Lunar with PGR Flea 3

[Aussie Dave]

First test for lunar with the PGR Flea 3 mono ( FL3-U3-13Y3M-C ) from the 17th June 2016. Conditions were not good but I had to give it a go as clear skies are rare now.

Imaged with the Celestron Nexstar 8i and UV/IR Cutoff filter.

To be honest I'm disappointed with these results. I'm still getting soft images. The UV/IR Cutoff filter will not be used again. I'm not even sure the filter is for imaging, it may be for visual only.

Videos were 30 seconds each captured with Firecapture. Stacked in AS!2, wavelets in RS6 and finished in PDN.

The first 4 images are with a Bintel ED 2" 2x Barlow, 1000 frames each, final images cropped and reduced in size to 35%.

 

This last image was taken without the Barlow, 800 frames, final image cropped and resized to 50%.

[xtreemchaos]

thay look sharp to me mate, if the seeing not great your going to get a element of softness, great firstlight.well done. charl.

[Aussie Dave]

Put your spectacles on Charl

Either that or I need need new ones.

[xtreemchaos]

ha if you put in the imaging sec it will be sharper  , i could do with some new glasses..charl

[Aussie Dave]

hmm... I took my glasses off and even though the images look fuzzier, they seem sharper and look betterl if that makes any sense, strange that.

[Cornelius Varley]

Moved to the lunar imaging section.

[Aussie Dave]

Thanks Pete, that's the second time I've done this now

[laudropb]

Nice images, but I agree they could be sharper. I am no expert on imaging, but if as you say the seeing was not too good, then this will not have helped, especially at higher magnifications.

[riklaunim]

Use an infrared passing filter, not IR/UV cut filter which passes the whole visible light - that one of sources of why image may be fuzzy (atmospheric dispersion). Second element may be sharpening after stacking - stack may look very soft but it actually may sharpen perfectly - with deconvolution or wavelets.

[Aussie Dave]

5 hours ago, laudropb said:

Nice images, but I agree they could be sharper. I am no expert on imaging, but if as you say the seeing was not too good, then this will not have helped, especially at higher magnifications.

Thanks Laudropb. I think you are right, atmospheric conditions did not help that night.

 

5 hours ago, riklaunim said:

Use an infrared passing filter, not IR/UV cut filter which passes the whole visible light - that one of sources of why image may be fuzzy (atmospheric dispersion). Second element may be sharpening after stacking - stack may look very soft but it actually may sharpen perfectly - with deconvolution or wavelets.

Thanks Riklaunim. I won't use that filter again and I'll try deconvolution in one of the other astro programs I have, I did see that option in one of them somewhere. From memory I was getting sharper lunar images months ago without the UV/IR filter with my webcams.

I forgot to mention that I'm also using the standard Celestron 1.25" diagonal in the imaging train which I'll eliminate too.

[riklaunim]

no filter is even worse as even wider light band will enter. The only reason it could be better is if that IR/UV cut filter would be defective

[Aussie Dave]

ok, so... keep it on then.

The filter is for imaging apparently, info below.

Celestron UV/IR 1.25" Cut Off Filter 94125 is a high transmission filter prevent IR wavelengths from blurring fine detail in your images. Made with a Ultra-Hard Ionbeam hardened coatings, Celestron UV/IR Filter has an extremely sharp cutoff at 690nm yet leaves all the visible red, including the important 656nm H-alpha emission line.

Celestron UV IR Cutoff Filter is the ultimate UV and Infrared blocker, featuring hard Ionbeam coatings, and fine optically polished glass! Celestron 1.25" UV/IR Cut-off Filter is the ideal filter for Celestron NexImage Imager and CCD imaging. Celestron Cut Off Filter - 1-1/4" has an extremely sharp cutoff at 690 nm yet leaves all the visible red, including the important 656 nm H-alpha emission line, preventing IR wavelengths from blurring fine detail in your digital images.

So that leaves the diagonal, conditions and location (coastal) to be possible problems.

[Aussie Dave]

I did do more processing about an hour ago on a few videos with less stacked frames, 20 frames and 100 frames. Non were better than what I posted. Very frustrating when I know my gear can do much better. I'm guessing it's conditions/location again.