Jupiter - 30 October 2022

[geoflewis]

I had decent seeing, but rubbish and variable transparency on 30 October 2022. It's the first outing after the end of daylight savings, so good to be able to start capturing at a more sociable time, even though my body clock hadn't reset yet. The 3 images are approximately one hour apart. Each image comprises best 6000 frames from 3 SERS (so 18000 frame per image). All captured with my ASI462MC through the C14 with ADC. Captured in FireCapture and processed in AS3!, Registax, WinJupos and Affinity Photo.

The sky around Jupiter had seriously detoriated by the time of the last run, so I gave up and waited for Mars to gain altitude, with the results from that session already posted.

Thanks for looking.

[neil phillips]

11 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

I had decent seeing, but rubbish and variable transparency on 30 October 2022. It's the first outing after the end of daylight savings, so good to be able to start capturing at a more sociable time, even though my body clock hadn't reset yet. The 3 images are approximately one hour apart. Each image comprises best 6000 frames from 3 SERS (so 18000 frame per image). All captured with my ASI462MC through the C14 with ADC. Captured in FireCapture and processed in AS3!, Registax, WinJupos and Affinity Photo.

The sky around Jupiter had seriously detoriated by the time of the last run, so I gave up and waited for Mars to gain altitude, with the results from that session already posted.

Thanks for looking.

Nice captures and processing Geof. I really need to start experimenting more. I often can't be bothered to cherry pick from the top frames from each 6 min ser. And combine. I am sure it does sharpen the image a bit. As more quality frames are going into the mix. But it certainly does take quite a bit longer to be that thorough.

Saving the data does mean it could be attempted when the planets are gone prior to next year. On those cold rainy nights. So, it's always in the back of my mind. Especially when i see your results working so well. Proof is in the pudding as the English say. And your work has been showing me these techniques are worth pursuing. We discussed this didn't we. 

Great results again Geof. Don't know about you. But been finding it harder and harder out there lately on Jupiter. I sometimes think your location is exceptional as far as stability is concerned. Your results often exceeding what's around the country generally. But i realize if true?  that's only part of the picture. After all there is a human in control of the whole capture and process thing. And I don't underestimate your skill and input either.

[geoflewis]

14 minutes ago, neil phillips said:

Nice captures and processing Geof. I really need to start experimenting more. I often can't be bothered to cherry pick from the top frames from each 6 min ser. And combine. I am sure it does sharpen the image a bit. As more quality frames are going into the mix. But it certainly does take quite a bit longer to be that thorough.

Saving the data does mean it could be attempted when the planets are gone prior to next year. On those cold rainy nights. So, it's always in the back of my mind. Especially when i see your results working so well. Proof is in the pudding as the English say. And your work has been showing me these techniques are worth pursuing. We discussed this didn't we. 

Great results again Geof. Don't know about you. But been finding it harder and harder out there lately on Jupiter. I sometimes think your location is exceptional as far as stability is concerned. Your results often exceeding what's around the country generally. But i realize if true?  that's only part of the picture. After all there is a human in control of the whole capture and process thing. And I don't underestimate your skill and input either.

Thanks Neil, honestly the difference between the best from a single SER and the stack of best from 3 SERS was marginal for this set of data and barely worth it. I also tried running the SERS through PIPP, then derotating each SER in Jups, but that turned out slightly worse, so I chucked those. On balance the gain from the huge extra load of work is beneficial when seeing is excellent, but I just can't resist having a try. It's my birthday today, so I thought I'd treat myself with some extra processing....🤣🙄🤷‍♂️

[neil phillips]

5 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

Thanks Neil, honestly the difference between the best from a single SER and the stack of best from 3 SERS was marginal for this set of data and barely worth it. I also tried running the SERS through PIPP, then derotating each SER in Jups, but that turned out slightly worse, so I chucked those. On balance the gain from the huge extra load of work is beneficial when seeing is excellent, but I just can't resist having a try. It's my birthday today, so I thought I'd treat myself with some extra processing....🤣🙄🤷‍♂️

Thanks for your thoughts. It tells me a lot.  I thought as much. About the good seeing Being needed to make the process more beneficial. Makes sense of course. 

And happy birthday mate. Hope you're having a good one. 🎂

[Space Cowboy]

Lots of detail on those Geof though a little dark on my screen?

Edit : Its my monitor, sorry Geof, my missus turned down the brightness.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Space Cowboy

[MarkRadice]

Beautiful images, Geof - and I was interested to note the 2122 image is included in the latest Jupiter section report from the BAA . 

