Pretty disappointing result in good conditions, rom 03.06.2023

[Pete Presland]

Despite the fine conditions, this is a pretty disappointing result from 03.06.2023 😞 

Been messing around with this data for a week, but unable to do any better than this in terms of cloud detail. Normally would be satisfied but, the conditions looked excellent across the UK. Proved by the superb images on here captured at the same time. 

The usual set up C9.25, Baader UV filter, X1.8 Barlow. Stacked in A/S3, Sharpened in Reg6 and C/S2.

[Kon]

Despite what you feel about it, it is still an excellent image with nice cloud details. I like the processing, very natural. My attempts from the 3rd were a bit soft too.

[Space Cowboy]

Just a matter of contrast adjustment.

 

[Pete Presland]

Thanks Stuart, certainly improved the detail. I cant help thinking the SCT is maybe not the best scope for UV imaging, i am sure the corrector plate blocks some of the UV signal, compared to Newtonian telescopes. 

[neil phillips]

Still some detail on show Pete. Nice capture

[Space Cowboy]

2 hours ago, Pete Presland said:

Thanks Stuart, certainly improved the detail. I cant help thinking the SCT is maybe not the best scope for UV imaging, i am sure the corrector plate blocks some of the UV signal, compared to Newtonian telescopes. 

Possibly the SCT is not helping but I think there is more in that image. I'd be interested to have a play with a stacked TIFF file straight out of AS3 if you like. 🙂  Quite often I've been initially disappointed with my UV shots.

[Pete Presland]

9 hours ago, Space Cowboy said:

Possibly the SCT is not helping but I think there is more in that image. I'd be interested to have a play with a stacked TIFF file straight out of AS3 if you like. 🙂  Quite often I've been initially disappointed with my UV shots.

I would be more than happy to share it with you Stuart. I have included another which i thought was decent data as well.

I will be very interested in what you can achieve, i could see a distinct dark feature nearer the limb on my effort which is also visible on a few images posted on here from the same evening. 

Ven_19_26_19_UV_03_06_2023_ZWO ASI290MM_lapl6_ap1.tifVen_20_04_37_UV_03_06_2023_ZWO ASI290MM_lapl6_ap1.tif

[Space Cowboy]

2 hours ago, Pete Presland said:

I would be more than happy to share it with you Stuart. I have included another which i thought was decent data as well.

I will be very interested in what you can achieve, i could see a distinct dark feature nearer the limb on my effort which is also visible on a few images posted on here from the same evening. 

Ven_19_26_19_UV_03_06_2023_ZWO ASI290MM_lapl6_ap1.tif 2.42 MB · 0 downloads Ven_20_04_37_UV_03_06_2023_ZWO ASI290MM_lapl6_ap1.tif 2.42 MB · 0 downloads

I can't do any better Pete. Your image scale is very large at least 30% larger than what I've been shooting at and your scope is smaller than mine so your signal is very weak.  I think thats the main issue.

 

 

[Pete Presland]

7 hours ago, Space Cowboy said:

I can't do any better Pete. Your image scale is very large at least 30% larger than what I've been shooting at and your scope is smaller than mine so your signal is very weak.  I think thats the main issue.

 

 

I am over sampled when using my Asi290mm & x1.8 Barlow, but with the filter wheel as well maybe it is just too way too much. 

I will check on WinJupos to see what the FL is that i am imaing at.

Thanks for trying with the data 🙂

 

[Space Cowboy]

6 hours ago, Pete Presland said:

I am over sampled when using my Asi290mm & x1.8 Barlow, but with the filter wheel as well maybe it is just too way too much. 

I will check on WinJupos to see what the FL is that i am imaing at.

Thanks for trying with the data 🙂

 

My first light with the qhy462 mono was at approx f20 and that was smaller than your image. I then swapped to around f14 and the difference was striking.

Bear in mind the 462 sensor is much more sensitive to UV than the 290 so if f20 is too much for the 462 it's going to make the 290 really struggle.

 

[Pete Presland]

4 hours ago, Space Cowboy said:

My first light with the qhy462 mono was at approx f20 and that was smaller than your image. I then swapped to around f14 and the difference was striking.

Bear in mind the 462 sensor is much more sensitive to UV than the 290 so if f20 is too much for the 462 it's going to make the 290 really struggle.

 

Thanks for linking me to this thread @Space Cowboy I was trying to remember where i had seen the images. The difference is considerable between the two focal lengths.

With my X1.8 Barlow i should at F18, but with the filter wheel i suspect it is over F20.

I think i a 462 camera is going to be placed on the "wish list" as well.

[Space Cowboy]

3 hours ago, Pete Presland said:

Thanks for linking me to this thread @Space Cowboy I was trying to remember where i had seen the images. The difference is considerable between the two focal lengths.

With my X1.8 Barlow i should at F18, but with the filter wheel i suspect it is over F20.

I think i a 462 camera is going to be placed on the "wish list" as well.

I would certainly recommend the 462 mono 🙂 Even at the oversampled size the gain was below 50%.

[Sunshine]

Nothing to be disappointed about here, I would be well stoked if it were mine.