Planetary imaging with a DSLR?

[M00NMonkey]

Hi all,

I have been doing a bit of research on planetary imaging using a DSLR and came across a website by Jerry Lodriguss

There is info on there about a book he has written on how to use a DSLR to capture HD movies and stack them, and the image examples of jupiter, that are on the site, are amazing!! (to good to be true )

My problem is. If this technique is so good, how come I haven't seen anyone on here using DSLR's for planets?? and instead buying (the now, ridiculously priced!!) spc900, when they already have a DSLR. (i know you can get good results from this, from viewing the images on SGL, but the one's Jerry has got using a DSLR are stunning).

I am aware that 'sales patter' is used to sell, and this site uses it very well and I am surely tempted to get the book. But, before I decide, I thought I would ask you friendly SGL-ers if you have this book, have heard of Jerry Lodriguss and has anyone managed to get images anywhere near what this book is supposed to help you achieve, using a DSLR.

Thanks for any help/advice

Jez

[jakeybob]

I was wondering this too!

As far as I can tell the main advantages to webcams are their price, and (with some of them) the ease of modifying the firmware etc. Of course, the price advantage is nullified if you already own a DSLR.

The small sensor size is often cited as an advantage of webcams, but I'm not entirely sure why. The individual pixel size of my DSLR sensor is essentially the same as the Xbox Live cam I've been using recently, and if anything using a larger sensor would make my life easier as the planet would take much longer to move across the field.

One other factor may be the somewhat black-box nature of DSLR movie modes. The sensor in my DSLR is 4,288x2848 pixels, but the video is output at 720p. Who knows what sort of interpolation/noise reduction is going on in there?

If it was possible to get a DSLR to output a "native" avi file then it should be, as far as I can tell, as good as or better than a webcam. Of course, cropping/editing that mahooosive avi might not be too much fun

Also, it should be possible (and potentially preferable) to use the DSLR to take bursts of still photos instead of movies. These should be full res and in RAW format should be relatively free from weird post-processing effects. So long as the mirror flipping didn't cause the mount to shake too much this should be perfectly doable, but wouldn't be able to achieve the ~30fps that some webcams can happily do.

[M00NMonkey]

I was talking to someone the other day, about this, and they mentioned something about the above mentioned book and it shows you how to go about zooming in using BYE and changing the resolution of the sensor within the program. I really dont know if this is even possible??.

When ever I have checked any planets on FOV checking software with my DSLR, the planets are just a dot, even when using a 5x powermate. So i figured it wasn't really a feasible option. Then I heard about this book, which has sparked my curiosity again. But I dont want to buy it to find out it is all BS.

I am more than happy to stick with DSO's and wide-field. I have more than enough lined up if and when the weather plays ball. But if planets are possible with a DSLR, to the degree that this book is trying to persuading me to believe, then I want a piece of the pie. But from the lack of responses on this thread, it does seem like a dead-end.

[Erquy]

Hi,

I have been following his various advices, using e.g. Movrec to capture data (with zoom function, great! like for BYE which I tried but I did not find it that fantastic -while Movrec is free and canon utility gives me satisfaction also and I also have nebulosity, so no really need for BYE for me-), processing etc... I understand plenty confirms and recommand his book.

Here is what I get with my DSLR (EOS1100d) , prime focus (with or without barlow) on a MAK 102 (4´´ F12,7) -to keep in mind compared to C11 SCT Edge HD he uses and better canon for his pictures, so I am not that good-:

http://stargazerslounge.com/gallery/member/27995-erquy/

Note bad planetary pictures for a small scope as I have and basic unmodded Canon EOS1100D without any kind of filters or so as compared to definitively better gear as Jerry uses (scope + DSLR). I have seen a number of planetary picture of jupiter, saturn, the moon with webcam on a similar MAK (Skymax 102 or Nexstar 4SE) and I would say thare are not that much differences .I am not expert, but I think DSLR for planetary on a MAK or SCT may be easier and working as great as a basic webcam for planets than on a newtonian? Unfortunately I don´t have a webcam so I can´t do a straight comparison, but I am sure there are people who have both and can certainly comment

(personaly the only benefit I can imagine with a webcam would be easier to handle that a DSLR, so if the results were similar, I think I would certainly then use a webcam, so that´s maybe the simple reason why most people -who have a webcam- prefer that?). I am not a techie and playing with electronics is not something I am after (and looking the tricks many needs to do on conventional webcams to make it work/functionable for astro, this is simply not for me;-)

have a look at astrobin.com, advanced search and select DSLR, you will find plenty of nice planetary picture with DSLR and various scope as good if not better than Jerry´s !:

http://www.astrobin.com/28087/

http://www.astrobin.com/25301/

http://www.astrobin.com/13798/

and more

[Guest]

I was talking to someone the other day, about this, and they mentioned something about the above mentioned book and it shows you how to go about zooming in using BYE and changing the resolution of the sensor within the program. I really dont know if this is even possible??.

