Here's a pic of Saturn from Monday night:

http://www.adm.smugmug.com/gallery/974519#135988696

This was taken 13th March 2007 from Surrey, UK. Using a Meade LX200GPS 10",
2 x Barlow, Toucam ProII. It's the best 300 frames of 2000. Captured with
K3CCDTools and processed in Registax 4.

I seem to have plateaued with taking pictures of Saturn now...there's not
much comes out different no matter what I do (well - not true - I can get
worse output, but not any better). So my question to the group is how do I
get from here.....to something more like Pete Lawrence's Saturn pictures at
www.digitalsky.org.uk?

Given that I'm not going to get an upgrade to my aperture or mount any time
in the near future, that leaves the camera itself, the Barlow and the
processing.

Any thoughts on how I can improve my current output with the kit I already
have, or failing that gain additional detail with a modest outlay....(3x
Barlow ? Luminera camera ? any other ideas ?)

By the way, does anyone know when Jupiter will next be positioned for decent
imaging ?

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 11:11:39 -0000, "adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Here's a pic of Saturn from Monday night:

http://www.adm.smugmug.com/gallery/974519#135988696

This was taken 13th March 2007 from Surrey, UK. Using a Meade LX200GPS
10",
2 x Barlow, Toucam ProII. It's the best 300 frames of 2000. Captured with
K3CCDTools and processed in Registax 4.

I seem to have plateaued with taking pictures of Saturn now...there's not
much comes out different no matter what I do (well - not true - I can get
worse output, but not any better). So my question to the group is how do I
get from here.....to something more like Pete Lawrence's Saturn pictures
at
www.digitalsky.org.uk?

Given that I'm not going to get an upgrade to my aperture or mount any
time
in the near future, that leaves the camera itself, the Barlow and the
processing.

Your image is only a little inferior to Pete's. I think the main
difference is that he seems to be using a lot more images- his best
shot uses 4000, compared with your 300. That means he's getting more
than 3 times the S/N (and the main difference I see in your image is
that it's a little noisier).

Other things to consider: are you well collimated? Maybe I should say
_extremely_ well collimated? Just close isn't good enough for first rate
planetary images.

Are you taking advantage of seeing? Planetary imaging
requires the best, such as you can only expect rarely. A lot of bad
shots for every good one is pretty normal.

How about post processing?

IMO Registax isn't much good for processing. Whether I stack with K3CCD
or Registax (I prefer K3), I don't get my best results without
additional work in Photoshop. It looks like Pete does the same.

Any thoughts on how I can improve my current output with the kit I already
have, or failing that gain additional detail with a modest outlay....(3x
Barlow ? Luminera camera ? any other ideas ?)

I don't think you need to change anything. You're nicely oversampled,
and using a good camera. I wouldn't change the focal length or the
camera. Your scope is capable of first rate performance, assuming it's
well collimated. Make sure your optics are perfect, wait for good
seeing, try to collect more frames, and work on your processing
techniques.

By the way, does anyone know when Jupiter will next be positioned for
decent
imaging ?

It's quite good now. If you want to work earlier in the evening, give it
another two or three months.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

All I currently do in Photoshop is to adjust levels and do a quick unsharp
mask. I don't really know what else would make a difference. Can you offer
any tips? I'm certainly not a Photoshop expert, but I do have a copy and
this is definitely an area that can be worked on even on rainy evenings!

It's pretty low though, isn't it ? Lots of atmospheric gunk to shoot
through.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:27:30 -0000, "adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:

All I currently do in Photoshop is to adjust levels and do a quick unsharp
mask. I don't really know what else would make a difference. Can you offer
any tips? I'm certainly not a Photoshop expert, but I do have a copy and
this is definitely an area that can be worked on even on rainy evenings!

When I process planet images, I just use the stacking software to stack.
I have not had good luck with the sharpening routines in K3, and worse
luck with the wavelet filters in Registax. In Photoshop, I re-register
the RGB layers to compensate for atmospheric dispersion. Then I convert
to LAB and apply sharpening and curves, as necessary. Then I color
correct (when I collect the images, I set the white balance to
"sunlight"; auto white balance often fails).

It's pretty low though, isn't it ? Lots of atmospheric gunk to shoot
through.

It's tolerable here in Colorado, but I imagine it's a problem from
England. It's not going to get better any time soon. Jupiter will be at
opposition right around the northern summer solstice, which is when the
ecliptic is at its lowest for nighttime northern observers. Jupiter has
a 12 year orbit; it will be very high again in the winter of 2013. At
temperate latitudes, you want to observe planets in the winter, when the
ecliptic is high in the sky. The good news is that for the next 6 years,
Jupiter will be higher every year.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Here's a pic of Saturn from Monday night:

http://www.adm.smugmug.com/gallery/974519#135988696

This was taken 13th March 2007 from Surrey, UK. Using a Meade LX200GPS 10",
2 x Barlow, Toucam ProII. It's the best 300 frames of 2000. Captured with
K3CCDTools and processed in Registax 4.

