Jupiter Processing Challenge!

[neil phillips]

It is very interesting seeing others takes. Not sure you should be reassured by my take Stuart. Its a very personal unorthodox way of doing it, certianly not neutral. But hopefully detailed and revealing, with a smidge of naturalness ( bottom shot)

Darryl, like i said you likely have a far better balanced screen than me, and likely others here. But was still wondering how the image looked to others.

Especially those whos screens may be quite well calibrated unlike mine.

I notice Riks version looks similar as far as saturation is concerned, but without the overbright whiteness, that my screen here produces. Though it looks like deconvolution or some kind of sharpening has produced bad ringing on the sharper version. A persistent problem with those techs.

I find it interesting that accuracy of colour using little saturation is strived for. But that ringing is tolerated. Which to my eyes is more false than a slight painterly veiw. Again its a personal thing. None is right or wrong Just different

I suspect most screens being used here are too dark. Its a problem i will one day try and sort for myself. As i dont like the uncertainty. Though i belive its hard to be 100% certain. But certainly not as off as is now for me.

As far as not being able to trust different peoples eye perception ( a mugs game ) that obviously must extend to everyone.

My eye perception certainly cant be trusted. Glasses Help like im 17 again though.

I trust Damiens perception of that winning photo this year. Hell yeah

Painterly is a fair comment for those that like to extract colour information more than those that dont Darryl. Pros and cons Guys. You dont get much free in this game. what we gain we lose in both approaches, as such neither is superiour in my opinion just different. Chris Gos images look very much what i strive for in colour and balance ( though often fail ) But not always. Find it hard to argue with hes takes. Colourful vibrant. revealing. A great balance i think.

Jupiter

Good post this Stuart. I find these discussions interesting. Though we will likely be like proud parents protecting our babys. Be nice everyone. All these images interest me for many reasons

[rfdesigner]

One thing I've been trying recently is to take slices from the edge of the object being processed. This way I can see if the wavelet strength I'm trying is producing a perfect 'cliff edge' or an over or under sharp one. It's a pain and takes a while to hone into a perfect edge, but I think it yields accuracy. (it's the one part of the image where we know exactly what it should look like)

Derek

[riklaunim]

Deconvolution when strong - will give the bad edge. That's why there must be good seeing so that lower grain could give a nice sharp image.

[Space Cowboy]

I have to agree with Neil, Darryl's versions are too bright on my monitors which I consider to be slightly too dark. Maybe its the very bright Aussie sunshine

I saw a similar thread on the CN forum and found it invaluable to compare one's results with other's.

[rfdesigner]

I've downloaded several images and quite a few seem to clip the whites (view image with black = 254 or below, white = 255 or above) I try not to clip much, perhaps just one or two pixels.

So no it isn't the screens unable to do 'white' its images clipping.

Derek

[DMouse]

Sorry I am a little late with my version, I only got the post this morning, but here is my effort. Processed in Registax6 and then unsharpmask, colorbalance, Curves, done in PixInsight.

Thanks for posting the data for us to play with, it's been really cloudy lately, and my camera is away for mods, thanks

nov 27th 11-09pm REG2.tif

[neil phillips]

I've downloaded several images and quite a few seem to clip the whites (view image with black = 254 or below, white = 255 or above) I try not to clip much, perhaps just one or two pixels.

So no it isn't the screens unable to do 'white' its images clipping.

Derek

Yes its images clipping post processing, as i have on occassion had avis that were slightly clipped, but could still control it so not much detail in the white clouds get blown out. Dropping contrast on reg is one way.

Again its almost a fashion i find. The parenoia about dim histos is half the problem. At capture many will push it close to clipping.

Thats ok as long as its taken into account post processing. I see many great images where it is not.

