Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

Jupiter 4th October - with my new setup SW250P DS

lukebl

By lukebl
in Imaging - Planetary

Recommended Posts

lukebl

lukebl

Posted
Posted

Hi,

Managed to try out my new setup for the first time last night. A Skywatcher 250P DS with an NEQ6 mount, plus a Morgans SPC880 webcam. Spent most of the evening aligning the new mount on the pier using EQAlign, which is a superb program if you can't view the pole, if a little time consuming.

Had to give up due to heavy dew misting up the secondary, but managed this quickie of Jupiter (3x Televue Barlow, about 1500 frames). I kept the colours fairly muted, as I think that looks more natural. Really impressed how the 250 can tease so much more detail out than my old 200P, and how DSOs really are noticeably brighter. As I noted in another thread, the surface area of a 250mm mirror is 50% greater than a 200, so that extra 2" makes a lot of difference. Looking forward to a more serious attempt at Jupiter in better conditions.

Also managed a look at Comet Hartley, which I thought was really diffuse and .... er.... boring!

jupiter_2010_10_04d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukebl

lukebl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Love the first image! 2nd one a bit too strong on the wavelets. How long was your avi 1500 frames sounds a lot..just thinking of rotational blur factor.

Thanks very much! I recall now that it was 1800 frames at 15 frames per second. i.e. 120 second avi. I'll try a shorter avi next time. Does anyone get good results with one of these webcams at a higher frame rate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Space Cowboy

Space Cowboy

Posted
Posted
Thanks very much! I recall now that it was 1800 frames at 15 frames per second. i.e. 120 second avi. I'll try a shorter avi next time. Does anyone get good results with one of these webcams at a higher frame rate?

120 second avi is ok at that focal length but you would be better using 10 fps...anything above and the data is compressed. If the seeing is very good I get good results @ 5fps..worth a try.:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukebl

lukebl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hi, The first image is superb. Great amount of detail, I just can't seem to get that with my SW250 so it's great to see a good image from someone with similar kit.

Thanks Astromerlin. I guess I'm just lucky. I've seen some of yours and they look promising, as though the detail is there but needs to be teased out. I wonder if it's in the processing or capture. I capture using QCFocus, and made sure it was focussed by focussing first on a bright star with a Bahtinov mask. My collimation is also spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lukebl

lukebl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
120 second avi is ok at that focal length but you would be better using 10 fps...anything above and the data is compressed. If the seeing is very good I get good results @ 5fps..worth a try.:o

Hi Stuart. Thanks for that advice. I think I'll give it a go at a lower fps.

I would have thought, though, that at 5 fps you won't get enough frames before the rotation becomes a problem. 1000 frames would take 200 seconds, which is too long and you would only get around 300 frames after a minute which isn't really enough. Or is it?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brianb

brianb

Posted
Posted

I agree with the above, the first one is very nice if subtle, the processing on the second is way OTT. I don't know what your seeing was like but the unsettled weather we're having round here doesn't help at all, tending to cause the continuous rapid boiling motion which I call "jet stream seeing".

At that scale I think you'd get away with 3 minutes, maybe even 4. The bigger the image scale, the higher the resolution so the less the tolerance, and the fewer frames you get because the exposure is longer too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
neil phillips

neil phillips

Posted
Posted

Good First outing,

Agree with Brian on this, dont under frame your footage, at lower focal lengths, glad to see Brian saying this, as so many on the forum seem almost parenoid to experiment with the fast rotation being highly mentioned. compare 3 and 4 min captures if the details seem slightly elongated then its too much and pull back. but i feel 3 mins at this size shouldnt cause much noticable horizontal blurring as Brian correctly advises, only at twice this focal length are we talking 150 secs or less

Link to comment
Share on other sites
astromerlin

astromerlin

Posted
Posted
Thanks Astromerlin. I guess I'm just lucky. I've seen some of yours and they look promising, as though the detail is there but needs to be teased out. I wonder if it's in the processing or capture. I capture using QCFocus, and made sure it was focussed by focussing first on a bright star with a Bahtinov mask. My collimation is also spot on.

I'll give that QCfocus a go, I normally use WXastrocapture. I agree with the seeing recently though, I havn't seen steady skys for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nebogipfel

nebogipfel

Posted
Posted

Hi Luke, Love the first image, subtle and beautiful.

Second image looks over processed, much like some of the HDR boosted images around at the moment (both astronomical and others)

That said, what do I know? I'm a know nothing numpty when it comes to astro-imaging :o:)

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.