I seem to have plateaued with taking pictures of Saturn now...there's not
much comes out different no matter what I do (well - not true - I can get
worse output, but not any better). So my question to the group is how do I
get from here.....to something more like Pete Lawrence's Saturn pictures atwww.digitalsky.org.uk?

Given that I'm not going to get an upgrade to my aperture or mount any time
in the near future, that leaves the camera itself, the Barlow and the
processing.

Any thoughts on how I can improve my current output with the kit I already
have, or failing that gain additional detail with a modest outlay....(3x
Barlow ? Luminera camera ? any other ideas ?)

By the way, does anyone know when Jupiter will next be positioned for decent
imaging ?

On 15 Mar, 11:11, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Here's a pic of Saturn from Monday night:

http://www.adm.smugmug.com/gallery/974519#135988696

This was taken 13th March 2007 from Surrey, UK. Using a Meade LX200GPS
10",
2 x Barlow, Toucam ProII. It's the best 300 frames of 2000. Captured with
K3CCDTools and processed in Registax 4.

I seem to have plateaued with taking pictures of Saturn now...there's not
much comes out different no matter what I do (well - not true - I can get
worse output, but not any better). So my question to the group is how do
I
get from here.....to something more like Pete Lawrence's Saturn pictures
atwww.digitalsky.org.uk?

Not that Pete's Saturns seem much to write home about but at least it
seems he got color registration nearly right, finally. Lots of
layering and other work in PS, if you ask me.

Given that I'm not going to get an upgrade to my aperture or mount any
time
in the near future, that leaves the camera itself, the Barlow and the
processing.

Any thoughts on how I can improve my current output with the kit I
already
have, or failing that gain additional detail with a modest outlay....(3x
Barlow ? Luminera camera ? any other ideas ?)

Collimation dead on and I mean really dead on. Repeat 2 or 3 times
during the night if your SCT mechanics shows mirror flop. Think about
in a paranoid way is the best way to get it right.

A good barlow (TV and that is it) is mandatory.

A lumenera camera is
the best investment together with a set of astronomik filters and some
sort of filter wheel or holder.

To get really good images you need to
stack up several thousand single frames and that will only happen in
good seeing.

By the way, does anyone know when Jupiter will next be positioned for
decent
imaging ?

In 3 years from now, I'm afraid. At least in the UK.

Andrea T.

atasse...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1173992783.422479.40430@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...





On 15 Mar, 11:11, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Here's a pic of Saturn from Monday night:

http://www.adm.smugmug.com/gallery/974519#135988696

This was taken 13th March 2007 from Surrey, UK. Using a Meade LX200GPS
10",
2 x Barlow, Toucam ProII. It's the best 300 frames of 2000. Captured with
K3CCDTools and processed in Registax 4.

I seem to have plateaued with taking pictures of Saturn now...there's not
much comes out different no matter what I do (well - not true - I can get
worse output, but not any better). So my question to the group is how do
I
get from here.....to something more like Pete Lawrence's Saturn pictures
atwww.digitalsky.org.uk?

Not that Pete's Saturns seem much to write home about but at least it
seems he got color registration nearly right, finally. Lots of
layering and other work in PS, if you ask me.

Well - I'm impressed anyway....

Given that I'm not going to get an upgrade to my aperture or mount any
time
in the near future, that leaves the camera itself, the Barlow and the
processing.

Any thoughts on how I can improve my current output with the kit I
already
have, or failing that gain additional detail with a modest outlay....(3x
Barlow ? Luminera camera ? any other ideas ?)

Collimation dead on and I mean really dead on. Repeat 2 or 3 times
during the night if your SCT mechanics shows mirror flop. Think about
in a paranoid way is the best way to get it right.

That seems to be the order of the day - and something I really haven't been
paying enough attention to....once every few months or so as long as nothing
gets knocked around. I'll start making it part of my general set up routine
after cool down. I installed "Bob's Knobs" some time ago, so I should
collimate much more regularly - it's not as if it's that difficult (well -
maybe it is to get it really smack on)

A good barlow (TV and that is it) is mandatory.

I have an Astrophysics "apo" barlow right now - are the TV ones that much
better ? If so, would a 2" one be a good bet? (It would increase the
versatility of my existing 2" EPs for sure.

A lumenera camera is
the best investment together with a set of astronomik filters and some
sort of filter wheel or holder.

The lumeras look really attractive - pricey, but attractive nonetheless. Is
the 2-0 the way to go, or do the higher resolution 2-1/2-2 models work well?