The poles look fantastic. But those white clouds just get lost under clipping. The white clouds to me are a very important part of the final image, Infact i pain over them when processing. paying close attention to clipping when adding more levels. Its all just a personal thing. we should all be able to dissagree look at others viewpoint, learn from each others viewpoint and remain Freinds. If we cant do that No point in discussion, it becomes point winning. I like to take others views and go halfway with it to see the effect on my images. Is one reason all the images displayed interest me. I dont tire of what processing can change. I may not like it. But we can all learn from it

[Ibbo!]

Interesting about the screen brightness issue

I calibrated my monitor,but got fed up with folks saying my images where too dark so I ditched the calibration device

Steve

[Space Cowboy]

Question for Neil. How much histo fill do you use during capture? I've only recently started using the exposure Histogram as I always judged brightness purely by eye and most of the time my captures were too dark and needed levels stretching during processing. I've read several people suggest a histo fill of over 80% is needed during capture but to me this is too much and clipping is evident once processing begins. I've been sticking to around 70% for Jupiter.

[neil phillips]

I also Did a lot by eye its pretty easy to tell clipping by eye. Histo graphs are not really needed. However to get closer results doing RGB i have recently been using the graph. And your right the max recommended Fill, I find is a bit high. If you like the white clouds fully un clipped. Ive been using about 70 80% as a guess lately Stuart. i leave a nice healthy drop on the histo graph. not to low not to high. certainly not right to the top 255

[frewi808]

Reprocessed them again.

I'm kind of a guy that like detail and do not mind a bit grain... so two versions here: Darryl might have some critics here (LOL)..

Darryl's images look bright on my monitor(s) also...

Freddy

[Magnum]

Slightly off topic but while we have all the top Jupiter guys in one thread it would be interesting and helpful to know how each of you go about collimation and how often you do it?

Laser, barlowed laser, cheshire or star test?

Cheers

Lee

[neil phillips]

I do a visual with cheshire to get it even under the focusser ( it helps see the edge outline with the focusser ) once set i use a Baarder laser to set secondary to primary.

Once in the feild i check again and tweak the laser. I then use a Glow in the dark colli cap to set the primary. This will get your primary real close. the laser and colli cap are never exact. when i use the laser to set the primary ( be aware this is unbarlowed ) its always slighly off compared to the colli cap, but only very slighly.

I consider the colli the more accurate, between the un barlowed laser. but they match pretty nicely as its hard to tell exactly when the laser is dead centre of the faceplate. i think ther difference is likely that.

No star testing at all. Though that might be more accurate. But not by a lot i dont think. we would be talking a tiny turn here. If at all. A poor star test would likely be less accurate i feel. Thats my routine

[neil phillips]

Better process there Freddy than your first

[Space Cowboy]

Yep those are very nice repros Freddy!

Talking of collimation Lee, I use a laser which seems to work pretty well despite what some people say about them. The Flextube Dob holds alignment pretty well and only needs a tiny tweak each session though ideally needs proper knobs on the secondary rather than having to fiddle with a alan key.

[Kokatha man]

Strike me pink (and pardon my pun!) - I'm more amazed at the "levels" of angst this thread has produced rather than anything else.....I have to say that it wasn't untill Freddy made a specific mention of me and I also received an unsolicited email on the topic that I felt I was being held up as a "not-what-to-do" example:lol: - I process my images for what I perceive to be the best balance of detail, colour outcome and an overall "aesthetic" that combines these 2 with other more obscure image considerations.....and although in submitting images for BAA etc I pay a little more than lip service to some "general standards" they are still, in effect, processed from and for my own appraisal:)!!!

My comments about "being a mug's game" was intended (hopefully!) to clearly convey that others' screen settings, and their own individual perceptions and appraisals, were outside of, and separate, to my knowledge and thus considerations.....although as a stubborn individual I'd have to confess to "hoeing my own row" in life for 62 years now anyway:D.....but I do respect everyone else's images or processing pecadilloes and would hope that I'm very supportive of others' as well as being allways open to learning myself!