[geoflewis]

28 minutes ago, MarkRadice said:

Beautiful images, Geof - and I was interested to note the 2122 image is included in the latest Jupiter section report from the BAA . 

Are you sure Mark, I only sent it to John Rogers today I think.....

[Kon]

Great set of images.

[geoflewis]

1 hour ago, Space Cowboy said:

Lots of detail on those Geof though a little dark on my screen?

Edit : Its my monitor, sorry Geof, my missus turned down the brightness.

Thanks Stuart, she sounds a bit like my misses, though it's my volume that she always asking me to turn down - and I'm not talking about my computer.....🙄

[geoflewis]

3 minutes ago, Kon said:

Great set of images.

Thanks Kon

[Magnum]

Nice set Geof, what f number are you working at approx? 

 

Lee

[geoflewis]

1 minute ago, Magnum said:

Nice set Geof, what f number are you working at approx? 

Lee

Thanks Lee, I'm using the C14 at it's native F11, but the ADC pushes that up to between F12-F13, which is maybe a tad undersampled for the 2.9mn pixels of the ASI462, but I think introducing any barlow or powermate would be too much.

[Magnum]

29 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

Thanks Lee, I'm using the C14 at it's native F11, but the ADC pushes that up to between F12-F13, which is maybe a tad undersampled for the 2.9mn pixels of the ASI462, but I think introducing any barlow or powermate would be too much.

im not so sure Geof, depending on the seeing im using my 12" LX200 at between f21 & f25 with the 462. on most nights I find f23 gives the best detail for me, so thats around 7000mm FL, on poorer nights I go down to f21 which is just over 6000mm FL. 

I have just bought a Baader Q turret 2.25x barlow ( only about £45 ) which seems as good quality as my GSO2.5 App barlow, but has the benefit that the end can be removed and screwed straight into an ADC giving a more modest  1.3x mag so that could be a nice option for you to get just a little more if you don't want to go as crazy on the mag as I am. 

I think it would get you to about f17 & 6000mm FL which is about the same FL as mine at f21.

Lee

 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Magnum

[geoflewis]

6 minutes ago, Magnum said:

im not so sure Geof, depending on the seeing im using my 12" LX200 at between f21 & f25 with the 462. on most nights I find f23 gives the best detail for me, so thats around 7000mm FL, on poorer nights I go down to f21 which is just over 6000mm FL. 

I have just bought a Baader Q turret 2.25x barlow ( only about £45 ) which seems as good quality as my GSO2.5 App barlow, but has the benefit that the end can be removed and screwed straight into an ADC giving a more modest  1.3x mag so that could be a nice option for you to get just a little more if you don't want to go as crazy on the mag as I am. 

I think it would get you to about f17 & 6000mm FL which is about the same FL as mine at f21.

Lee

That's interesting Lee. I believe the rule of thumb is that FL should be x4-x6 pixel size in microns (@vlaiv has written the maths on this elsewhere), so as the 462 sensor is 2.9mn pixels, that gives a range of say, F12-F17. I only have x2 TV and x3 TV barlows, or x2 TV PM, so with the ADC in train those are going to push me well into the FL>20 range. I did experiment one night with the x2 PM, which magnification actually reduces (to about F20) when set back with the ADC, but I concluded that it was still too much. Maybe I should try that again. I have considered using the x3 barlow then binning the camera, but I'm not sure how that would turn out.

I'm not aware of the Baader Q turret (well I am now 😉), but that does sound like a sweet solution, so I'll check that out, thanks.

[Magnum]

44 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

That's interesting Lee. I believe the rule of thumb is that FL should be x4-x6 pixel size in microns (@vlaiv has written the maths on this elsewhere), so as the 462 sensor is 2.9mn pixels, that gives a range of say, F12-F17. I only have x2 TV and x3 TV barlows, or x2 TV PM, so with the ADC in train those are going to push me well into the FL>20 range. I did experiment one night with the x2 PM, which magnification actually reduces (to about F20) when set back with the ADC, but I concluded that it was still too much. Maybe I should try that again. I have considered using the x3 barlow then binning the camera, but I'm not sure how that would turn out.

I'm not aware of the Baader Q turret (well I am now 😉), but that does sound like a sweet solution, so I'll check that out, thanks.