To get really good images you need to
stack up several thousand single frames and that will only happen in
good seeing.

I reran the same .avi and stacked 1500 of the 2000 frames instead of the
original 300. Still not a lot of Photoshop - although I did set the levels
separately for R, G and B this time rather than just the composite.

http://adm.smugmug.com/gallery/974519#136244089

Looks a bit sharper to me than the original athttp://www.adm.smugmug.com/gallery/974519#135988696, so stacking more frames
definitely seems to be the way to go. Shame the seeing wasn't better though.

Not that Pete's Saturns seem much to write home about but at least it
seems he got color registration nearly right, finally. Lots of
layering and other work in PS, if you ask me.

I installed "Bob's Knobs" some time ago, so I should
collimate much more regularly - it's not as if it's that difficult (well -
maybe it is to get it really smack on)

I have an Astrophysics "apo" barlow right now - are the TV ones that much
better ? If so, would a 2" one be a good bet? (It would increase the
versatility of my existing 2" EPs for sure.

I reran the same .avi and stacked 1500 of the 2000 frames instead of the
original 300. Still not a lot of Photoshop - although I did set the levels
separately for R, G and B this time rather than just the composite.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:30:51 -0000, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
I installed "Bob's Knobs" some time ago, so I should
collimate much more regularly - it's not as if it's that difficult (well -
maybe it is to get it really smack on)

IMO it is very difficult to get critical calibration with Bob's Knobs.
The adjustments are just too fine for such a small diameter. You need
the long lever arm of a hex key, even though these are somewhat awkward
to use. Some people have modified Bob's Knobs with radial through holes,
so they can put a long pin through.

I have an Astrophysics "apo" barlow right now - are the TV ones that much
better ? If so, would a 2" one be a good bet? (It would increase the
versatility of my existing 2" EPs for sure.

I'm sure it's fine. Within reason all barlows are about the same in
performance (that is, any marketed for serious observing). The Orion 2X
Shorty is easily as good as more expensive AP or TV models. A 2" barlow
will not buy you anything with your small sensor.

I reran the same .avi and stacked 1500 of the 2000 frames instead of the
original 300. Still not a lot of Photoshop - although I did set the levels
separately for R, G and B this time rather than just the composite.

A couple of things to keep in mind. First, you have to watch your total
exposure time. This is more of an issue with Jupiter, but both Jupiter
and Saturn rotate pretty fast. If you collect 2000 frames at 10 fps,
central features on Saturn will have moved 0.3" (probably ok), and on
Jupiter 6.6" (definitely not ok).

On 16 Mar, 22:02, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:30:51 -0000, "adm" <a...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
I installed "Bob's Knobs" some time ago, so I should
collimate much more regularly - it's not as if it's that difficult
(well -
maybe it is to get it really smack on)

IMO it is very difficult to get critical calibration with Bob's Knobs.
The adjustments are just too fine for such a small diameter. You need
the long lever arm of a hex key, even though these are somewhat awkward
to use. Some people have modified Bob's Knobs with radial through holes,
so they can put a long pin through.

I have an Astrophysics "apo" barlow right now - are the TV ones that
much
better ? If so, would a 2" one be a good bet? (It would increase the
versatility of my existing 2" EPs for sure.

I'm sure it's fine. Within reason all barlows are about the same in
performance (that is, any marketed for serious observing). The Orion 2X
Shorty is easily as good as more expensive AP or TV models. A 2" barlow
will not buy you anything with your small sensor.

For truly critical observing you really want the best there is,
possibly a telecentric barlow.

I reran the same .avi and stacked 1500 of the 2000 frames instead of the
original 300. Still not a lot of Photoshop - although I did set the
levels
separately for R, G and B this time rather than just the composite.

A couple of things to keep in mind. First, you have to watch your total
exposure time. This is more of an issue with Jupiter, but both Jupiter
and Saturn rotate pretty fast. If you collect 2000 frames at 10 fps,
central features on Saturn will have moved 0.3" (probably ok), and on
Jupiter 6.6" (definitely not ok).

The numbers are somewhat misleading. One should put restraints on the
total elapsed time rather than frames at fps. For a 10" and assuming
their maximum apparent diameter the following are the maximum time one
can record to achieve the theoretical resolution of the scope:

Jupiter (@ 48") = 58s (feature at 10deg latitude N/S), green
Saturn (@ 22") = 125s ((feature at 10deg latitude N/S), green

Depending on the seeing you can tipically exceed these values by a
factor of 2 or more. With really good seeing never more than for 50%.

You might wish to calibrate your monitor Your images are maybe a
little bright. Or my taste is a bit dim :)

Also get the optimized, non-raw macro and loader from here

http://www.astrosurf.com/astrobond/ebrawe.htm