the edge.

I'm trying to collimate my 250DPS and am starting visually using a cheshire. With the cheshire I can achieve what I think it spot on: However when I then check with the laser (a 2" HoTech) it always says it's slightly out. Adjust to correct so the laser is correct and I end up with this when I check it with the cheshire: I know I need to use a star for fine adjustment but as a starting point which one should I trust? I'm worried the cheshire may be out as I need a few 2" extension tubes with it and they are not compression rings etc Any thought appreciated.

Fair enough. I can't disagree with you in principal but I suspect the comment was more in sarcasm rather than a direct interpretation of the image. I think I give up with this thread and leave disappointment with may of the views expressed.

That's incredible with an 8" scope, very impresive

I get where people are coming from with opinions on this on this when they dedicate so much time and effort to their images but it's a public visual competition based around astronomy. It's open to creative interpretations that inspire people. Also I love your images, they are amazing, but the connect 4 comment is a bit disrespectful to the photographer in my opinion.

But it is tiny compared to the scale of the universe.

Don't get your comment.