Jupiter 18 June

[darditti]

Good conditions on this morning (in strong twilight) showed the action in the NTrZ well. The dark spot and the projection were obvious visually.

The imaging adopts a technique I used successfully last year when the planet was very low, of a relatively short focal length on the C-14 (1.6x Barlow only), 17fps rate, and IR 742nm and blue filters used only to construct a similar-to-true colour image.

More to come from a rather good period of weather which has produced a backlog of processing.

David

[moocher]

Thats a super result David, well worth the "early morning/ late night". I`ve found the "Green" channel in my images particularly strong for some reason. Nice to see it attain a decent height again....looking forward to more images from you!!!!

Alan:)

[Taff]

They are very nice captures' with you.With the bands and the G.R.S on show nice one.Mark

[Dangerous-Dave]

That's an image and a half - very nice David.

BTW am just reading your book atm, an enjoyable read.

[moocher]

David just out of interest what do you think of the IR742 filter? Worth buying? Does it REALLY make that much difference? I`d appreciate your opinion....

Alan:)

[darditti]

Thanks Dave.

Yes Alan, I recommend the Astronomik 742nm filter for Jupiter, also the Moon. It gives the most detailed result with Jupiter this low down, in my experience, but you do need a reasonable aperture to use it, probably at least 10", as the image it gives is quite faint.

David

[moocher]

I`m using a 10" Meade LX200 OTA with a DMK for planetary David. Wouldn`t the 807 filter be better for larger SCTs? As i understand it the 742 is for smaller scopes 5" and under....

Alan:)

[darditti]

This is a case where the manufacturer doesn't seem to know what they are talking about. I've tried the 807 filter as well and the image it gives is really very faint. CCDs are much less efficient at that wavelength. Even with a 14" the only real uses I have found for it are Venus and the Moon. Jupiter is not bright enough for the 807nm, you have to make the exposures so long, 1/7 s or so, it becomes self-defeating. The 742 is better because you can use about 1/15s, which is a sensible exposure. I haven't heard of anyone getting good results with the 804 except on Venus. Maybe with a 20" it would be good.

David

[Beyond_Vision]

Very nicely captured and presented Dave

Regards

Kevin