it's been a while, but using my Raw modified Toucam I took this of Saturn last Friday...
(http://www.itinerant-services.ltd.uk/saturn-2007-1.png)
Details: about 700 frames of 1000, stacked in K3 and worked over in PS (levels sharpening and the like).
It's a bit soft, but then I did collimate the scope after taking the AVI :roll:
Taking John's advice, (I'd put the blue fringe down to dispersion, but with a little Photoshop adjustment, and a hint more sharpening)
(http://www.itinerant-services.ltd.uk/saturn-2007-1a.png)
Wow...! nice to see an image from you & a very good one as well... looks like RGB are slightly mis-aligned - Registax can sort that out for you & also if you adjust wavelets 6 & 5 slightly it really sharpens it up..
Great image & lets have some more...
John
That is really nice Ian.
I would like to get one as nice.
Fay
Hi Ian, Looks a lot better - no colour fringes now & sharper as well - That really is very good - Have you been practising over the last few years & not telling us.....?
Cheers, John
Ian,
nice image and as John said try registax to process the avi and you may see some change.
Tony G
I get mixed results from Registax Tony. Sometimes it'll do a really good job, I like the image selection tool (the quality/power graph) but often I get the feeling the end result after playing with the wavelets looks "Registaxed". When I processed this image, I used K3 to do the stacking and then Photoshop to sharpen and histogram stretch (the subs are very dark due to Saturn being quite dim and I use a 5x powermate).
I'm not confident in one workflow to use it exclusively, so I play about with a few different ones, using different selection criteria and tools just to see what looks best. The trick is to try and remember what works and what doesn't for next time.
Hi Ian,
That Saturn is similar to the results I've been geting this year with the VC200L which have been a whole lot worse than last years efforts, maybe its something to do with how small it is at the moment.
Having said that its very good, if I can evey be bothered I'll get that newt of mine out and try it again.
Chris
it is certain a very dim target at the moment :( I had the gain at 100% when I took that and it still barely used the top half of the histogram. The seeing wasn't good either really, the criteria I used to select subs was whether or not the cassini division was visible or not. That got rid of half of them...
I wonder if getting new coatings put on my mirrors would help. Or another couple of inches of aperture.
Roll on Jupiter, that's certainly nice and bright :)
Yes but very low this year... I think it's max is only around 17 deg from horizon.... :-(
bugger. I hadn't checked that.
So my idea of avoiding buying a new camera to really crack planetary is going to be scuppered...
I really hope I can get my SC3 working properly, I'm not sure I can take the stress of trying to justify an Atik. As nice as they are... especially the 16HR.
Yes - I can't justify £1200 on the 16HR but £350 on the 16ic isn't too bad & I think it'll take me to the next level - cooled & 16 bits, no amp glow....
John
Ian,
I'm ordering one of these this weekend: -
http://www.astronomycameras.com/en/products/firewire-cameras/mono/dmk21af04as/
have a look at the 0 compression and FPS rate, should make a good Planetary imager.
Chris
it's interesting, but not much more than toucam. it's got the same sort of CCD (although a mono one) and an 8-bit adc. it's big advantage as I understand it is the lack of any compression at all. I'd be interested in your results from it.