Yes, the histo is clipped a bit in those processings - I did say that they were "quick & dirty" although from my perspective I don't have any "thou shalt nots" in finding my own "happy mediums" - but I do respect others rights therein.....for my money the detail in the EZ etc in my images isn't any poorer in comparison in those areas where talk has centred around "white cloud detail" or even overall brightness etc - tbh this "wcd" is only evident in any of the images where it is delineated by the bluish festoons, and as such it is their definition imo that determines this so-called "wcd" merit.....

I've said it a couple of times in this post and I say it nearly everytime I post on planetary imaging, and I'll say it again: nothing I post is critical of anyone else's work per se, nor am I suggesting any of my own views or processing applications are a model for anyone else - quite the contrary in most cases, I hate prescriptive methodologies....!

I'll do a quick "mini-stretch" of the histo/exposure just to show I'm not entirely perverse.....but then to confound any benign view some of you might be forming of me herein, I'll round this post off with a comment about collimation which will probably set the cat amongst the pigeons on another topic:lol::) - yep, collimating with optical aids might get you a better result than onscreen star-testing when the seeing is poor.....but who would want to image in those conditions anyway..?

For my money there's no point collimating with any visual train/device if you then take these out and substitute it for (possibly) a filter wheel and camera/barlow combo.....I wouldn't trust even screw-in setups or "self-centring" clamping situations to accurately replicate one to the other.....and it is these very small tolerances or "mini-fractions of turns" that manifest on the collimation adjusting screws as only "a bit of pressure" that give the final tweaks to collimating!

[Kokatha man]

.....ps: don't take any feigned indignation on my behalf about others' posts too seriously....!:)

[frewi808]

Hi Darryl,

That's the best of the bunch here !!!

Can you PM me your detailed processing secrets ?

Freddy

[Space Cowboy]

I certainly did not start this thread so that people could take pot shots at each other's techniques and from what I've seen posted on here i don't see that as being the case just honest open comment and debate. Darryl your work and fantastic knowledge has been a big help and inspiration to me since I started imaging. I know I commented on the brightness of an image of yours on another forum and that was purely a honest observation not a criticism. Monitor calibration is for sure a grey area (pardon the pun) and I guess a lot of us are working with different settings and its human nature to mention it when someone's image appears either too dark or bright.

[neil phillips]

.....but who would want to image in those conditions anyway..?

That is true, But here in the uk a lot of the time many of us have no choice but to image in those conditions. So count me in as one that often has to. Theres also other reasons i would consider a glow in the dark colli cap more accurate. Theres been many occassions when i havent been able to cool the scope quickly enough. Either because i havent left it outside for the 3 or 4 hours it often takes to cool my scope. Or the problem of falling temperatures. Under those conditions i would be surprised if star testing would be more accurate than the collimation aid. Infact its a shame your not around these woods as i would love to test your abillty to star test collimation in the 5 mins it takes me to get extremly close to ideal, and compare how close we both actually are. Often Im in a rush to image, because of many reasons, and that method suits that problem very well indeed, Do i care thats not the best method ? not in the slightest, Do i claim its the best method ? again not in the slightest. Is it the best method for me ? probably.

Yes Darryl your completely correct that Filter wheels ect throw out collimation, it pains me, how much that is true. But would i rather the scope was well collimated quickly and fairly accuratly, with such said problem. Or the pits with such said problem. So that observation you make although correct, and troubling to many. is pretty much moot. Especially as you consider self centering devices as possibly troublesome too. which was one idea i had to improve on the situation you mention.

Yep that repro looks better detail to me here with my bright screen is now not completely killing subtle detail. Subtle clipping of your image on some monitors may be making your work kill detail that the repro is not. But i suppose unless we all have great monitors. Thats our problem. Still many may percieve the image badly right or wrong. That i suspect holding back on the subtle clipping will not. Beware of quick and dirty i say. look at Freddys quick and dirty

Ideals in astronomy are really for book readers. In the feild we may stray from those ideals for many reasons, Some of which might actually be helping our images not hindering them. If i belived star testing would get me better results 100% of the time, with the time constraints and other problems mentioned do you really not think i would be doing it. I thought it was obviouse i take my astronomy seriously.