When ever I have checked any planets on FOV checking software with my DSLR, the planets are just a dot, even when using a 5x powermate. So i figured it wasn't really a feasible option. Then I heard about this book, which has sparked my curiosity again. But I dont want to buy it to find out it is all BS.

I am more than happy to stick with DSO's and wide-field. I have more than enough lined up if and when the weather plays ball. But if planets are possible with a DSLR, to the degree that this book is trying to persuading me to believe, then I want a piece of the pie. But from the lack of responses on this thread, it does seem like a dead-end.

Hi,I can assure you it is not BS, with modern day DSLR cameras that have live view it is more than possible. free programs like Movierec will record the live view from the camera, in AVI format, in my case i have a Canon 1000D and the live view is slightly higher res that a webcam with the same pixel size, so get just as good if not better results.

The live view on my camera is exactly the same as 5x zoom, which is what you want for planetary imaging, but other camera can be slightly different, it is not about taking HD video that would be useless, the resolution would be far too high and planets would just be a dot, it is all about the recording of the live view, or if the camera support it movie crop mode which is 640x480.

If your camera has live view and you have the free software for recording it, then it will be just as good, if not better than any webcam

Hope that helps

MM

[M00NMonkey]

Hi,I can assure you it is not BS, with modern day DSLR cameras that have live view it is more than possible. free programs like Movierec will record the live view from the camera, in AVI format, in my case i have a Canon 1000D and the live view is slightly higher res that a webcam with the same pixel size, so get just as good if not better results.

The live view on my camera is exactly the same as 5x zoom, which is what you want for planetary imaging, but other camera can be slightly different, it is not about taking HD video that would be useless, the resolution would be far too high and planets would just be a dot, it is all about the recording of the live view, or if the camera support it movie crop mode which is 640x480.

If your camera has live view and you have the free software for recording it, then it will be just as good, if not better than any webcam

Hope that helps

MM

Cheers Magnaman, I have done a little more research on the subject and it was pretty much the same as you said. It wasnt so much that i tjought it was BS, it was more....why are more people using this technique??

When I actually get some clear skies I will give it a shot and post results on SGL. Thing is, I've just brought a coma corrector, and as we all know, any astronomy purchase comes with "free 3 week cloud package" so i am not holding my breath for it to be anytime soon

Jez

[Scott]

Its qite possible to image planets with a dslr

[StuartJPP]

As previously mentioned, with liveview recording over USB at practically 1:1 resolution (x5) you can get down to pixel level, which to me is just as good as a webcam. I can't be certain if it is as good, better or worse than a webcam but it certainly is possible to do planetary with a DSLR. It may not be ideal, but if you have already got the kit, you might as well get the most out of it.

Have a read of this regarding liveview and various Canon cameras:

http://www.astropix...._Resolution.HTM

Here is a planetary image of Jupiter that I took with my mere 500mm lens with 2x and a 1.4x stacked teleconverters using Backyard EOS liveview recording via USB then stacking it in Registax. Not great, but good enough for me for now.

[Steep]

, and the image examples of jupiter, that are on the site, are amazing!! (to good to be true )

A DSLR and £4000 worth of Celestron C11 Edge scope for the Jupiter image there...

[ollypenrice]

I was talking to someone the other day, about this, and they mentioned something about the above mentioned book and it shows you how to go about zooming in using BYE and changing the resolution of the sensor within the program. I really dont know if this is even possible??.

When ever I have checked any planets on FOV checking software with my DSLR, the planets are just a dot, even when using a 5x powermate. So i figured it wasn't really a feasible option. Then I heard about this book, which has sparked my curiosity again. But I dont want to buy it to find out it is all BS.

Take any one telescope with or without a Barlow. It has an effective focal length of 'x'. A given object will create an image of a certain size on the chip based exclusively on that focal length. Now you can insert a small chip or a large chip and the image of the object will be exactly the same size whatever chip size you use. The only thing that changes is how much space there is around the object. You cannot zoom in onto an object by reducing the chip size! (Say you have an A4 picture of a crowd and you see a friend in the picture, but very tiny. Cutting out a little square with just your friend in it doesn't make the image of your friend any bigger! Looking at a distant object through a straw doesn't make it look bigger either.)

So, yes, a planet modelled on a large chip is going to look like a dot. On a small chip it will fill the frame. But the only thing that has changed is the frame, not the object.

In reality the frame rate has to be determined by the amount of information being downloaded so, with a given technology, a small chip can run a faster frame rate than a large one and this might be very important in planetary imaging.

