Jupiter by a nightscaper

[CapturingTheNight (Greg)]

Hi all,

Really hesitant to post this here but I would love some feedback from the community. Been dabbling in a little bit of planetary imaging lately and this is my second proper try at Jupiter.


15/04/2017
Celestron 9.25 CPC, 4xPowermate, ZWO ASI 120MC, Best 25% from 3000 frames using Registax and PS CC for final output.

Struggling with the whole dark art of registax and wavelets processing. I think I spent about half a day playing around with every single setting I could find and this was the best I could get.

I wonder if I am trying to screw too much out of my equipment at the moment? Is 9400mm focal length too much for the entry level ZWO? Would I be best using say a 2xBarlow and sacrificing image size for better detail? Any and all comments/feedback greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards

Greg

[Stefan Buda]

You should aim for f/22 at your pixel size.
That means a 2x Barlow set to give a bit extra magnification would allow you to run your frames at around 15ms.

[doppler (Rick)]

Really good result for that focal length with the 120 mc.
I have tried a couple of times with the same camera and 5x barlow on my 180mm mak cass at 14000mm with without any success, the frame rate is just to slow. I agree with the 2x barlow being the max. I find that keeping the wavelet adjustment to a minimum works best, if the data is good you shouldn't need too much processing to start of with.

[CapturingTheNight (Greg)]

Originally Posted by Stefan Buda

You should aim for f/22 at your pixel size.
That means a 2x Barlow set to give a bit extra magnification would allow you to run your frames at around 15ms.

Thank you very much for the advice Stefan. I suspected that might have been the case. Will certainly try that the next opportunity.

Originally Posted by doppler

Really good result for that focal length with the 120 mc.
I have tried a couple of times with the same camera and 5x barlow on my 180mm mak cass at 14000mm with without any success, the frame rate is just to slow. I agree with the 2x barlow being the max. I find that keeping the wavelet adjustment to a minimum works best, if the data is good you shouldn't need too much processing to start of with.

Thank you very much for the nice feedback and advice Rick. Really appreciate it.