Frustrated - Advice Pls

[Biglewey]

Set up Skywatcher Skymax 127 with Goto AltAz mount, 2X Barlow and Sony A57.

Got some good pictures of the moon but failed miserable with Jupiter.

Image appears very small in viewfinder and lacks detail (it is focussed). Got ISO set at 800. Do a video and stack but detail isn't there and image looks very pixelated. I did try the digital zoom but that didn't help. Picture was dark as well but that's prob my fault.

Video looks very poor detail and "spekly" when its playing - hence Registax picture is rubbish.

So, do I need a higher mag Barlow (didn't think I would with skymax  given its 1500mm) and what settings do people recommend?

Would have thought Sony A57 is decent SLT should do better than that?

Note Ive cropped and turned into a jpg to post but the BMP looks about the same.

[Putaendo Patrick]

What were the atmospheric conditions like? Was Jupiter high or low in the sky?

I'm visual rather than AP, but this looks like Jupiter with poor seeing and not the fault of the photographer

[mcsheffield]

Hi,

tbh that view is just like what I normally see, so not sure what was expected, the atmospheric conditions can play havoc with Jupiter, it is normally better higher in the sky, but I am sure you already know these things.

Sorry can not be of more help.

Andrew

[iwols]

must admit same as you a little with jupiter,just purchased a c8 edge qhy5ll mono camera and finished up with this image,just wondering if the qhy5ii mono camera is up to scratch

[PeterCPC]

For planetary imaging you really need a fast frame rate planetary CCD like the ASI120 or the like. This will give a much smaller FOV and so a much larger image scale. Also I would stack in Autostakkert - IMO its much better at stacking. You can then use Reg to apply wavelets etc.

Peter

[Biglewey]

Thanks for the advice. It just seems that when I observed Jupiter what I saw seemed much steadier than what the camera saw.

Probably our eyes and brain can sort out the movement "on the fly" better than a camera?

From responses so far it seems apart from having a specifically designed camera...and I'm really tempted to purchase one....the n I'm not doing so bad for a newbie...

[Marky1973]

Just keep trying. I'm no expert at planetary, but it seems people prefer to use PIPP to process the video into images and then Autostakkert 2 to stack. Resgistax is useful for the final process of sharpening up the image with wavelets. I've only done a couple of images, but do try to reject a good number of frames to make sure I have the "best" but also a decent number of images to stack.

The important thing is to not get disheartened and keep trying!

 

[Atreta]

it looks an untouched stacked image for me,  but my eyes aren't trained.   did you use any wavelets in it? 

[happy-kat]

Do you have a webcam knocking around that you could try? Would need to modify it first to remove it's lens.

[Biglewey]

Used Registaxs and included wavelets but did really understand what wavelets do?

[PeterCPC]

Have a look here http://www.planetary-astronomy-and-imaging.com/en/finalising-processing-registax6/

Peter

[CSM]

If it was Tuesday night and the seeing was the same as here in South Wales, then that was the problem.  Poorest Jupiter I've had in a long while but Moon ok considering it was nearly full Moon.  This was using an ASI120MC-S, As!2 then Registax6.

[Biglewey]

Thanks will keep trying................

[Owmuchonomy]

Unless you have 640x480 movie crop mode or equivalent you are going to struggle with image scale on that sensor size on Jupiter. You may need to invest in a planetary camera with smaller chips and bigger pixels such as the ZWO models.

[Nigel G]

2 hours ago, Owmuchonomy said:

2 hours ago, Owmuchonomy said:

Unless you have 640x480 movie crop mode or equivalent you are going to struggle with image scale on that sensor size on Jupiter. You may need to invest in a planetary camera with smaller chips and bigger pixels such as the ZWO models.

 

Agree, I get much better results using 640x480 movie size with my canon.

[ollypenrice]

On 21/4/2016 at 12:30, PeterCPC said:

For planetary imaging you really need a fast frame rate planetary CCD like the ASI120 or the like. This will give a much smaller FOV and so a much larger image scale. Also I would stack in Autostakkert - IMO its much better at stacking. You can then use Reg to apply wavelets etc.

Peter

No.

The size of the image projected onto the chip is governed only by the (effective) focal length.

The size of the pixels at that focal length determines the final screen size of the target presented at 1 camera pixel for 1 screen pixel.

Reducing the size of the chip at a given focal length absolutely does not increase the image scale. A larger chip with the same pixel size at the same focal length has preciesly the same image scale. Crop the large chip image to match the small chip image and they will be identical.

The idea that you 'get closer' with a smaller chip is totally incorrect. For a given focal length the only way you can 'get closer' is with smaller pixels - provided that your seeing lets you resolve to that level.

Olly

 

[Owmuchonomy]

I have used both my ZWO and my Canon in movie crop mode. One advantage of the ZWO is the ability to get the frame rate much higher. It is also easy to use with a simple IR pass filter. Unless you have movie crop mode on your DSLR you are capturing loads more data than is necessary.

[StuartJPP]

Of course you are correct Olly....

I think most of the confusion comes from the fact that traditionally small sensors had tiny pixels which meant that quite often it was true that a small sensor will have more detail/produce a bigger Jupiter for instance...coupled with the fact that a 640x480 image will display at 1:1 by default wheras a 6122x5640 image would be scaled to fit the screen (I.e. shrunk) Jupiter would look bigger.

As you say it is ultimately how small the pixels are, not how many with everything else being equal.

Think of it as a large sensor is a mosaic of small sensors but we only use the centre one

A dedicated astro camera does offer higher FPS as mentioned so all else being equal that will trump it.

[PeterCPC]

12 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

No.

The size of the image projected onto the chip is governed only by the (effective) focal length.

The size of the pixels at that focal length determines the final screen size of the target presented at 1 camera pixel for 1 screen pixel.

Reducing the size of the chip at a given focal length absolutely does not increase the image scale. A larger chip with the same pixel size at the same focal length has preciesly the same image scale. Crop the large chip image to match the small chip image and they will be identical.

The idea that you 'get closer' with a smaller chip is totally incorrect. For a given focal length the only way you can 'get closer' is with smaller pixels - provided that your seeing lets you resolve to that level.

Olly

 

I stand corrected. I just meant that the image would be larger without having to crop.

Peter

[Duke2k]

The wavelet sliders bring out the fine detail in the stacked image. The top slider enhances the smallest detail and this progresses down so that the bottom slider enhances larger details. The only thing to watch for is an increase in noise especially when using the top sliders. At the right of each slider are 2 adjustment boxes which can reduce noise and or sharpen details. Give it a try and keep experimenting, also go back a day later and try again with fresh eyes.

[Biglewey]

Again thanks for the useful advice...