I had this recently when I was asked if our new full frame deep sky camera wasn't going to make objects look too small. Of course it doesn't! It just means that you can fit a second or third object into the picure at the same scale if they happen to be nearby.

Olly

[M00NMonkey]

A DSLR and £4000 worth of Celestron C11 Edge scope for the Jupiter image there...

I knew there must have been a money pit hidden there somewhere

[Obi Wan Ken00bi]

A DSLR and £4000 worth of Celestron C11 Edge scope for the Jupiter image there...

For that kind of cash you might as well rent a saturn 5 and fly there with your dlsr

[StuartJPP]

<snip>

In reality the frame rate has to be determined by the amount of information being downloaded so, with a given technology, a small chip can run a faster frame rate than a large one and this might be very important in planetary imaging.

<snip>

True, however in the Canon USB liveview mode, the video resolution is circa 1024x768 (varies depending on camera model). When I have captured this using various tools it comes in at ~30fps (dependant on netbook speed). Since this is effectively cropping the centre 1024x768 pixels of the sensor (at 5x), I can't see it being any worse than a webcam of similar native resolution and frame rate.

[M00NMonkey]

Take any one telescope with or without a Barlow. It has an effective focal length of 'x'. A given object will create an image of a certain size on the chip based exclusively on that focal length. Now you can insert a small chip or a large chip and the image of the object will be exactly the same size whatever chip size you use. The only thing that changes is how much space there is around the object. You cannot zoom in onto an object by reducing the chip size! (Say you have an A4 picture of a crowd and you see a friend in the picture, but very tiny. Cutting out a little square with just your friend in it doesn't make the image of your friend any bigger! Looking at a distant object through a straw doesn't make it look bigger either.)

So, yes, a planet modelled on a large chip is going to look like a dot. On a small chip it will fill the frame. But the only thing that has changed is the frame, not the object.

In reality the frame rate has to be determined by the amount of information being downloaded so, with a given technology, a small chip can run a faster frame rate than a large one and this might be very important in planetary imaging.

I had this recently when I was asked if our new full frame deep sky camera wasn't going to make objects look too small. Of course it doesn't! It just means that you can fit a second or third object into the picure at the same scale if they happen to be nearby.

Olly

Hi Olly,

Your post are always very informative, Thank you. I usually have to read them several times to make sure I have understood though, as they make me feel way out of my depth as it is becoming more and more apparent that I have very limited knowledge on this subject (not that I thought I knew anything to begin with!). But, Im liking the challenge though

So basically you can change the framing of the dslr sensor using BYE or similar and because the target will appear larger because it fills the new frame?

[M00NMonkey]

As previously mentioned, with liveview recording over USB at practically 1:1 resolution (x5) you can get down to pixel level, which to me is just as good as a webcam. I can't be certain if it is as good, better or worse than a webcam but it certainly is possible to do planetary with a DSLR. It may not be ideal, but if you have already got the kit, you might as well get the most out of it.

Have a read of this regarding liveview and various Canon cameras:

http://www.astropix...._Resolution.HTM

Here is a planetary image of Jupiter that I took with my mere 500mm lens with 2x and a 1.4x stacked teleconverters using Backyard EOS liveview recording via USB then stacking it in Registax. Not great, but good enough for me for now.

was this using the 5x in BYE or just standard liveview and 2x 1.4x stacked?

[StuartJPP]

was this using the 5x in BYE or just standard liveview and 2x 1.4x stacked?

This was with 5x in BYE. EOS Camera Movie Record basically does the same job.

[M00NMonkey]

This was with 5x in BYE. EOS Camera Movie Record basically does the same job.

Cheers Stuart,

I need to get out side and have ago, see the results, come across more questions and get back on here to ask them

The list of things i want to do, when this weather finally clears, is getting so long I think I am going to need of perpetual darkness!!

[ollypenrice]

Hi Olly,

Your post are always very informative, Thank you. I usually have to read them several times to make sure I have understood though, as they make me feel way out of my depth as it is becoming more and more apparent that I have very limited knowledge on this subject (not that I thought I knew anything to begin with!). But, Im liking the challenge though

So basically you can change the framing of the dslr sensor using BYE or similar and because the target will appear larger because it fills the new frame?

I'm afraid I don't know anything about DSLR astro imaging but the others are saying that you can do a partial-frame video and get 30 frames per second, which sounds good. My point was a more general one about 'filling the frame' or an object 'looking larger.' A certain focal length projects an image of a planet (or whatever) at a certain size in mm on the chip. This cannot be changed without changing the focal length. Now a big chip and a small chip record the planet at exactly the same size. However, when you open a large chip image your computer will resize the picture to fit on your monitor and so, seemingly, shrink the planet. If you zoom in on the screen, though, to a 1:1 resolution (1 pixel on the chip =1 pixel on the monitor) you will see that the image of the planet is the same as it is on the smaller chip at 1:1.

