Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Jupiter widefield & 1st light with kit !

beamish

By beamish
in Imaging - Planetary

Recommended Posts

beamish

beamish

Posted
Posted

Off the cuff session last night, started and needed to finish too early BUT at least put all the recent new kit together for the first time !! Looks promising !!

Jupiter & 4x Galilean Moons at F/15, Lumenera "KYnyx"( :)) and wrattan #25 red filter. No RGB last night this was a shakedown session really.

Capture start time = Friday, 06 August 2010 01:27:34 / UTC +1 Hours

Capture duration = 80.56 Sec

Captured frames = 3086

Dropped frames = 1094

Capture frame speed = 38 Fps

Camera = Lumenera Lu070M

pixel size = 7.40 x 7.40 µm²

Image format = MONO - 12 Bit

Capture format = Ser / Format16bppGrayScale

Image type = Light frame

RoI size = 640x480

Frame rate = 60.0 Fps

Exposure = 12.1 ms

Gain = 5.78

Gamma = 1.00

Contrast = 1.00

Brightness = 0.0

post-13438-133877467097_thumb.jpg

post-13438-133877467101_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beamish

beamish

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Probably because the lappy finds it hard to keep up (1.6GHz) whilst busy with other stuff, better when capturing thru RAM tho but that gets eaten up in no time !

My HDD is only 80GB total :) and I try to keep the "D" partition purely for image capture, however had a look this am and found 30GB used last night !!!!

You can guess what's coming next :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beamish

beamish

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No, no barlow on this one, just straight thru @ F/15 prime focus.

One can click on the image :D

Just sorry that it wasn't until the last two runs that I remembered about the Wratten 25, Had I actually PLANNED to be outside I may even have got the RGB and IR pass 742nm filters out DOH !!:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clayton

Clayton

Posted
Posted
Probably because the lappy finds it hard to keep up (1.6GHz) whilst busy with other stuff, better when capturing thru RAM tho but that gets eaten up in no time !

My HDD is only 80GB total :) and I try to keep the "D" partition purely for image capture, however had a look this am and found 30GB used last night !!!!

You can guess what's coming next :)

A new, faster lappy :):D:D

Probably worth trying dropping the frame rate to 30fps and 2min (for mono shots)

The Lumenera looks like an interesting camera. I look forward to seeing the results :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
neil phillips

neil phillips

Posted
Posted

Couldnt agree more Clayton rotation blur seems to take on almost mythical parenoia, 120 seconds for 10 meter shots clayton, i reckon 150 seconds is safe at the scales Karlo is presently working at. F30 or around 5500 mm focal length ( roughly Karlos FL x2 ) will benefit from more frames, upto 150 secs ( you go higher dont you Clayton )

its not just noise that is a benefit as was mentioned to me. But capturing more frames = more chance of getting the good frames, Defianately more important the higher the scale were on.

im around 6400 mm Focal length ( with the 3" tube added ) 150 secs seems fine with that, though i can see a trace of rotation blur, it could be argued that image looks better than the noiser less sharp frame capture, at that focal length with less capture time ? so whats the worse of the two evils at higher scale ?

noise with a single shot colour camera and medium high scales make me think like this, i realize mono has more headroom. but why rob yourself of frames if rotation blur is not kicking in at the focal length we are at.

I think Scale needs to be considered with capture time, ( often it is not ) its the second time ive seen low scale and very low capture time this month. each to there own i guess. but my results dont lie, i allowed some on my footage to run into 2min 50, reasoning is i can chop off either the beggining or the end, which ever is worse.CANT DO THAT ON SMALL TIME CAPTURES now i can experiment with different capture times on the better footage, hey it might be worthwhile showing comparisons on this, say 90 secs 120 secs 150 secs would be enlightening

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clayton

Clayton

Posted
Posted

Neil I routinely capture 240sec (although I have tried cutting back to 180-200 recently) and have also been playing around with cutting off the excess from the worse end :) with some longer captures around 300sec, although judging which is the worst end is a bit subjective.

My fl is around 3.24m (f16) and I haven't noticed any adverse effects re. rotational blur, which would agree with your findings of minimal blurring from 150sec at around twice the fl.

I agree that your scale/capture time advice is the way to go.

Personally I like to up the scale as much as the seeing will allow whilst allowing enough light for a shutter speed that will beat/minimize the seeing for about at least 10% of the time (eg at least 200 good frames from 2000) and if I can't get that at f12 then I don't bother with more than 3-4 avi's (just for the record) For me this usually equates to 1/25thsec-1/50thsec (no slower shutter speed and gain noise limits me in the other direction) I would love to scale up more than I am, but the seeing hasn't allowed it yet.

Sorry Karlo for being a bit off topic. I didn't intend to suggest that your widefield shots were inferior to great big Jupiter shots :D. In fact they provide an equally interesting but different perspective. :):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
beamish

beamish

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Couldnt agree more Clayton rotation blur seems to take on almost mythical parenoia, 120 seconds for 10 meter shots clayton, i reckon 150 seconds is safe at the scales Karlo is presently working at. F30 or around 5500 mm focal length ( roughly Karlos FL x2 ) will benefit from more frames, upto 150 secs ( you go higher dont you Clayton )

its not just noise that is a benefit as was mentioned to me. But capturing more frames = more chance of getting the good frames, Defianately more important the higher the scale were on.

im around 6400 mm Focal length ( with the 3" tube added ) 150 secs seems fine with that, though i can see a trace of rotation blur, it could be argued that image looks better than the noiser less sharp frame capture, at that focal length with less capture time ? so whats the worse of the two evils at higher scale ?

noise with a single shot colour camera and medium high scales make me think like this, i realize mono has more headroom. but why rob yourself of frames if rotation blur is not kicking in at the focal length we are at.

I think Scale needs to be considered with capture time, ( often it is not ) its the second time ive seen low scale and very low capture time this month. each to there own i guess. but my results dont lie, i allowed some on my footage to run into 2min 50, reasoning is i can chop off either the beggining or the end, which ever is worse.CANT DO THAT ON SMALL TIME CAPTURES now i can experiment with different capture times on the better footage, hey it might be worthwhile showing comparisons on this, say 90 secs 120 secs 150 secs would be enlightening

Cheers Neil, this has been very helpful. Just to clarify that the capture was unplanned :), I would like to ask re capture times of 150sec, are you referring to OSC or RGB captures and if RGB would this be each or total ? I'm guessing at scales of F30-F40 the capture times are total ?

Karlo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.