Another Jupiter from 11 July

[neil phillips]

Getting into processing with the smooth natural look. The more natural the better is how i feel lately. Think the lack of any artefacts or digital noise. Is appealing

See if anyone agrees you may not. we are all different.

stats on the other july 11th post are the same Orion 245 ect though the capture is different. There is a interesting small wisp of a blue cloud on the North temperate zone. Its small but its there. It popped into view as soon as added a little colour saturation. 

 Earlier. Another look at that tiny wispy blue cloud on the north temperate zone. 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by neil phillips

[JeremyS]

Splendid @neil phillips👍🏻

[neil phillips]

4 hours ago, JeremyS said:

Splendid @neil phillips👍🏻

Cheers Jeremy I think these current Jupiters may well be the best ive got so far. The seeing was reasonable. And not quite so in your face daytime breaking through. With better contrast and colours

Edited July 12, 2022 by neil phillips

[stuy]

Lovely mate 👍 had some fantastic seeing here on the 11 th  to in wales hopefully a good season for us all !!🤞

[neil phillips]

2 hours ago, stuy said:

Lovely mate 👍 had some fantastic seeing here on the 11 th  to in wales hopefully a good season for us all !!🤞

Hi Stuy. Yes it started on the 10th. Then carried on into the 11th. Glad to hear you was out to enjoy it

[morimarty]

Some stunning detail on show Neil. It as a beautiful natural look about it and I agree the more natural the processing the better the result can be.

[neil phillips]

Cheers Martyn the colour is varying a lot. But the light conditions are changing a lot. I havent nailed what i prefer yet. Registax and pipp do not always get it spot on  i find. 

I think i prefer the bluer whiter tints. like this. But i may change my mind over time we shall see. Going to have to create a animation out of this at some point. But its a lot of work.  My monitors are not coinciding my 30" 4K does not look over bright yet my laptop does. So presenting images to the world might be more tricky than i think ? to trust the 4k monitor. Or what most people might be viewing on. The second image  I have reduced the brightness. Does it look more under under control at all ? does the top image look over bright ? Interested in views on this. In fact to make it easier 3 different brightness levels. Which looks most balanced ?

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by neil phillips

[Kon]

Fantastic images Neil. I am impressed on how you always manage to bring a natural look to your images, planets, sun or the moon! In terms of lightness, I prefer the 1st one (looking at my laptop screen).

Out of curiosity, what ROI do you shoot at and is that RAW8 or 16 capture. I would have though the 16 brings more depth? In your histogram do you aim for 40-60%? I have been too preoccupied with ISS to try the planets. Maybe this weekend.

[neil phillips]

3 hours ago, Kon said:

Fantastic images Neil. I am impressed on how you always manage to bring a natural look to your images, planets, sun or the moon! In terms of lightness, I prefer the 1st one (looking at my laptop screen).

Out of curiosity, what ROI do you shoot at and is that RAW8 or 16 capture. I would have though the 16 brings more depth? In your histogram do you aim for 40-60%? I have been too preoccupied with ISS to try the planets. Maybe this weekend.

Thank you Kon saying you prefer the first one. its what i am trying to learn my laptop is a lenovo with quite nice AMD 8 CORE CHIP. So quite fast but images that i process on the 4 k 30 " monitor look great. But look over bright on the lenovo. So of course knowing most are likely not viewing on a 4 k 30" monitor. But more likely a laptop. I got to wondering what are they seeing. Are they seeing what i am seeing on my lenovo ? 

 I can process levels for either. But wondering if the lenovo is actually over bright. So these questions help me understand that. So thank you Kon for helping. Anyone else who views them, it helps me understand how my images are moving around the net. So everyones input is helpful. 

Getting to your questions ROI generally is around 640x 480 mainly because I like a bit of space around my captures. Though I can and do go smaller sometimes. Mars doesn't need 640x480. But a windy Jupiter might. if you get my drift. it varies.

If I want moons included sometimes larger than 640x 480. As for colour here's what ive found. If i am capturing at 1/125 secs exposure 640x480 ROI I can get a full 125 frames per second at 16 bit. So of course here i would capture at 16 bit. No reason not too.

However if i am capturing at 1/250 secs exposure at 640x 480 ROI  unless i switch to 8 bit. the frame count will take a serious hit. About half the count i believe. So of course here the frame count is more important. and 8 bit is fine.

