Jupiter-First Attempt at Planetary Imaging

[Rodd]

Hello all--I decide to take peoples advice and use the C11Edge with the Skyris 618c.  Seeing was reported as average, which is just about as good as it gets around here, so I used a 2x powermate for a focal length of f 20.  I took severalm90 sec videos at about 34fps.  Stacked and processed in Registack.  Processing was limited to using the wavelet sliders--I know if these pics were fully processed in PixInsight or PS they would no doubt be better.  Not sure which settings are most appropriate for staying true to the data for Jupiter, so I have included 3pics.  Please don't hesitate to be critical.   Enjoy

[Rodd]

Make that 6--but I think 1 is a duplicate

[laudropb]

Nice first attempt.

[Montana]

Super! I think I like number 1 best

 

Alexandra

[mikeskor]

Splendid first attempts. I don't notice a great deal of noise in the images and that's a good thing. Mine are often very noisy. However, like most of us beginners, getting the planet in focus is the main difficulty. I've tried a Bahtinov mask to help with focus, but now I just make  several AVIs hoping that at least one will be in acceptable focus.

[PeterCPC]

Great start.

A Bahtinov mask is your best friend for focusing. Use a nearby star to get accurate focus then slew to the target. Also, collimation is critical with planetary imaging so check that it is  spot on.

Peter

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, mikeskor said:

Splendid first attempts. I don't notice a great deal of noise in the images and that's a good thing. Mine are often very noisy. However, like most of us beginners, getting the planet in focus is the main difficulty. I've tried a Bahtinov mask to help with focus, but now I just make  several AVIs hoping that at least one will be in acceptable focus.

I do use a B mask--but for this image focus was never "in".  I would slowly focus in (or out) and then when the image was still blurry, it would get worse. There was never a sweet spoit much better than what you see.   Seeing was not great--but I have seen images of Jupiter with 3/5 (reported) seeing that are pretty darn good.  Maybe seeing was worse than reported.   The scope is collimated well.  Maybe tube currents from the dew strip I use?  Will a dew strip if placed in the slightly wrong position cause tube currents?  I put the strip just behind the black metal at eh end of the OTA--it sits on the last 1/2 inch of cream colored aluminum right behind the end of the flexible dew shield.  I turn it up about 1/2 way.  Never had dew--but maybe that is the problem?

[PeterCPC]

Are you using a Bahtinov mask on Jupiter as IMHO that will not work. Use it on a star first and then slew. Some people say that they can use one on a moon of Jupiter but I have never managed to do that.

Peter

[Rodd]

6 minutes ago, PeterCPC said:

Are you using a Bahtinov mask on Jupiter as IMHO that will not work. Use it on a star first and then slew. Some people say that they can use one on a moon of Jupiter but I have never managed to do that.

Peter

No--I don't use a B-mask on planets.  Focus is very easy to get because Jupiter, or moon craters are clearly visible on teh screen in a live shot that reacts well to focus adjustments.  at least major ones, as I said, this image never came into better focus--I never past through a sweet spot.

[Rodd]

3 hours ago, Montana said:

Super! I think I like number 1 best

 

Alexandra

Yeah--that's the first one I stacked and processed.  I am trying to determine if "seeing" was the limiting factor--or something else.  Also, there may be a clearer image lurking under the fuzz that I just don't have the skill to pull out.  If not, then if the seeing was truly "average" as reported, I don't understand why a C11 edge with a 2x powermate would produce an image as small as this.

[Pete Presland]

A good start some decent detail already. The first is the best and the last looks like the wavelet adjustments have been pushed to far. The seeing really is the key to the quality of the images. Your set up is certainly capable of producing better images, what capture programme are you using?

[Rodd]

56 minutes ago, bunnygod1 said:

A good start some decent detail already. The first is the best and the last looks like the wavelet adjustments have been pushed to far. The seeing really is the key to the quality of the images. Your set up is certainly capable of producing better images, what capture programme are you using?

