Jupiter - Still Struggling

[cgarry]

Cheers Steve - I was on this already, getting no further with UT Codec but just trying again with DIB.     PIPP is a real swiss army knife and essential part of my pre-process on planetary, though just starting to discover delights of RAW colour processing from the DSLR.

The Ut Codec should work well with RegiStax.  The latest AS!2 has some support for the Ut Codec but there are problems with larger files in this format so it is probably best to use DIB for now.  I am in contact with Emil about hopefully improving this situation with AS!2 and if all goes well AS!2 should be able to open any video format that PIPP can open.

I don't think WJ supports anything but simple raw codecs so you will need to use AVI-DIB with it, or better still use SER format files with it.

Cheers,

Chris

[SnakeyJ]

Interesting reading your settings Jake your frame rate should be higher at that shutter speed, have you got live preview set at 5fps as this will help the performance. Personally I can't get above 50fps on FC but EZ Planetary produces 90-100fps at a slower shutter speed than your 1.9ms for L. 

What kind of noise level are you getting as I've been getting a lot at the full frame rate even at only 50% gain  and have reduced it to 20-30% with 50-60fps.

You say you've had trouble with focus, do you have the cam nosepiece attached as I could not focus without this screwed on with my Dob.

Stuart - a little odd and intriguing, I think the USB Traffic setting may not be consistent for all filter profiles, but would only be in the range 0-2.    It runs very happilly with traffic set to 0 for any of the ROIs, but 12 bit full frame does need a small tweak.    My preview drops to 15fps during capture, I shall drop this right down to see if it makes a difference.   I am using an older HP625 AMD based laptop for capture (Win7x64, 8GB RAM, Hybrid hard disk - which seems to work well for capture, but not great for processing).   I suspect that dark frame subtraction and, probably the ephems calcs may be slowing things a little?

Noise levels from the FC log files are between 16-20 for 8 bit capture, though this was with dark frame subtraction.     Here's one of the files for a red channel capture:

FireCapture v2.3 (beta 15) Settings

------------------------------------

Observer=Jake Gully

Location=Bembridge, Isle of Wight

Scope=SWExp200P

Camera=QHY5LII

Filter=R

Profile=Jupiter

Diameter=43.84"

Magnitude=-2.53

CMI=203.9° CMII=349.7° CMIII=143.4°  (during mid of capture)

FocalLength=3280mm

Resolution=0.24"

Filename=2013-11-21-2333.8-JG-R.ser

Date=20131121

Start=233353

Mid=233434

End=233515

Duration=81s

Frames captured=6000

File type=SER

Binning=no

ROI=640x480

FPS (during start of capture)=74

Shutter=4.237ms

Gain=950

Brightness=0 (off)

USBTraffic=0

HDR=off

Contrast=0 (off)

HighSpeed=on

Gamma=100 (off)

Histogramm(min)=0

Histogramm(max)=167

Histogramm=65%

Noise(avg.deviation)=15.38

Limit=6000 Frames

Focus issues were just the in out travel restrictions.   Pretty similar for the two Revelation barlows, but the zoom barlow seems a little different and I don't have the infocus to use this outside of the FW - works fine on the inside, once I was able to find enough bits to get the spacing right.   Certainly not an elegant or particularly solid solution.    I need to get a lower profile male T thread to 1.25" EP / compression adaptor,  so I can reclaim some travel and move this back outside of the F/W.   This will keep the weight of the FW hard against drawtube and should be considerably more business like.

I have previously used the nosepiece adaptor to give increase extension beyond a barlow to increase focal length, but predictably it limits reduction of focal length.     Prefer to keep it all closed/sealed to keep the sensor clean as the finish on the nose-piece is not great and tends to flake from the internal threads.

[SnakeyJ]

Things are certainly on the up there Jake. You have nice detail coming through. Better luck than myself last night - was forecast to be clear here...extensive cloud the whole time I was out, hoping against hope...Then I stumbled and dropped the C8 onto soft grass thankfully! Tube is O.K. and corrector plate is O.K......collimation on the other hand...and I was, of course, unable to do a star test. I dread.....