Run some experiments try 640x 480 select 1/125 secs exposure select 16 bit. now run it and look at your frame count you will see your getting the full 125 frames per second. However staying at 640x 480 now select 1/250 secs exposure and keep it at 16 bit. You will now see you are not getting 250 frames per second. The bit rate under those settings is killing your frame rate. Now switch to 8 bit. and hey presto your now running at full frame rate of 250 frames per second.

So you should try and find the ROIs and exposures and bit rates that give full frame counts. if you can get a full frame count in 16 bit. by juggling ROI and exposure then of course you should do so. No reason not to.

But when it hits your frame count in 16 bit. its time to switch. I haven't run all scenarios so you will have to experiment yourself. But I will say on jupiter i am increasingly using 1/250 secs exposure 8 bit 640x480 at 250 frames per second. And with the 10" Orion Newt around 260 gain something like that.

These are the results here of those settings. And of course anyone else can take it to the bank and try similar. It works. I dont claim its the best. but it works for me.  

 

 I know not everyone agrees about using histogram. and I really don't want to get into a debate about it yet again. I do what i do because it works for me. and there are reasons it works me. What works for others is fine. I have no problem with it. But I capture at between histogram 60% and 70% lately I am more at 70% but if it really looks too bright. sometimes it does, I can reduce to say 65 67 % I am never burnt out. its a very healthy level I find. 

[si@nite]

I agree Neil natural is right up my street as you know, always something going on with Jupiter thats what makes it so interesting!

lovely set of detailed images btw!

[neil phillips]

1 hour ago, si@nite said:

I agree Neil natural is right up my street as you know, always something going on with Jupiter thats what makes it so interesting!

lovely set of detailed images btw!

It helps keep me occupied Simon. But really starting to enjoy the imaging again after giving up. And yes always something new with the big gas giant cheers

[Kon]

8 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Thank you Kon saying you prefer the first one. its what i am trying to learn my laptop is a lenovo with quite nice AMD 8 CORE CHIP. So quite fast but images that i process on the 4 k 30 " monitor look great. But look over bright on the lenovo. So of course knowing most are likely not viewing on a 4 k 30" monitor. But more likely a laptop. I got to wondering what are they seeing. Are they seeing what i am seeing on my lenovo ? 

 I can process levels for either. But wondering if the lenovo is actually over bright. So these questions help me understand that. So thank you Kon for helping. Anyone else who views them, it helps me understand how my images are moving around the net. So everyones input is helpful. 

Getting to your questions ROI generally is around 640x 480 mainly because I like a bit of space around my captures. Though I can and do go smaller sometimes. Mars doesn't need 640x480. But a windy Jupiter might. if you get my drift. it varies.

If I want moons included sometimes larger than 640x 480. As for colour here's what ive found. If i am capturing at 1/125 secs exposure 640x480 ROI I can get a full 125 frames per second at 16 bit. So of course here i would capture at 16 bit. No reason not too.

However if i am capturing at 1/250 secs exposure at 640x 480 ROI  unless i switch to 8 bit. the frame count will take a serious hit. About half the count i believe. So of course here the frame count is more important. and 8 bit is fine.

Run some experiments try 640x 480 select 1/125 secs exposure select 16 bit. now run it and look at your frame count you will see your getting the full 125 frames per second. However staying at 640x 480 now select 1/250 secs exposure and keep it at 16 bit. You will now see you are not getting 250 frames per second. The bit rate under those settings is killing your frame rate. Now switch to 8 bit. and hey presto your now running at full frame rate of 250 frames per second.

So you should try and find the ROIs and exposures and bit rates that give full frame counts. if you can get a full frame count in 16 bit. by juggling ROI and exposure then of course you should do so. No reason not to.

But when it hits your frame count in 16 bit. its time to switch. I haven't run all scenarios so you will have to experiment yourself. But I will say on jupiter i am increasingly using 1/250 secs exposure 8 bit 640x480 at 250 frames per second. And with the 10" Orion Newt around 260 gain something like that.

These are the results here of those settings. And of course anyone else can take it to the bank and try similar. It works. I dont claim its the best. but it works for me.  