Yes I’ve read many debates on the 5x pixel size but others say 7x. But following Damian Peach’s example he’s normally working his c14 at around 7-8metres depending on the pixel size and likes to cover Jupiters disc with 5-600 pixels so that’s what I’ve been doing and have had good results. If it’s a poor night then I drop down to 6 metres, if it’s a good night then I go up to 7 metres.

Lee

[geoflewis]

8 hours ago, Magnum said:

Yes I’ve read many debates on the 5x pixel size but others say 7x. But following Damian Peach’s example he’s normally working his c14 at around 7-8metres depending on the pixel size and likes to cover Jupiters disc with 5-600 pixels so that’s what I’ve been doing and have had good results. If it’s a poor night then I drop down to 6 metres, if it’s a good night then I go up to 7 metres.

Lee

Hi Lee, this has been a very helpful thread, thanks. I also had a long and very helpful chat with @neil phillips this afternoon in which we covered a bunch of topics around optimising planetary imaging. He also says that I'm wrong to be imaging whilst undersampled, due to loss of potential resolution, so really I would be better to go back to a being a bit oversampled. We discussed some solutions to get me there with my existing gear, so I'm definitely going to try that again, particulaly in the run up to Mars oppistion next month. I guess watch this space.....🤔

[Nik271]

9 hours ago, geoflewis said:

That's interesting Lee. I believe the rule of thumb is that FL should be x4-x6 pixel size in microns (@vlaiv has written the maths on this elsewhere), so as the 462 sensor is 2.9mn pixels, that gives a range of say, F12-F17. I only have x2 TV and x3 TV barlows, or x2 TV PM, so with the ADC in train those are going to push me well into the FL>20 range. I did experiment one night with the x2 PM, which magnification actually reduces (to about F20) when set back with the ADC, but I concluded that it was still too much. Maybe I should try that again. I have considered using the x3 barlow then binning the camera, but I'm not sure how that would turn out.

I'm not aware of the Baader Q turret (well I am now 😉), but that does sound like a sweet solution, so I'll check that out, thanks.

Bear in mind that for colour cameras because of the bayer matrix you are sampling at lower resolution: 2 times less for red and blue and about 1.5 times less for green. So in case of colour camera it is better to use at least 1.5 times extra focal ratio than what the theory says about mono. 

In excellent seeing F20 with 2.9micron pizels in a colour camera should be OK.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Nik271

[geoflewis]

4 minutes ago, Nik271 said:

Bear in mind that for colour cameras because of the bayer matrix you are sampling at lower resolution: 2 times less for red and blue and about 1.5 times less for green. So in case of colour camera it is better to use at least 1.5 times extra focal ratio than what the theory says about mono. 

In excellent seeing F20 with 2.9micron pizels in a colour camera should be OK.

Thanks Nik, that's an excellent observation, I hadn't considered that 👍

[Magnum]

15 hours ago, geoflewis said:

Hi Lee, this has been a very helpful thread, thanks. I also had a long and very helpful chat with @neil phillips this afternoon in which we covered a bunch of topics around optimising planetary imaging. He also says that I'm wrong to be imaging whilst undersampled, due to loss of potential resolution, so really I would be better to go back to a being a bit oversampled. We discussed some solutions to get me there with my existing gear, so I'm definitely going to try that again, particulaly in the run up to Mars oppistion next month. I guess watch this space.....🤔

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlow-eyepieces/baader-classic-q-225x-barlow.html

this is the Barlow I was talking about, gives 1.3x or 2.25x. but you can also adjust that further by altering the spacing

[geoflewis]

5 minutes ago, Magnum said:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlow-eyepieces/baader-classic-q-225x-barlow.html

this is the Barlow I was talking about, gives 1.3x or 2.25x. but you can also adjust that further by altering the spacing

Thanks Lee, I already checked it out, but it seems to be out of stock everywhere currently, so I'm not likely to get one in time for this year's apparitions. I'm going to play with the spacing of my existing TV barlows, to see if I can bring the mag down to nearer F17

[johnturley]

On 02/11/2022 at 09:59, Magnum said:

im not so sure Geof, depending on the seeing im using my 12" LX200 at between f21 & f25 with the 462. on most nights I find f23 gives the best detail for me, so thats around 7000mm FL, on poorer nights I go down to f21 which is just over 6000mm FL. 

I have just bought a Baader Q turret 2.25x barlow ( only about £45 ) which seems as good quality as my GSO2.5 App barlow, but has the benefit that the end can be removed and screwed straight into an ADC giving a more modest  1.3x mag so that could be a nice option for you to get just a little more if you don't want to go as crazy on the mag as I am. 

