RGB imaging quickstart please!

[Coastliner]

I could do with a bit of tuition from some of you rgb experts out there. Due to a mix-up I sent my colour camera back under warranty because it has a dead pixel. Unfortunately the replacement they sent me is a mono one. Until they send me a colour I'm stuck with it, and I would really like to go out tonight to image Mars. Now, I have a number of filters, their numbers are 21, 80a, 12 and ND96-0.6. which I believe are the Wrattan nunbers (?). Would these be any good for producing a colour image? Would I need to take, say, 1000 frames and merge them somehow? What would be the process? 

TIA,

 

Neil.

[Cornelius Varley]

Wratten 21 is orange, 12 is deep yellow, 80a is blue and ND96 is a neutral density filter Wratten numbers. For RGB imaging you need a Red, Green and Blue filter plus a Luminance filter. Probably best to read this primer first before plunging in 

Also

 

 

[ollypenrice]

You sent a camera back because it had one dead pixel? This is perfectly commonplace and can be fixed without the slightest difficulty in processing. In fairly short order your chip will pick up far more defects than that. I'm not moralizing but just sayng that ours is a game of numbers and having one bad pixel outnumbered by millions is a good problem to have...

Olly

[Pompey Monkey]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

You sent a camera back because it had one dead pixel? This is perfectly commonplace and can be fixed without the slightest difficulty in processing. In fairly short order your chip will pick up far more defects than that. I'm not moralizing but just sayng that ours is a game of numbers and having one bad pixel outnumbered by millions is a good problem to have...

Olly

This is true: Olly's raw images look like they've been dragged trough a hedge backwards.

His final images, however, speak for themselves.

My raws have many fewer defects than Olly's, but I have thousands of dead pixels and they process out just fine. There are many higher order problems to overcome...

BTW, stick with the mono camera and get some RGB/narrowband filters. This will give you much better results than a OSC.

[Coastliner]

Woah there guys! This was a dead pixel, not a hot one! It was almost dead center on the chip and had the effect of scribbling all over my planetary images. I am well aware that hot pixels can be mapped out by dark files, but how do you map out a dead one? You may not see it as serious but the manufacturers saw fit to replace it. When I find an image that shows the effect I'll upload it.

[Coastliner]

Example of the effect of my dead pixel.  I have a few of these where the pixel scribbles a tracer somewhere on the video and produces the effect in the final image. I am relatively new to this, so if there is a way of masking dead, rather than hot, pixels out can you let me know?

[ollypenrice]

The image is coming up a bit too smallfor me to see the effect.

[Coastliner]

Sorry they are small Olly, these are the best I can find at the moment. Here's another one, see the wisp coming out from the top, around 11 0'clock and projecting at about 45 degrees?

[gnomus]

I would say that you have done a pretty good job if that is your first attempt with your colour camera.    Personally, I would be tempted to stick with the mono version.  I think that with the appropriate IR filter (IR Filter) this would be better for the moon.  You can get relatively inexpensive LRGB absorptive filters from Baader and from ZWO.  Baader  ZWO  And you can get manual filter wheels which don't cost the earth.   Wheel

[EDIT: BTW I like your Atom Heart Mother icon]

[Coastliner]

Thanks Gnomus.  I understand what folk are saying re sticking with the mono for increased detail etc. but mucking about with filters, wheels and the extra processing is too much faff for me at the moment.  I like the fact, for example, that I can nip outside for a short while and take one or two AVIs of Mars and Saturn quickly, rather than having to swap filters and take at least four AVIs.  I will no doubt graduate to filters as my skills progress.

The question still remains though - how do I mask out a dead rather than hot pixel? Is it possible?

(The icon was going to be the triangle but someone got there first).

[gnomus]

4 minutes ago, Coastliner said:

Thanks Gnomus.  I understand what folk are saying re sticking with the mono for increased detail etc. but mucking about with filters, wheels and the extra processing is too much faff for me at the moment.  I like the fact, for example, that I can nip outside for a short while and take one or two AVIs of Mars and Saturn quickly, rather than having to swap filters and take at least four AVIs.  I will no doubt graduate to filters as my skills progress.

The question still remains though - how do I mask out a dead rather than hot pixel? Is it possible?

(The icon was going to be the triangle but someone got there first).

That's fair enough.  I assume you are going to get them to send you the correct camera then.  Whilst you wait, why not give up on Jupiter and shoot mono pics of the moon?

[Coastliner]

47 minutes ago, gnomus said:

That's fair enough.  I assume you are going to get them to send you the correct camera then.  Whilst you wait, why not give up on Jupiter and shoot mono pics of the moon?

Yes, I'm hoping to get the colour one back but may give the mono a go, as you suggest. It would be interesting to see how much more detail will be visible using the mono on Jupiter.