I use the software that came with the Skyris--iCap I think.  Its pretty easy-  I can adjust everything fps, %s of various colors  etc.  Focus is the thing--I worked very hard on focus and I think seeing just was not good enough.  I probably should have removed the 2x Powermate dropped down to f10--or even f7 (I have a reducer).

[Pete Presland]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

I use the software that came with the Skyris--iCap I think.  Its pretty easy-  I can adjust everything fps, %s of various colors  etc.  Focus is the thing--I worked very hard on focus and I think seeing just was not good enough.  I probably should have removed the 2x Powermate dropped down to f10--or even f7 (I have a reducer).

I always start without my x2.5 Powermate and see what the conditions are like. If the seeing is good I will try the Powermate. Are you using the histogram? 

[Rodd]

55 minutes ago, bunnygod1 said:

I always start without my x2.5 Powermate and see what the conditions are like. If the seeing is good I will try the Powermate. Are you using the histogram? 

Not sure which histogram you mean.  I also use PixInsight and have fooled around with the lunar images there-yes I used histrogram transformation--wasn't much help though. 

[Pete Presland]

I am not familiar with the I-cap programme, but there usually a histogram available when you are capturing. This is also very useful for getting the exposure ect... settings correct so the image is captured at hopefully the best settings. In the Firecapture programme this is normally around 70% full.

Also have you tried Autstakkert2 for stacking It is another excellent addition to your processing arsenal. Very intuitive and produces a sharpened imaged as well as a non processed image.

[Barv]

Hi Rodd

Your results are fine for your first outing. Seeing is everything for planetary imaging. Your image is smaller with your cam over most of the ZWO's due to the fact that your pixel size is larger. (5.6mic whereas the common ZWO cam size is 3.75mic). Don't beat yourself up about it all, a lot of experienced imagers get the night wrong and don't get much better than this. When you first go out study the target visually before getting the camera ready and see how much detail is available.  If it's not showing much then don't bother or just use the night to play with settings etc. Only use the barlows and powermates on decent nights. In the UK, great images are probably only available to us 2-3 times a year and only then if we're lucky! Another good thing to do is to use your camera etc on terrestrial targets in daylight to set your colours up correctly. Have you done this?

regards

Harvey

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Barv said:

Hi Rodd

Your results are fine for your first outing. Seeing is everything for planetary imaging. Your image is smaller with your cam over most of the ZWO's due to the fact that your pixel size is larger. (5.6mic whereas the common ZWO cam size is 3.75mic). Don't beat yourself up about it all, a lot of experienced imagers get the night wrong and don't get much better than this. When you first go out study the target visually before getting the camera ready and see how much detail is available.  If it's not showing much then don't bother or just use the night to play with settings etc. Only use the barlows and powermates on decent nights. In the UK, great images are probably only available to us 2-3 times a year and only then if we're lucky! Another good thing to do is to use your camera etc on terrestrial targets in daylight to set your colours up correctly. Have you done this?

regards

Harvey

I have not used the Skyris C on terterrestrial objects.  I thought that the sensor size, not individual pixel size, determine FOV.  I thought pixel size related to resolution.  I went out again last night and tried it without the powermate--not much better, though I did get some moons--they are discs.  But Jupiter itself is no more resolved, which is strange, because the focal ratio was only f10.  Moon wasn't much better--individual snap shots are just as good as a stack of 2500.  Maybe I am not using Registack properly.

[Barv]

42 minutes ago, Rodd said:

I have not used the Skyris C on terterrestrial objects.  I thought that the sensor size, not individual pixel size, determine FOV.  I thought pixel size related to resolution.  I went out again last night and tried it without the powermate--not much better, though I did get some moons--they are discs.  But Jupiter itself is no more resolved, which is strange, because the focal ratio was only f10.  Moon wasn't much better--individual snap shots are just as good as a stack of 2500.  Maybe I am not using Registack properly.

If you barlow an image, you are magnifying it which will spread the subject over more of your sensor. This will  increase the resolution and hence the size of your image. (You will find that if you put your powermate in you will only capture moons that are very close to the disk).