Best regards,

Ralph

Ralph,

Thanks, certainly going in the right direction!    Sorry to here of you near disaster - I physically cringed whilst reading this, really hope it's just collimation and you get a gap in the clouds to star check tonight.   Have you taken anything for the PTSD - a large glass of Bushmills should do the trick!

Jake

[SnakeyJ]

The Ut Codec should work well with RegiStax.  The latest AS!2 has some support for the Ut Codec but there are problems with larger files in this format so it is probably best to use DIB for now.  I am in contact with Emil about hopefully improving this situation with AS!2 and if all goes well AS!2 should be able to open any video format that PIPP can open.

I don't think WJ supports anything but simple raw codecs so you will need to use AVI-DIB with it, or better still use SER format files with it.

Cheers,

Chris

Thanks again Chris - not sure what I'm doing wrong with WJ video rotation.   I tried the SER files first, then UT and now DIB, but although I get no error WJ simply beeps and does nothing when I click on the Derotate button.    Something silly, probably me - though may be the measurements file it doesn't like!   I'm going to have a break for a cup of tea

Getting to the bottom of tube currents can be a monumental task, especially with bigger telescopes.  With my C14 the star test looked like a washing machine at times, showing up the currents well.  To get them under control I ended up creating a radiator reflector foil scope jacket and a bespoke dew shield with fins instead of continuous material.  I would think that the open tube of your newt should be much better at reaching thermal stability!

That sounds a nightmare, but definitely worth the labour to get the best out of the C14!

The Explorer OTA is effectively open at both ends, though the mirror offers a reasonable restriction.    My dew tape fits around the perimeter of the aluminium mirror cell, though I suspect the majority of this heat warms the air which will convect and eddy up the tilted ota just like a chimney.   Whilst a fan would help to disburse the warm air, at higher f/ls the vibration will probably be unacceptable.    I think the the best solution here will be minimizing the use with effective dew shield and active control of the heaters.   With fans I try and avoid turning them on and off as the deflections dew to torque can be more problematic than constant low speed vibration.

[cgarry]

Thanks again Chris - not sure what I'm doing wrong with WJ video rotation.   I tried the SER files first, then UT and now DIB, but although I get no error WJ simply beeps and does nothing when I click on the Derotate button.    Something silly, probably me - though may be the measurements file it doesn't like!   I'm going to have a break for a cup of tea

I had that a long time ago when I first started using WJ, thought I can't remember how I got round it.  I think maybe the problem just went away for me when I updated my version of WJ.  Not much help I know!

[Stargazer 2013]

very nice indeed..At least you know where Jupiter is.I need to find it but keep passing it. I usually go out about 23.00 to look  at the moon but looking for big J is getting to me

[SnakeyJ]

very nice indeed..At least you know where Jupiter is.I need to find it but keep passing it. I usually go out about 23.00 to look  at the moon but looking for big J is getting to me

They were very close last night, almost rising together in parallel.   Tonight Jupiter leads the moon by about 10deg and should be visible in the ENE by 20:30hrs as the moon appears over the horizon.

If you don't have it already, download a copy of stellarium as this is an invaluable aide for finding your way around the sky.

Happy 49th Birthday - an auspicious day for a first look

[SnakeyJ]

I had that a long time ago when I first started using WJ, thought I can't remember how I got round it.  I think maybe the problem just went away for me when I updated my version of WJ.  Not much help I know!

It's still not playing - though as I upgraded to 10.0.22 this morning, perhaps it just needs a restart.    Worth a try at least.

[Freddie]

A big difference there, nice job.

I agree with Chris, I would do a bit more investigation. It's the sky background for me that is the massive difference and the new shots look to have a lot less noise. I wonder if the power to the heaters was in some way interfering with the cam electronics? It doesn't just look like optics to me.

[SnakeyJ]

A big difference there, nice job.

