Very nice. I would suggest you play with pushing the sharpening (particularly at the mid-range spacial scale) and/or the contrast at least a bit more. I copied it from the site and played with it a bit and think it can handle it. I find a small amount of graininess is acceptable without detracting from the image.
How many frames did you capture and how many did you use? Rick Daniels contacted me for some advice. He's just starting into planetary imaging. He had only used about 150 frames out of 15,000 so one of my suggestions was to use more frames to get a better signal to noise ratio. He was also shooting over the roof of his house which didn't help. I have found even though I only use 1 minute video clip (~1800 frames) have found that I usually get better results stacking 600-700 frames (~30%) than with only the 200-300 best (~15%).
I was out last night as well, good night, and took some video of Jupiter but haven't processed any of them yet.
Very nice. I would suggest you play with pushing the sharpening (particularly at the mid-range spacial scale) and/or the contrast at least a bit more. I copied it from the site and played with it a bit and think it can handle it. I find a small amount of graininess is acceptable without detracting from the image.
How many frames did you capture and how many did you use? Rick Daniels contacted me for some advice. He's just starting into planetary imaging. He had only used about 150 frames out of 15,000 so one of my suggestions was to use more frames to get a better signal to noise ratio. He was also shooting over the roof of his house which didn't help. I have found even though I only use 1 minute video clip (~1800 frames) have found that I usually get better results stacking 600-700 frames (~30%) than with only the 200-300 best (~15%).
I was out last night as well, good night, and took some video of Jupiter but haven't processed any of them yet.
Thanks, Paul. I'll sharpening a bit more later.
I initially captured about 5,200 frames, and I used the top 25%. For me, I found that I need near 1,000 frames to extract the best image.
Greg
Very nice. I would suggest you play with pushing the sharpening (particularly at the mid-range spacial scale) and/or the contrast at least a bit more. I copied it from the site and played with it a bit and think it can handle it. I find a small amount of graininess is acceptable without detracting from the image.
How many frames did you capture and how many did you use? Rick Daniels contacted me for some advice. He's just starting into planetary imaging. He had only used about 150 frames out of 15,000 so one of my suggestions was to use more frames to get a better signal to noise ratio. He was also shooting over the roof of his house which didn't help. I have found even though I only use 1 minute video clip (~1800 frames) have found that I usually get better results stacking 600-700 frames (~30%) than with only the 200-300 best (~15%).
I was out last night as well, good night, and took some video of Jupiter but haven't processed any of them yet.
Did a little bit of sharpening in RegiStax6 using mainly the mid-range sliders. I can see a little more detail. I also ran Topaz DeNoise on my original image. Not sure which is better, to be honest... I guess I can see more detail in the Registax-sharpened image (_Sharpened.jpg), though.
Very nice. I would suggest you play with pushing the sharpening (particularly at the mid-range spacial scale) and/or the contrast at least a bit more. I copied it from the site and played with it a bit and think it can handle it. I find a small amount of graininess is acceptable without detracting from the image.
How many frames did you capture and how many did you use? Rick Daniels contacted me for some advice. He's just starting into planetary imaging. He had only used about 150 frames out of 15,000 so one of my suggestions was to use more frames to get a better signal to noise ratio. He was also shooting over the roof of his house which didn't help. I have found even though I only use 1 minute video clip (~1800 frames) have found that I usually get better results stacking 600-700 frames (~30%) than with only the 200-300 best (~15%).
I was out last night as well, good night, and took some video of Jupiter but haven't processed any of them yet.
Did a little bit of sharpening in RegiStax6 using mainly the mid-range sliders. I can see a little more detail. I also ran Topaz DeNoise on my original image. Not sure which is better, to be honest... I guess I can see more detail in the Registax-sharpened image (_Sharpened.jpg), though.
Great images Greg!! I see that as soon as I headed to Michigan the skies cleared up 🙂
Terri
Great images Greg!! I see that as soon as I headed to Michigan the skies cleared up 🙂
Terri
Yes, just as you predicted, Terri! 🙂 Your brother's image is really great! The light-gathering capability of the 14" certainly makes for a terrific image. I share his 'pain' of manually positioning and letting the planets drift through the FOV. Ugh.
Greg
Great images Greg!! I see that as soon as I headed to Michigan the skies cleared up 🙂
Terri
Yes, just as you predicted, Terri! 🙂 Your brother's image is really great! The light-gathering capability of the 14" certainly makes for a terrific image. I share his 'pain' of manually positioning and letting the planets drift through the FOV. Ugh.
Greg
The weather and seeing has been fantastic here as well until today. I considered bringing a scope on the plane but I'd only be able to take my 92 mm and manual mount. So no real AP but just being able to do some viewing might have been nice as my Dad heads to bed around 9pm so i'd have been able to.
Terri
