Moon - 20 February

[Stargazer33]

After finally bitting the bullet and getting myself a set of Bob's Knobs, I managed to get a pretty good collimation done on my scope last night and as the sky was clear I actually managed to capture some reasonable images of the Moon too!

I don't know what I am doing wrong but my system won't stack the original .jpg files or the RAW files that I have converted using PIPP into .tiff files.

This stack of only six frames was done using the .tiff files which I had to reduce from the original 4272 x 2848 files down to 1024 x 768 in order to get Registax 6 to run. Even using only 2 of the 4272 x 2848 files I got 'External exception E06D7363' error.

Anyway here is my VASTLY reduced stack.

I don't like the way Registax seems to produce a white outline around the limb when you use the wavelets tool. I have backed off the wavelets by quite a bit here in order to reduce the white outline, so it is not as sharp as I would like.

C8 XLT, CG5-GT, Canon 1100D - RAW files converted to .tiff in PIPP, reduced in MS Picture Manager and stacked in Registax 6

BTW, any suggestions would be happily received - apart from give up and take up golf instead!

[TonyD]

The transition across the Sinus Iridum is spectacular. Lovely capture.

[JamesF]

That's a very nice image.

I crop my frames to 2800 pixels square in PIPP and Registax can handle that, but this is on a 64-bit Win7 laptop with 3GB RAM. What is the spec. of the machine you're using?

James

[Stargazer33]

The transition across the Sinus Iridum is spectacular. Lovely capture.

The transition across the Sinus Iridum is spectacular. Lovely capture.

Thanks Tony, Now that I look at it after a nights sleep, I'm a lot happier with it.

That's a very nice image....What is the spec. of the machine you're using?

James

Thanks James. My system is dual core 2700 processor with 4 Gb of RAM but running XP 32 bit, so I can only address 3 Gb of the available memory. I also have a NVida (I think?) graphics card with, I believe, 1 Gb of onboard RAM - but I can't swear to that as I am at work at the moment.

I did do an experiment after I posted last night and I managed to stack two .tiff files that I had reduced by only 50% so they were about 2136 x 1424, but it took ages to do anything. Even changing the sliders on the wavelets took 30-40 seconds to react.

[JamesF]

I wonder if it is being 32-bit that is the issue in that case? I stacked about 60 of 120 lunar images yesterday with hundreds of align points and it took a few minutes, but wasn't a major problem. Or perhaps it's XP. I don't think I have an XP machine any more to try it on.

James

[Stargazer33]

I was wondering if it was the 32 bit system that was the cause. I have been very reluctant to move away from XP as it is so established. I was of the mind that they must have ironed out most of the bugs by now! I know I will have to change some day when they stop supporting XP but all the new systems either seem so unstable - Vista! - or they are so resource hungry that you need 3 Gb of RAM just to run the OS! I don't need 27 different ways to open a window or have it fade in or zoom out. I just want my system to run the programs I want to run in a timely manner without crashing or hanging all the time. I know, I am asking for Nirvana!

[JamesF]

I am not and will never be a fan of Windows, but Win7 is actually by far the most stable incarnation I have ever had no choice about using.

James

[TonyD]

... but I'm keeping away from Windows 8 !!!

[JamesF]

... but I'm keeping away from Windows 8 !!!

I wouldn't touch Windows 8 with yours.

James

[Stargazer33]

I've been looking at my motherboard manual and it looks like I can get much faster processors, quad core, for it. I had a look on Ebay and there are some Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz 1066 FSB with 8Mb L2 cash for about £50-£60. Max'd out on my RAM so that might get me a little bit more processing power for the bigger files.