I agree with Chris, I would do a bit more investigation. It's the sky background for me that is the massive difference and the new shots look to have a lot less noise. I wonder if the power to the heaters was in some way interfering with the cam electronics? It doesn't just look like optics to me.

Very interesting thought here Freddie, I try to run data and power cables to the mount with some seperation - however, there is a common point (a gooseneck of some 500mm ) between the pier top plate and saddle where the cables are velcroed together  to try and stop them from catching as the mount rotates.    This is probably not such a good idea and entirely possible that the PWM heater circuits are causing some extra noise.      I'll have a check on some long dark frames to see if there's any additional noise when the heaters are running.     If so it shouldn't be too difficult to identify and engineer some separation or shielded divider between power and data feeds. 

For test purposes I can also connect the usb directly to the laptop with a new clean cable as a baseline comparison.

[neil phillips]

Good result, though I personally think using IR as a Lum channel produces horrible unnatural images so I don't do it myself any more.

Rather than just blaming the dew heaters I think you would do better to take an engineering approach and debug the issue with a star test.  By using a defocused star the differences between bad seeing and tube currents are really obvious and you can try things like turning off the dew heater and actually see if it actually makes a difference.

Cheers,

Chris

Although that is true Chris, I would be very surprised if not, that even a small amount of heat wouldn't really be helping high res planetary. I wouldn't do it period. Hence not bothering to say check I guess. Even  a small amount of heat from a dew shield can affect images. Though I do agree it is worth doing star tests Especially when one is first learning if ones collimation procedures are actually working, But after that period. 

I have rarely done star tests over the entire time I have been doing this. Just things like not using heating bands. And using fans for long enough to cooldown. My collimation doesn't involve star tests. ( just cheshires and lasers ) too many reasons why collimating in the uk using star tests is both frustrating and actually quite difficult and time consuming to get any real benefit. Personally I think that's more hassle than is really needed, So I agree with you in theory, I often forget perhaps ?  that others that have not been doing this as long as i have, and perhaps do need periods looking at defocussed stars to see what there imaging train is doing, But if certain things are avoided. And certain practises used, For me personally I don't believe its needed. As another example I don't check what my dew shield is doing. I cool it in such a way that no heat is left in it at all. And any way before I did start cooling it. I could I see it was having a effect on my Images themselves. From periods where no shield was being used. As such in a dry climate I wouldn't use a shield,  cooled or not. As another example of common sense. Even cooled shields have a effect on a Newtonian. As the tube is in affect much longer. Which will to a degree affect the thermal behaviour of the telescope, If a situation for example arose where a shield could be avoided. I would say avoid it. Just like heaters.

I think I often forget that others haven't been figuring all this out for years. So again I probably should be advising what you guys are saying. But these are the reasons I often do not.

[neil phillips]

A big difference there, nice job.

I agree with Chris, I would do a bit more investigation. It's the sky background for me that is the massive difference and the new shots look to have a lot less noise. I wonder if the power to the heaters was in some way interfering with the cam electronics? It doesn't just look like optics to me.

Even more reason to just turn the heaters off. That's a quick solution lol

[neil phillips]

BTW that first image in no way would produce a blurry image. Noisy perhaps, blurry no. So the issue I was trying to address initially was blur ?

  I assumed in fact, ( and still think this might be the case ) that the camera settings were set in such a way that the sky background was too bright. ( gamma can do this for example )  Because even if I had noise in my system, it would not be producing a sky background like that. I would be interested in Snakeys view on this ?

Its interesting infact that when gamma is raised it looks very much like that background. Noise and all .

[neil phillips]

A big difference there, nice job.

I agree with Chris, I would do a bit more investigation. It's the sky background for me that is the massive difference and the new shots look to have a lot less noise. I wonder if the power to the heaters was in some way interfering with the cam electronics? It doesn't just look like optics to me.

Or the noise could still be there. And he has just darkened the background ?

