Jump to content

2052839955_Mobilephonebanner.jpg.a502a319d7033354d442937f2edd0c2c.jpg

Cells of Atmospheric Disturbance?


Recommended Posts

Last night I set up my alt-Az mount and RedCat 51 + ASI178MC camera to take some images of the Moon. After a cool down period of about an hour as the night got darker I was astonished to see a moving 'stained glass' or kaleidoscope effect on screen and wondered if it was caused by atmospheric cells being badly disturbed by the weather? Never before have I witnessed anything so pronounced as this. I regret I was so tired that I neither gave thought to check on the view through binoculars or to check the Jet Stream forecast-doh!

Views are invited.

Thanks,
Steve

8_5_2022_Moon_Save1.thumb.jpg.9d1bd91125224fa3dd87e2b2b62ea2eb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Admiral said:

Though the craters on the terminator appear well defined?

Ian

Can see more definition but not well defined. Not Sure what the problem is. But there is something seriously up with either focus. or your imaging train. i couldn't get it to look like that even grossly out of focus. Which makes me think something else is not right in the imaging train. A focal reducer or something effecting the image and out of focus ? Again i have no idea. But Its very strange. Because when the moon is coming into sharp focus. you can easily see it happening. Even under really terrible seeing ? I have imaged through tornado power jet streams over the years. Enough to tear the image into shreds. And it still didnt look like this  

If you are seeing or imaging Cells then you are 100% grossly out of focus. Because the cells wouldn't show like that slightly out. let alone in focus. Its certainly a mystery 

If you could tell us your imaging train ? i could have more of a think. But i assure you this is not just seeing related. Seeing over the UK the last couple of days hasn't been the best. But my solar and lunar images were still focusing tightly ?  even though focus shifts were occurring 

If you do discover the reason please share. As i am at a loss. 

 

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ian and Neil for your inputs. I'm going to take a look at the imaging set up again today to see if there is anything amiss. The imaging set up is simply my ASI178MC and RedCat 51, used for lunar imaging and galaxy work. Will update the thread with anything I discover.

Cheers,

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, inFINNity Deck said:

Hi Steve,

is this a cooled version of the ASI1778MC? If so, it could well be that we are looking at ice-crystals due to too rapid cooling.

Nicolàs

Funny you should say that as i wondered about water dew ect. Its appearance does have that vibe. I just couldn't think  how dew was that bad last few days ? Its because it wasn't.  I reckon your correct.  Makes the most sense

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for the thought about cooling but the 178MC is not TEC cooled. I did not have a dew heater strap on the optics that night but it was not a dewy night.

I hope to give more time tomorrow to investigating the phenomena and try out options such as using a different USB cable and different operating software. 

Cheers,

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SteveNickolls said:

Hi, thanks for the thought about cooling but the 178MC is not TEC cooled. I did not have a dew heater strap on the optics that night but it was not a dewy night.

I hope to give more time tomorrow to investigating the phenomena and try out options such as using a different USB cable and different operating software. 

Cheers,

Steve

Thought that explained the kaleidoscope effect nicely. The mystery deepens. Cant imagine its a cable software issue, It looks very optical in nature. like water ? or thermal heat ?  Not sure if you have a second camera as a test ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Thought that explained the kaleidoscope effect nicely. The mystery deepens. Cant imagine its a cable software issue, It looks very optical in nature. like water ? or thermal heat ?  Not sure if you have a second camera as a test ?

I'm inclined to agree Neil, it does look refractive in nature. The only thing is that there appears to be a sharp annulus to the image (which is well within the FoV of the set-up). I would have thought that would have been softened by the effects of water droplets too. Interesting to see what Steve can find out.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for giving this your time and thoughts Neil and Ian. I'm going to devote today to trying the many options. Fortunately I do have a ASI120MM-S camera to use in place of the 178MC to try to narrow down on the matter. Will let you know how things get on. 👍 You never stop learning in this hobby that's for sure.

Cheers,
Steve

Edited by SteveNickolls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi, I've solved the issue. Turns out it was caused by a setting in SharpCap Pro only recently introduced to give the option to remove satellite trails when imaging. Unfortunately this was turned on when it needed to be turned off. I found that turning off the removal feature returned the view on screen to normal and the fps rate increased from around just 1 fps to 31.5 fps. I repeated this a few times to ensure the effect was reproducible. I'm mighty relived it's not a problem with the camera.

Can I thank you all for your ideas in this, I've certainly learnt something new this evening.

 

Cheers,

Steve

 

 

Edited by SteveNickolls
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, SteveNickolls said:

Hi, I've solved the issue. Turns out it was caused by a setting in SharpCap Pro only recently introduced to give the option to remove satellite trails when imaging. Unfortunately this was turned on when it needed to be turned off. I found that turning off the removal feature returned the view on screen to normal and the fps rate increased from around just 1 fps to 31.5 fps. I repeated this a few times to ensure the effect was reproducible. I'm mighty relived it's not a problem with the camera.

Can I thank you all for your ideas in this, I've certainly learnt something new this evening.

 

Cheers,

Steve

 

 

Just goes to show how wrong perception can be. I was convinced it was optical. Anyway glad you have that figured out now. And can try again. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.