Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

DSLR Lunar Imaging

kaybee

By kaybee
in Getting Started With Imaging

Recommended Posts

kaybee

kaybee

Posted
Posted

Hi guys,

Now we're heading back to colder nights I'm about to have another crack at photographing the moon; no 'scope, Pentax K10D DSLR on tripod, 150-500 f6.3 Sigma. I'm wondering what peoples views on stacking are? Is it worth it?

Photography's my main hobby; I've done a vast amount during the day - motorsport, landscapes, animals etctec and have recently experimented with "faking" HDR (stacking f-stopped up/down images then masking in Photoshop).

I'll happily experiment away and I'm certain will end up with something decent, however I'm very interested to hear of anyone elses experiences/tried and tested techniques.

~Kb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bizibilder

Bizibilder

Posted
Posted

I would certainly go for a stacked image - i regularly take 60-100 images of the Sun or Moon and stack them - the difference is very noticeable over any single frame image. You can use Registax5 for stacking (Registax6 is a bit of a pain for this sort of thing!). I have written a tutorial (in Primers and tutorials section) about white light solar imaging - the methods apply equally to Lunar imaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Polar Bear

Polar Bear

Posted
Posted

Hi Kb, in my experience you will only need to stack images if imaging with a scope and webcam at high magnifications. At high magnifications the effects of atmospheric boiling are really pronounced, plus unless you are using a good tracking setup the moon will move within the frame, hence stacking software is required to pull everything together into a useable single image.

For simple DSLR / camera lens imaging you can take straight shots, or use HDR technique and just stack them in photoshop / gimp. As usual with most photography there is no substitute for trying yourself and finding what works best for yourself.

The main problem you will have is image size.

10D480mm.jpg

EOS 10D 300mm (480mm equivalent) single shot.

moon1-2.jpg

Pentax Optio 3MP A-Focal 130mm Newtonian Single shot

MoonProcessed22-08-10-003.jpg

Homebrew 480x320 pixel webcam 70mm Newtonian 200 frames stacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

You have such a downer on Registax 6, Roger :D I do understand why though.

I'd absolutely agree with Roger that stacking will give you a much better result. I image the Moon (and Sun) using a 450D attached to the back of my 127 Mak which gives me an image that comes very close to filling the frame. I started off with solar following Roger's tutorial which I'd highly recommend, and then tried lunar having got the hang of what I was up to. As Roger says, it's a very similar process. The main difference for me is that I use a more sensitive ISO setting for the Moon and perhaps a slightly longer exposure. I generally take around 100 to 120 frames for stacking.

My preferred method of processing is to take the RAW images and crop them to a square image using PIPP and save the frames as TIFF files. That in theory makes the stacking program's job easier. None of them will stack RAW files directly as far as I'm aware. Initially I try to stack in Registax v6 because in my experience it does the best job if it works. Quite regularly it doesn't work however, in which case I try AutoStakkert!2 and then Registax v5. In Registax I usually try to stack only the best 5% of the frames, or even fewer if 5% gives me well over half the total number of frames in the stack. Again in my experience, AS!2 does a better job than Registax 5, if it does a good job. It's not uncommon for it to leave unwanted artefacts in the stacked image though. Once I have a stacked image that I'm happy with, I apply wavelets using Registax v6 and any other tweaks are done in Photoshop.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bizibilder

Bizibilder

Posted
Posted

I do use Registax 6 myself and it is good 9especially the linked wavelet feature) - However I do not usually recommend it for folk starting out who do not have a tracking EQ mount etc. R6 is quite fussy over image drift whereas R5 is much more tolerant. This does not imply "poor" images - just that if you are likely to have to deal with drift then R5 is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

It can be really fussy, certainly. Even after I've cropped the images in PIPP and adjusted the histograms it can still make a really poor job of stacking for reasons I've never really been sure I understand.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kaybee

kaybee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the responses guys. Polar Bear - Love the 200frame webcam stack!

I can well see me taking a series of shots and seeing how things look unstacked, stacked and HDR'd, then picking a direction from there.

Bizibilder - Do you have a link to the tutorial you mentioned you've written? I'm still finding my way round the forum! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Polar Bear

Polar Bear

Posted
Posted

Meant to post a couple of examples of mine:

http://stargazerslou...on-4th-october/

http://stargazerslou...september-2012/

I'm quite shocked that thanks to the weather I've had so few opportunities for lunar imaging since those :(

James

Great images. I am currently debating the best way forward for winter as I sold all my gear in early summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Polar Bear

Polar Bear

Posted
Posted

Radio astronomy or taking up an indoor hobby, perhaps? :)

James

Indeed, and the reason why Mrs Bear bought me a superb Fuji X10 for my 50th on Saturday rather than a scope ! She still blames my 120Evo for all the bad weather we have had !

I am quite interested in Meteor Radio detection so that may be a way forward, however I will be with family in Highbridge for Christmas and will kick myself for not having a scope under the clear skies there !

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
kaybee

kaybee

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK so I've been making the most of the clear skies the last couple of weeks and I'm getting what I feel are some pretty pleasing results (I'll post them for comment when I'm done processing).

Roger's tutorial was a great start, accordingly I've been using Registax (5.1!). DeepSkyStacker seems to be popular too, does anyone feel either application has any significant advantages over the other? I've downloaded DSS but haven't played extensively with it yet.

~Kb

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesF

JamesF

Posted
Posted

For the moment, though I believe Chris is working on support for other RAW formats. Do you have any software that will convert the Sony RAWs to TIFFs? PIPP can use those if you can create them.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cgarry

cgarry

Posted
Posted

I recently downloaded PIPP. However it won't recognize my raw files (taken on a sony alpha DSLR), it has an option for canon raw images though. So is this canon only?

As James says there are plans to add support for non-cannon raw files but this has ended up behind a few other upgrades in my to-do list. If you could let me get hold of some of your raw files for testing, then that would allow me to push on with adding this support.

Cheers,

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.