[cgarry]

HI Neil,

The point I was trying to make is that is exceptionally easy to distinguish between between poor seeing and thermal problems and threads like these are usually filled with speculation about the quality of the seeing and the possibility of the scope not being cooled down enough.  I really do believe that all planetary imagers need to understand the characteristics of their equipment if they want to get the best results possible, and this can be achieved easily and at no extra cost with a simple star test.  I would not be surprised that many imagers, especially those with bigger scopes, do have thermal issues with their scopes but just put it down to constantly bad seeing because they have never done a simple star test with their equipment.

The approach of randomly trying something one night (such as turning off the dew heater) and then looking to see if the images come out better or worse that previous nights will almost certainly lead to incorrect conclusions as to what is and is not helping because the seeing will always dominate.  At the very least, captures with and without the dew heater should be done on the same night so that the difference it actually makes can be seen and understood.

Interestingly, the dew heater on my scope does not make the slightest different to tube currents, I wonder if this is an SCT thing.  This is handy as I am somewhat stuffed without it!

Cheers,

Chris

[SnakeyJ]

BTW that first image in no way would produce a blurry image. Noisy perhaps, blurry no. So the issue I was trying to address initially was blur ?

  I assumed in fact, ( and still think this might be the case ) that the camera settings were set in such a way that the sky background was too bright. ( gamma can do this for example )  Because even if I had noise in my system, it would not be producing a sky background like that. I would be interested in Snakeys view on this ?

Its interesting infact that when gamma is raised it looks very much like that background. Noise and all .

Neil,

Sorry but confused now - Are you talking about the first image at post 1, or my first from last night at post 12?

I've already deleted the capture and log files from the 20/11, but still have everything from last nights run.    A quick check through last nights files reveals that Gamma was set to on with a default value of 100 for all channels other than red where it is off with the same value.     I'm not sure if why the red got unticked, but working at night with a touchpad I've obviously flicked this at some point and firecapture has preserved the setting.    I would think that the 100 value is the mid point, but not certain given QHYs lack of authoritative documentation!

Pretty sure that these settings would have been the same for the previous nights capture.

I think probably I can drop the gain and increase exposure time to maintain a target 65% histogram, though keen to keep the frame rate quite high to maximise capture and minimise rotation blur - though 6000 frames may be a bit excessive.   Using the new beta version of AS!2, I have tried a comparison run of 20%, 30% and 40% and there's not a lot of difference between these 25-30% looks pretty much the sweet spot, though the difference here is very marginal.   Watch me go when my new glasses arrive

[Freddie]

I'm with you on a couple of points there Neil. I'm convinced that first image has cam issues not seeing issues. As well as being careful with heat from tapes, I also find that even having cooled everything properly, removing the dew shield can improve things as you can get air movement in the shield and at high FL every little helps. Problem is, removing the DS can cause the corrector to dew up pretty quickly so you have to be careful.

[Virgoman]

Lol! Jake.....Yes a nice glass of Bushmills would do the trick. Been a right few years since I had a drop.......!! It is completely clear here at the moment so touch wood!!

                                    Best regards,

                                                           Ralph

[SnakeyJ]

Re collimation, I collimate with a standard long tube cheshire and then check with laser.     I haven't done a star check for months, though the collimation seems to be good on my recent deep sky shots with DSLR.   I did check collimation before powering up last night and it all looked right.

Cooling wise, everything bar the camera and laptop are out in the observatory so should be very close to ambient and stable.    Good stiff breeze and open roof should ensure any waste heat from me, laptop and cup of tea are quickly dissipated.

With focusing I use a bahtinov mask @ 2/3rds on the DSLR but centred on the small QHY CMOS - this is generally focused for Green channel.  I don't refocus for between LRGB, as the Baaders CCD filters are 'parfocal' and there is very little if any discernable difference at higher focal lengths.    The IR-PASS though does require a little extra jog to bring it into focus.

[neil phillips]

Neil,

Sorry but confused now - Are you talking about the first image at post 1, or my first from last night at post 12?