I think it would get you to about f17 & 6000mm FL which is about the same FL as mine at f21.

Lee

 

That's interesting Lee that you get good results with the ASI 462 at f21-25, I usually use a 2.5 x Powermate which gives f17.5 when imaging planets through my Esprit 150 with my ASI 462, which gives reasonably good results.

However, some people suggested that I should be aiming for just 3x the pixel size of the ASI 462, which would be around f9, but with the focal length of the Esprit being just 1050 mm, f9 would result in too small an image size, and led me to believe that the ASI 462 was not the ideal camera to use with the Esprit 150, and that I would have got better results with the cheaper ASI 224, with its larger pixel size, tempting me to buy one of these.

John 

 

[Magnum]

20 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

Thanks Lee, I already checked it out, but it seems to be out of stock everywhere currently, so I'm not likely to get one in time for this year's apparitions. I'm going to play with the spacing of my existing TV barlows, to see if I can bring the mag down to nearer F17

I saw a used one the other day but can't remember where

[geoflewis]

Just now, Magnum said:

I saw a used one the other day but can't remember where

No worries Lee, I just saw that Widescreen have it, so I'm going to drive over and collect it from them today, together with the Astronimik 642 IR BP filter that I've been hankering after, so all sorted thanks. No idea why I didn't check with them yesterday, as they're one of my nearest suppliers....🙄🤷‍♂️

[Magnum]

21 minutes ago, johnturley said:

That's interesting Lee that you get good results with the ASI 462 at f21-25, I usually use a 2.5 x Powermate which gives f17.5 when imaging planets through my Esprit 150 with my ASI 462, which gives reasonably good results.

However, some people suggested that I should be aiming for just 3x the pixel size of the ASI 462, which would be around f9, but with the focal length of the Esprit being just 1050 mm, f9 would result in too small an image size, and led me to believe that the ASI 462 was not the ideal camera to use with the Esprit 150, and that I would have got better results with the cheaper ASI 224, with its larger pixel size, tempting me to buy one of these.

John 

 

Hmm some mixed info going on there John, a 150 mm scope won't be able to handle as much magnification as a large scope anyway, so we have to be careful about recommending an optimal f ratio for a given camera.

but all depends what Barlow you would be using, its not like deep sky where you can match the camera to the scope, its more about matching the camera to the FL its operating at depending on the Barlow, or look at it the other way around adjust the focal length with different Barlows to match the FL to the pixel size of the camera.

I use both a 224 and 462 with my 12"SCT I have to vary the focal length with my Barlow spacing  depending on which cam im using. the 224 needs about 8000mm FL to get same pixel scale as the 462 at 7000mm FL.

Edited November 3, 2022 by Magnum

[geoflewis]

26 minutes ago, johnturley said:

That's interesting Lee that you get good results with the ASI 462 at f21-25, I usually use a 2.5 x Powermate which gives f17.5 when imaging planets through my Esprit 150 with my ASI 462, which gives reasonably good results.

However, some people suggested that I should be aiming for just 3x the pixel size of the ASI 462, which would be around f9, but with the focal length of the Esprit being just 1050 mm, f9 would result in too small an image size, and led me to believe that the ASI 462 was not the ideal camera to use with the Esprit 150, and that I would have got better results with the cheaper ASI 224, with its larger pixel size, tempting me to buy one of these.

John

It's an interesting topic John. I'm having to recalibrate my thinking with these very small pixel cameras. I know that Vlaiv has said that his analysis shows that we should optimise sampling which for the 462 sensor at 2.9mn pixels is in the ~F14/F15 range, but others here are suggesting that I should oversample a bit. At around F12, I'm currently undersampling, so it's a no brainer to increase my working FL. Time (and results) will tell of course.....

I was previously using my x2 TV PM with the mono ASI290MM camera which has the same 2.9 mn size pixels, so I'm going to up the ante again, both by retrying the x2 PM, but also with the x1.3 lens of the Baader barlow that I've just ordered and will collect this afternoon.

It's hard to argue with the maths that @vlaiv provided, but it's equally hard to ignore that reknowned imagers such as Damian Peach, Chris Go, Anthony Wesley, Neil MacNeill, etc., plus Lee @Magnum, Neil @neil phillips and others on SGL all slightly (or even more) oversample when planetary imaging, so my advise is to experiment and see what works for you.

Edited November 3, 2022 by geoflewis