 

 I know not everyone agrees about using histogram. and I really don't want to get into a debate about it yet again. I do what i do because it works for me. and there are reasons it works me. What works for others is fine. I have no problem with it. But I capture at between histogram 60% and 70% lately I am more at 70% but if it really looks too bright. sometimes it does, I can reduce to say 65 67 % I am never burnt out. its a very healthy level I find. 

Thanks for very thorough answer. Yes I have noticed that going from 8 to 16 my frame rate drops by nearly half. As you said, I will experiment and see what I can get.

 

Regarding the histogram, I am not an expert, and the number I quoted are from online searches. In your case, the 70% would have captured better signal to noise than let's say 40%? Or it only has to do with data handling later on? (Sorry for naive questions but trying to get a better understanding of what I am doing).

[Kon]

8 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Thank you Kon saying you prefer the first one. its what i am trying to learn my laptop is a lenovo with quite nice AMD 8 CORE CHIP. So quite fast but images that i process on the 4 k 30 " monitor look great. But look over bright on the lenovo. So of course knowing most are likely not viewing on a 4 k 30" monitor. But more likely a laptop. I got to wondering what are they seeing. Are they seeing what i am seeing on my lenovo ? 

 I can process levels for either. But wondering if the lenovo is actually over bright. So these questions help me understand that. So thank you Kon for helping. Anyone else who views them, it helps me understand how my images are moving around the net. So everyones input is helpful. 

I am using a 15" MacBook Pro if that helps with your assessment. On my mobile not much of a difference between the first two; last one looks darker in both my laptop and mobile.

[neil phillips]

10 minutes ago, Kon said:

I am using a 15" MacBook Pro if that helps with your assessment. On my mobile not much of a difference between the first two; last one looks darker in both my laptop and mobile.

Mac books are quality so it tells me that. Though ive not had one. The thing i dont want is burn out. thats what i am trying to avoid even slight Kon. so on those 3 at least one should show no burnout. But wondering if any do. on different devices. 

[Kon]

6 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

at least one should show no burnout. But wondering if any do

if by burn out you mean too bright or washed out, then none, on any of my devices.

[neil phillips]

9 minutes ago, Kon said:

if by burn out you mean too bright or washed out, then none, on any of my devices.

Yes too bright washed out exactly. thats encouraging then. I have been trusting my 4 k monitor so much. that i got to a point where i started questioning it. You seem to be confirming i should trust it. Macbooks are not rubbish. What causes me problems is i do push levels to the max. its a old habit. But especially lately. Max is ok. burnout or white clipping is not. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by neil phillips

[Kon]

8 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

Yes too bright washed out exactly. thats encouraging then. I have been trusting my 4 k monitor so much. that i got to a point where i started questioning it. You seem to be confirming i should trust it. Macbooks are not rubbish. What causes me problems is i do push levels to the max. its a old habit. But especially lately. Max is ok. burnout or white clipping is not. 

I have the retina display so no issues at all. I will check on my wife's Dell laptop tomorrow and let you know.

[neil phillips]

1 hour ago, Kon said:

I have the retina display so no issues at all. I will check on my wife's Dell laptop tomorrow and let you know.

Thanks Kon its useful 

[Kon]

10 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Thanks Kon its useful 

In my wife's laptop the first image of the three looks too bright. I would say the second looks nicer on hers. I second processing might be 'universally' acceptable? In your calibrated monitor, is the first one better? You should probably generate a poll? I think there is such function in SGL.

[neil phillips]

1 minute ago, Kon said:

In my wife's laptop the first image of the three looks too bright. I would say the second looks nicer on hers. I second processing might be 'universally' acceptable? In your calibrated monitor, is the first one better? You should probably generate a poll? I think there is such function in SGL.

Its tricky isnt it. But of course if anyone wants to share images what's the point in having a lovely looking image in 4 k here. while others see white clipping wondering why i am saying the image is high quality

? You get the point. If i am going to share images on the net a compromise is needed. Poll is a good idea. But already from what you just said it seems obvious the problem is going to occur, lenovo are not total rubbish. But it looks nothing like what i am seeing on my standalone 30" 4 k. I think i should just tread with caution using the 4 k monitor for brightness purposes. its  safer to hold back a little. And get a compromise. Thanks for checking that Kon its helping.