These two images are, in reality, the same image.

All that's happened is that the image of M95 alone has been cropped out of the large image of M95 and 96. If we had a big enough monitor there would be no need to crop out the single galaxy because the whole image could be presented at 1:1. The full image was made possible becaue Yves' camera has a huge full frame chip. With a smaller-chip CCD camera in the same scope you'd have to image the two galaxies separately and each would fill the frame. But they would be exactly the same as the images above in terms of size on the screen at 1:1 (assuming the camera pixels were the same size.)

Olly

[Fordos Moon]

As previously mentioned, with liveview recording over USB at practically 1:1 resolution (x5) you can get down to pixel level, which to me is just as good as a webcam. I can't be certain if it is as good, better or worse than a webcam but it certainly is possible to do planetary with a DSLR. It may not be ideal, but if you have already got the kit, you might as well get the most out of it.

Have a read of this regarding liveview and various Canon cameras:

http://www.astropix...._Resolution.HTM

Here is a planetary image of Jupiter that I took with my mere 500mm lens with 2x and a 1.4x stacked teleconverters using Backyard EOS liveview recording via USB then stacking it in Registax. Not great, but good enough for me for now.

Sorry to be a dumbass but what are teleconverters and how do they work?

[M00NMonkey]

I'm afraid I don't know anything about DSLR astro imaging but the others are saying that you can do a partial-frame video and get 30 frames per second, which sounds good. My point was a more general one about 'filling the frame' or an object 'looking larger.' A certain focal length projects an image of a planet (or whatever) at a certain size in mm on the chip. This cannot be changed without changing the focal length. Now a big chip and a small chip record the planet at exactly the same size. However, when you open a large chip image your computer will resize the picture to fit on your monitor and so, seemingly, shrink the planet. If you zoom in on the screen, though, to a 1:1 resolution (1 pixel on the chip =1 pixel on the monitor) you will see that the image of the planet is the same as it is on the smaller chip at 1:1.

These two images are, in reality, the same image.

All that's happened is that the image of M95 alone has been cropped out of the large image of M95 and 96. If we had a big enough monitor there would be no need to crop out the single galaxy because the whole image could be presented at 1:1. The full image was made possible becaue Yves' camera has a huge full frame chip. With a smaller-chip CCD camera in the same scope you'd have to image the two galaxies separately and each would fill the frame. But they would be exactly the same as the images above in terms of size on the screen at 1:1 (assuming the camera pixels were the same size.)

Olly

Makes perfect sense Olly, Cheers. I think I have come across as dumber than I actually am (quite a feat! ) and I really knew what you have explained, but you have made me realise that fact and i now understand it better. Thank you.

Yves' image is stunning btw, as are yours on smugmug. I assume you have done this for quite awhile (AP) and your work is an inspiration. And to all, I am sure. But I was wondering if you had any of your earliest work? first attempts etc?. It really would be great to see your first steps to give us mere mortals hope of aspiring to reach the heights of Les Granges' OPR!!

Thanks again for the info

Jez

[M00NMonkey]

Sorry to be a dumbass but what are teleconverters and how do they work?

I am of the understanding the teleconverters/telextenders/barlows/powermates all do the same or similar. There job is to enlarge the image obtained by the objective lens/mirror and, I think, they increase the focal length. i.e. a 2x teleconverter would give the impression of doubling the focal length.

To start with I thought of getting a decent barlow to use for the smaller or deeper dso's, so I could get a larger image. I didnt though. the thing with all of these is, when imaging with say a 2x, you have to have exposures that are twice as long as opposed to imaging the same object without a 2x. So a 60sec sub would become a 120sec sub to capture the same amount of light. As I am using an EQ5(motor upgrade) and its on its limits anyway, the last thing I wanted to do was decrease the amount of light and increase the exposure time.

Hope this is right and makes sense. I am sure someone will rapidly correct me if I am wrong.

Jez

[Fordos Moon]

Thanks Jez. I have used a Barlow with my Xbox cam and the 200P but was trying to picture how a similar device might look and work between my ED80 and DSLR attachments?

[StuartJPP]

Sorry to be a dumbass but what are teleconverters and how do they work?

For camera lenses, they fit between the camera and the lens to increase the focal length. They contain glass elements to achieve this and are probably the equivalent to a barlow/powermate...don't want to sound like a dumbass but I don't know much about telescopes

[Erquy]

Hi

See below who reports better results ever in his experience with dslr than lifecam

[spit]

i took this with my DSLR and scope using BYEOS, no barlow used at this time being i didnt have the corrrect adaptor, finally got one so i can barlow now when i get a chance