Always respected your expertise and knowledge Darryl it far exceeds mine. But at least try to understand why we may do things that at first glance seem inferiour. But infact may turn out to be nothing of the sort. I know star testing is the most accurate. And poor seeing who would bother comment is way off. J H bothered recently and many aussies have recently i gather ?

I Noticed a thread on CN recently ( maybe sometime back ) where your images were taken under what looked like awful seeing hmmm

I would also like to add apart from the valid reaons why star testing could be diffiicult for many with different types of problems to overcome ( ive mentioned the main ones) It also takes quite a bit of skill and experiance to do well. Im not suggesting one shouldnt learn it for a second. But my advice would certainly help those that have not. And may suffer the problems i do. So i still belive its good advice hopefully you agree. If you do not then we will have to politely agree to dissagree. Think i should also add i wasnt being funny about freddys first try. Just that quick efforts may not be ideal. Hes repro looks very nice indeed. Which kind of proves the point They may not be. Dont be surprised in that circumstance if negative comments arise. Just like the painterly comment which i have no defence for as i spent a liitle longer than what one might term quick and dirty. But hey i often go awol with many things. usually at some point i get a result im happy with. Even if others may not agree. Hey Darryl i love ya man

[Kokatha man]

.....I really don't see what either of you are on about here friends: it seems as if (despite my repeated insistence!) that some folks are interpreting my comments as if I'm asserting said from some position of superiority.....which is a load of rubbish, and I think that by re-reading my posts anyone should understand that.....

Stuart, your comments on CN were quite reasonable and in fact I agreed with you re those images - nothing offensive in your remarks then whatsoever imo!

Neil, please drop this business about "inferiority" etc.....I don't see myself as superior whatsoever:eek: and whilst you may see some of my comments in that light, I would've hoped that in the many times we've exchanged comments I have treated you and your comments with respect and dignity.....as to references to CN and Quote: "your images were taken under what looked like awful seeing hmmm" - any images seen there are the selfsame ones in my current thread here on SGL.....when I speak of not star-testing or imaging when seeing is too poor I was obviously not referring to those situations (or I wouldn't have flamin' imaged, and much less posted those images; and if I image I allways collimate first on a star..!)

But it is your prerogative to make those comments you have if you wish.....I've had far more irksome comments thrown at me for much less imho.....I wish I hadn't bothered processing this image of Stuart's now tbh, fine as it is*.....I came on SGL a few weeks back to specifically praise one of your images after not posting but it seems I am open to complete misinterpretation if I express myself.....sorry this has happened but I'm not about to stop being myself..!

* please, for Pete's sake, I'm referring to Stuart's stacked tiff, not my processings....!

[Space Cowboy]

Well lets hope this has been a "tiff" about nothing! Sorry Darryl i was slightly confused by your post but feeling responsible for starting the thread my guilty conscience had been plucked.

Of course being Planetary imagers we are all as mad as a box of frogs so its understandable when such confusion occurs!

Maybe I should insert a health warning next time I post a tiff.

[neil phillips]

Nothing you have said has offended me at all Darryl, Just clarifying what i thought you was saying. I may be reading you wrong, thats something we all do from time to time. So if ive read what you was saying wrongly, aplogies. Its just a Disscussion. One that may be interpreted in different ways Hence my comments. Your a gentlemen. Thats good enough for me ps the poor seeing comment was just from a thread i bumbed into on CN some time back, not these images. if you posted those here i may have missed them.

[hayju01]

My attempt, has been really useful being able to work on some really good data thanks for posting.

nov 27th 11-09pm raw stack_jmh.tif

[FrankieValley]

This took a great deal of processing. I'm not keen on the colour of the Jupiter, but the image is sharp