My first image of Jupiter

[Carole]

Thought I'd have a go at processing the image I did last as welll with the barlow which looked pretty awful to me, but I have made a reasonable improvement in photoshop.  Just wondered what you guys think as I often think something is rubbish and get surprising feedback.

This is a before and after processing with photoshop image.

Carole

[Carole]

Think I'm suffering from that late night last night

last as welll

This should have said "last night as well"

[Ian]

I think with a little more processing you'll have a fantastic image there Carole, it's surprising how much information there is under the dross of a raw. You might have a couple of frames that didn't align properly but I'd use that as evidence that you can image very successfully with an ETX and a webcam.

[mickw]

I agree with Ian, it looks like one or more frames are not being aligned properly.
You could try halving the frames, stacking each half seperately to try and identify then omit the offending frames.

I am of course clueless with astrophotography 

[Carole]

You might have a couple of frames that didn't align properly

Yes, I thought there was something not quite right on the left side. 
However the tracking was quite good,  but I have to confess I am still using Alt -Az alignment as I have not quite got to grips with polar mode alignment and it's just easier to use the method I can use easily. 

I noticed last night,  especially when I was tracking without the barlow, that Jupiter was very steady in the same place, but every so often it would jump (a bit like a cardiac monitor) and come back to the same place, so I guess that's a quirk of the alt/az tracking.  If I am right, then maybe this is what has happened here and it has shown up more because of the higher magnification. 

Does any-one understand what I am rattling on about, as I can't phrase it in the technical terms all you guys use?

Carole

[Carole]

You could try halving the frames, stacking each half seperately to try and identify then omit the offending frames

Not quite sure how to do that, but hopefully some-one will be able to show me.

In K3 you can select which frames you want to use, so you effectively can loose all the rubbish ones, but then K3 processing had it's own drawbacks and I got fed up with it and stopped using it.  I have been using Registax more recently as it does all the hard work for you.  I am sure there is a way/

Carole

[Ian]

that jumping is just a feature of the telescope drive. It occurs in all, but it's severity is one measure of quality of the drive system. If it happens regularly it's called periodic error. You'll have noticed that Chris S (spacedog) seems to prattle on about it quite regularly. That's mostly because he keeps buying new kit  

Registax should take care of aligning the frames wherever they are in the frame, but might have had a hiccup or two if they're a long way away from the others.

edit for spelling

[mickw]

In K3 can't you click on a frame to deselect it (choose not to use it) ?
Apart from finding the problem by elimination - 1/2 and 1/2, you could look through all frames and deselect really out of whack ones.

The ghost image also seems to have some rotation so I'm guessing it will either be at the start or end of the total capture.

I don't beleive alt/az will affect what you are doing.

As I said, I know bugger all, but what I said seems logical

[Mike]

Alt/Az won't affect your ability to image planets. However, it will greatly affect your tracking and make it near on impossible to track properly. I would suggest use the Equatorial Mode. It's easy once you know how.

[Carole]

Hi Mike,

I am going to persevere with the equatorial mode, but didn't want to have too many problems to contend with all at the same time.  As I said in actual fact the tracking was pretty steady on this occasion using Alt/Az, but I agree that is not always the case. 

Now I am starting to iron out some of the frustrations with imaging I'll have another crack at it, but probably not on Friday as I think it's going to take me some practice to get the hang of it and don't want to mess up any imaging opportunities.

The last time I tried to use equatorial mode was actually in your garden at an imaging session a few months ago, and after wasting about an hour I gave up and went back to alt/az.  I have in fact only successfully managed to use it once so far.

But I do hear what you say.

Carole

[Carole]

Hi Mick,

In K3 can't you click on a frame to deselect it (choose not to use it) ?

Yes you can, see my post above

In K3 you can select which frames you want to use, so you effectively can loose all the rubbish ones,

But I don't use k3 for processing any more (only imaging) as I had a lot of problems with the alignment box so I gave up and started using Registax which I don't have any problems with at all.  But there is still a lot I need to learn on Registax, such as what you are suggesting.  I am sure it can be done but need to find out how.  Registax does tend to drop the bad frames for you in any case.

Thanks
Carole

[Carole]

I think with a little more processing you'll have a fantastic image there Carole

Any volunteers to help me with this as I think I have exhausted all the processing know how I have to improve the image.

Carole

[Carole]

No voluteers then?

Ian can you suggest any further processing, I did all the things in image adjust in photoshop.  Would Iris have something further, not that I've ever used it?

Just to complete the set in this thread, a picture of Jupiter, io, Europa and Ganymede (also posted on this month's imaging challenges).


Carole

[MarkS]

It looks good Carole.

I'm unable to suggest anything.  I also managed to capture Jupiter and 4 moons last night but however I process the image I either get:
1) A white disc and 4 moons
2) Detail on Jupiter but no moons visible

I've tried dynamic range scaling of various types and I've also tried Photoshop curves but all to no avail.  There's simply too much dynamic range in the image.

[Ian]

The theory is, because the moons are illuminated at the same distance as Jupiter by the same light source, they should be visible in the image. But, telescope resolution and focussing starts to come into play together with seeing and transparency. I would say Mark has a better chance of doing it with his 11", but whether or not it's even possible with an ETX, I don't know.

What I do know is it's possible with an 8" reflector, I did it quite a few years ago. Jupiter was higher in the sky then, which also would have helped...