I've already deleted the capture and log files from the 20/11, but still have everything from last nights run.    A quick check through last nights files reveals that Gamma was set to on with a default value of 100 for all channels other than red where it is off with the same value.     I'm not sure if why the red got unticked, but working at night with a touchpad I've obviously flicked this at some point and firecapture has preserved the setting.    I would think that the 100 value is the mid point, but not certain given QHYs lack of authoritative documentation!

Pretty sure that these settings would have been the same for the previous nights capture.

I think probably I can drop the gain and increase exposure time to maintain a target 65% histogram, though keen to keep the frame rate quite high to maximise capture and minimise rotation blur - though 6000 frames may be a bit excessive.   Using the new beta version of AS!2, I have tried a comparison run of 20%, 30% and 40% and there's not a lot of difference between these 25-30% looks pretty much the sweet spot, though the difference here is very marginal.   Watch me go when my new glasses arrive

yes Jake I was talking about the first image. One way to tell if settings were likely different is compare the stacked images. What ever way you look at it, the background looks way too bright to me. in that first image.  There are many things that can influence this from cam settings to processing settings. Compare just the stack images with the same settings and you will know. if something was different at capture. By comparing the excessive bright background. Not sure if the unticked red gamma had a effect or not ? But it should be obvious as the background on the red will be brighter.

[neil phillips]

I'm with you on a couple of points there Neil. I'm convinced that first image has cam issues not seeing issues. As well as being careful with heat from tapes, I also find that even having cooled everything properly, removing the dew shield can improve things as you can get air movement in the shield and at high FL every little helps. Problem is, removing the DS can cause the corrector to dew up pretty quickly so you have to be careful.

You may well be right Freddie, But its hard advising from afar. Sometimes I don't know the level that someone is at on here. So I don't really want to start bogging them down with star tests, and worrying about noise when even cam settings can cause such appearances. And ive seen ten to the dozen of those in my time on here.

 When I am uncertain if even the basics of collimation and cooldown are being addressed. If we find they are, and or results don't improve then of course much more thorough testing should be done.

See my post here Freddie about dew shields. They do indeed influence images. ( even when cool ) If they can be avoided. ( just like heat bands ) then avoid them is what I say. I can not though, as dew is too bad around here. Even putting a finger at the end of a scopes optics and looking at a defocussed star shows how even the slightest amount of heat affects optics. I wouldn't trust heating bands for hi res planetary. One other thing that Jake could try, to see if that suggestion has had the biggest impact here, is to try some images with the heat band being on for 45 mins. and then switching off and taking more images. If that horrible blur returns. he will know. this has nothing to do with the noise issue. I know little about these cams so would be wise for others to advise Jake about this. But one must be careful about assuming anything. we all do it. I just did. It looks like a gamma setting to me. But absolutely may not be. And he might have to investigate noise. The images now look fine to me. So either the heat band may have been causing noise. Or it is a non issue. Or something else has changed. Hard to know about any of them to be honest I think.

[Space Cowboy]

I've never used a dew shield since seeing Chris's thermal dynamics star test. Did one myself with the shield on and there was massive activity so now I use a hair drier to keep the secondary clear which having a strut OTA is easy.

If I had a solid OTA newt I'd lop a hole in the side just below the secondary and shove a hair drier in. Now someone tell me thats not a brilliant idea!

[SnakeyJ]

yes Jake I was talking about the first image. One way to tell if settings were likely different is compare the stacked images. What ever way you look at it, the background looks way too bright to me. in that first image.  There are many things that can influence this from cam settings to processing settings. Compare just the stack images with the same settings and you will know. if something was different at capture. By comparing the excessive bright background. Not sure if the unticked red gamma had a effect or not ? But it should be obvious as the background on the red will be brighter.

Hmm, I've deleted these files from the capture laptop, unless they still exist in Gimp on my home computer - possible, though unlikely.    I do however have the session browser dat file from firecapture.   

Looking at this the gamma is set at 100 for all these captures. Gain set to 950 for LRG and 962 for B, exp 0.4ms for L and 1.2 for other channels, Histogram peak 210 for L to 157 for G (81-61%), noise is a very stable 18-19 throughout all channels.      

