Eyepiece-like image of Jupiter?

[iceman]

Hi all.

A discussion in the solar system forum got me thinking about our image processing, and it's clear that some people prefer a more natural "eyepiece-like" view, whereas others like to enhance their images (contrast/sharpness) etc to highlight the detail.

Not saying either is better, each to their own. It's completely personal preference.

But just wanted to see what sort of image you think is "eyepiece-like" quality, under very good seeing. If you haven't actually *seen* Jupiter under very good seeing, it might be harder to judge, but your opinion is most welcome.

Do you think the first attached image is representative of what you'd see under very good seeing? The second attached image is how I originally processed the image (contrast enhanced and sharpened).

What sort of image processing do you prefer?

For the imagers, the first image was processed by stacking in registax and then doing ME deconvolution (25/1.8) only. No other processing.

Appreciate your thoughts and comments. Remember this is just guaging opinion, there's no right or wrong answer! :)

[OneOfOne]

I like the idea of "eyepiece" images of objects (as well as enhanced etc.). The biggest problem I find with image quality is that people expect to see something through the eyepiece that is similar to the stuff they see in books etc. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

I think your first image is pretty close to my view of Jupiter on Anzac night (before this cloud set in). It was the best seeing I have ever had (so far). Of course, there was very little colour as such, just a grey scale. At the time, I could just make out the red spot at fleeting moments of better seeing.

I think both images are great!

[davidpretorius]

i am in both camps, when i process, i will get the "eyeball view" out of regisatax and i will sit back and appreciate the view. then into photoshop for the reduction of gamma, curves etc etc.

I also like the contrasty, text book view.

I am a fence sitter!

[Lester]

Very nice comparison there Mike,

It is good for people to appreciate the difference and not get a false impression of what can be seen visually.

But the processed image is bringing out detail that is there but not picked up by our human eye. Although the colour as you know can alter according to what process is used.

I think each individual like an artist adds their taste or flavouring to the image and some will like and others dislike.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I like both your images because they show two different aspecs 1=visual 2=processed.

Well done.:thumbsup:

[ving]

dave p. has donethis sorta thing already mike...

anyhow, if i want an EP view i'll look thru an EP, othwise i'll take the fully processed job :)

[RB]

I like both.
Obviously the high detail image is great but the EP view is very close to what I see at the scope and hence I like it as well.

Talk about fence sitting.......:P

[ving]

careful of that barbed wire andrew, its sharp :eek:

:P

[Starkler]

We should all know what the eyepiece view looks like, but also be aware that detail and contrast is lost due to scatter, diffraction etc. On the other hand, we have all seen overprocessed efforts that just dont look natural.

I guess a fair reference should be pictures taken from space by the hubble, and the various probes that have imaged Jupiter previously.

As for the two images above, I would say something halfway between the two, or leaning slightly more towards the more heavily processed one.

[h0ughy]

fence sitting here to, however I find that the larger the scope will do a far better job defining bands and swirls. I have on occasions seen considerable detail through My LX200 12". Mike was this the eyepiece in question that you were referring to? (Thanks and patent pending BallaratDragons)

[jjjnettie]

Ving, I think this thread is to remind the imagers what it's like to have to actually look through an EP. :) Welcome back from the Darkside Mike.

For me the image on the left holds too much detail for an eyepiece view. At 192x what I see is mostly greyscale with bit of colour in the bandings.
I've not seen Jup through a "Quality" ep though and that may make all the difference.

[ving]

then maybe scale has alot to do with it... alot of detail is often lost of jupiter cause the image scale isnt as big as that. I get colour tho and a fair amount of banding and whatnot.

[janoskiss]

The "eyepiece" image seems to have a square grid superimposed on it. :confuse2:

I think you can get a lot better dynamic range from a "live" image at the eyepiece, than you can get on a computer monitor. So some contrast enhancement is needed to compensate. The image as it is with just 256 shades (8-bit) per colour channel this would be difficult, as the bulk of the information is contained in a lot fewer shades than that. Do you work with 16-bit-per-channel data when you do the stacking and processing?

[janoskiss]

"The "eyepiece" image seems to have a square grid superimposed on it." - Sorry problem is at my end. There is like that on the image. :doh: