This is the image I took of Mars on 1.2.08.
A featureless rusty coloured disk.
(http://gallery.orpington-astronomy.org.uk/albums/userpics/10047/Mars_1%)
Hope I have managed to post it OK this time.
Carole
http://gallery.orpington-astronomy.org.uk/albums/userpics/10047/Mars_1%
(http://gallery.orpington-astronomy.org.uk/albums/userpics/10047/Mars_1%2C2%2C08_JPG.jpg) (you didn't copy the whole address)
Mars is very small at the moment so it's unlikely you'd get much more than that from your ETX. To me it clearly looks like a planet, and Mars is (in my opinion anyway) the hardest of the three, Saturn and Jupiter are easier by far, primarily because of the redness of it. It's easy to over expose the red (which is what I think you've done) but not have a long enough exposure to get anything sensible in the green and blue. I'd use shorter exposures next time, see what you get.
Don't expect too much :)
Not too shabby though Carole. As Ian says it is clearly an image of Mar's. Not bad at all. Keep it up !
Carole - I think it's fine - colour looks very good (which is difficult with Mars) & focus looks sharp - you did well to get this - Are you using a barlow...?
John
I haven't managed to use the Barlow at all yet as I am finding it difficult enough to get an image on the microchip at all. As soon as I put on the Barlow the target is twice as difficult to find and so far have not managed to find it using the Barlow. Wish I could, as I'd get more dpi and a better image.
My aim at the moment is to get a basic image of each possible planet and the moon and then try to improve on them and using the Barlow is certainly high on the agenda once I have ironed out some of the problems I have been having which I am hoping to do at DSC.
I have also been learning a new alignment procedure in polar mode which I had to do with Mars as it was too high to use the rear port in the ETX. I had never used this before
a) Because I had had no need to use it before
b) There were no instructions on how to do this with my ETX only a mere mention.
Luckily Mick had the instructions with his ETX and let me have a copy.
I have also been persevering with learning how to use Registax after the recent problems with K3, and I have just about managed to work that out too.
So all in all, lots of new things to conquer.
Thanks every-one for your encouragement.
Carole
Carole - how many frames did you stack?
As for the barlow -the best technique is to first centre the planet in the webcam WITHOUT the barlow and only then put the barlow in place (you may need to refocus a bit afterwards). It will certainly help you in bringing out the planetary detail.
I always try to do that but it never seems to be succesful. Works when I am just observing and put in a stronger eyepiece. I guess it's just practice.
I can't remember how many frames I stacked as once again K3 is playing up, and I can only view my video as a movie!!!! So can't go back into the AVI and see how many frames were there, I could then take a guess at how many I stacked.
I would hazard a guess at around 500.
I processed Mars in K3 WHEN IT WAS WORKING PROPERLY, but I am giving up on K3 for processing now I've worked out how to use Registax.
Carole
In case you're confused I sent this from Doug's Laptop with his login.
Therefore it looks like Doug has done the last two postings.
Carole
I thought I might as well put a word in here.... Carole and I have been hovering over a hot laptop for the past three hours and Rose has been in attendance. It has been a learning curve for me about computers, and I have been downloading Registax in preparation for imaging. :D
I'm back home now.
Continuing the conversation about using the Barlow, I am using the right angled eyepiece for viewing and the rearport for the Webcam and it doesn't take a second to flip the mirror over, therefore the object should still be dead centre on the Webcam.
I am very suspicious that the rear port is not looking at exactly the same thing as the eyepiece which is probably one of the reasons why I am having problems. I did check this when doing it in the daylight on a land object, but I guess 200 yards away is not really a good check for objects millions of miles away.
I am sure I will suss it all out eventually but there is only so much time when you are working all week......
Sorry I keep forgetting to write down the info about how many frames are stacked and what settings are used.
Carole
*sigh*
Internet Explorer seems to lack a usable implementation of the "get full URL for image" function. In its "Properties" pop-up it chops the URL off at a random point in a most un-helpful fashion. Only suggestion I can make is "Try a different browser".
Anyone else know how to get IE to reveal the full and complete URL for an image?
If this works I'll tell you how ;)
(http://gallery.orpington-astronomy.org.uk/albums/userpics/10047/Mars_1%2C2%2C08_JPG.jpg)
OK, none more surprised than me -
Right click on main image in the Gallery, select Properties.
Left click over URL and drag cursor down to make sure you highlight all of it (The complete URL is there, it just scrolls over more lines than is visible), Right click on highlighted area and select copy (nearly there).
In the Forum message, click "Insert Image" button, Right click between the 2 "[img]" messages and select Paste.
Takes longer to explain it than to do it :)
Thanks Mick!
Sorry Carole, forgot to mention, my instructions last night were for Firefox browser.
It's free. I recommend it over IE.
RIGHT, I've fiddled around with trying to get the complete URL file name and I think I've come up with the solution BEFORE I read Mick and Rick's postings. I found out by chance today that when you scroll down the address in properties that you have to scroll down a little further than what is visible to get the complete address.
So hopefully I can post my slightly improved Mars image which Tony Sizer improved upon at the AGM.
So hopefully this time ATTACHED!!!!
(http://gallery.orpington-astronomy.org.uk/albums/userpics/10047/normal_Mars_TS.jpg)
Phew!!!
At last.
I was actually doing the right thing, but just did not notice that the file name was incomplete and did not know how to get the rest of it, but I do now!!!
No images taken at deep sky as there was too much cloud.
Carole