Maybe I did something odd in AS!2?, though rarely tinker other than AP size and amount of frames to stack.

[neil phillips]

HI Neil,

The point I was trying to make is that is exceptionally easy to distinguish between between poor seeing and thermal problems and threads like these are usually filled with speculation about the quality of the seeing and the possibility of the scope not being cooled down enough.  I really do believe that all planetary imagers need to understand the characteristics of their equipment if they want to get the best results possible, and this can be achieved easily and at no extra cost with a simple star test.  I would not be surprised that many imagers, especially those with bigger scopes, do have thermal issues with their scopes but just put it down to constantly bad seeing because they have never done a simple star test with their equipment.

The approach of randomly trying something one night (such as turning off the dew heater) and then looking to see if the images come out better or worse that previous nights will almost certainly lead to incorrect conclusions as to what is and is not helping because the seeing will always dominate.  At the very least, captures with and without the dew heater should be done on the same night so that the difference it actually makes can be seen and understood.

Interestingly, the dew heater on my scope does not make the slightest different to tube currents, I wonder if this is an SCT thing.  This is handy as I am somewhat stuffed without it!

Cheers,

Chris

As I said I agree in theory with the reasons you want to be so thorough. Just sometimes when advising on here I never really know the level that someone is at. or if even the basics are being addressed. If we find they are, and results do not improve, then of course more in depth study could be done. But I don't want to be bogging down people with star testing as a first course.

Especially beginners. I like to at least try to address and find out what they have been doing before going onto star testing. I wouldnt see a blurry image on here for example and say you need to star test everything.

I would infact say make sure collimation and cooldown is good. Turn off heaters ect. If those things are addressed ( I think I also advised dropping the dew shield if the scope was in a obs ) At this point there wouldn't much to be star testing for ? Unless he was star testing the obs ?

Though dropping the dew shield was just a suggestion, as I have no real idea if the obs would prevent dew for long enough. So that may have been a bad suggestion agreed ?

Not very scientific of me I agree. But after many years of doing certain things I am pretty sure whats been seeing related and or otherwise. Of course doing something particular once or twice. might give a false result. ( like you suggest )  But after many years of doing it. it does start to become a pattern that I don't think I am confusing personally.

Not having a obs. The setup is tedious and time consuming. So star testing for me personally is a waste of time when I already know certian things are affecting the images after years of finding out.

A example is the SW 12" all my results with it have been poor ( did I do a star test for thermals ) No.  I realized either the optics were poor  ( I did do a star test for that ) and they looked fine either side of focus. Or there was thermals. Its just common sense.  So I set about thinking about the thermal issues. Hoping the optics were not poor.

 First thing I noticed was when I put a poor quality fan on during imaging the image improved straight away.This can not be confused as seeing. As I tested it off and on ( no star test here was needed )  So I set about making a small good quality fan de coupled from the back of the primary ( Jake could try this. But might be less effective )

Straight away the images jumped in quality. Yes I could be misinterpreting seeing as you suggest. But my experience tells me otherwise. Another direct comparison I had was switching scopes. I could see the larger optic struggling under the same conditions. So im convinced the 12" needed a fan running permantly. No star testing was needed to figure this out. Proof is always in the images, you can learn just as much watching whats happening to them. As you can star testing. Though I agree it does require more experience. Or as you say false positives negatives could arise.

I think the lesson might be first off, rule out all issues that could be causing problems. if no improvement occurs then star testing could be done. This is especially good advice for beginners who may not have even collimated and cooled down correctly to start with.

We are on the same side of the fence here Chris. Just different ways of looking at it perhaps

[neil phillips]

I've never used a dew shield since seeing Chris's thermal dynamics star test. Did one myself with the shield on and there was massive activity so now I use a hair drier to keep the secondary clear which having a strut OTA is easy.

If I had a solid OTA newt I'd lop a hole in the side just below the secondary and shove a hair drier in. Now someone tell me thats not a brilliant idea!

Its not a brilliant idea lol. it will dew up the primary Stuart. At least any heat used in the  dryer will