iceman
11-04-2005, 09:18 AM
Hi guys.
Although we were at the mini star party for dark sky feasts, I couldn't help but take advantage of Louie's 4" Tak FS102 on a vixen mount to do some planetary imaging.
I also took the opportunity to appease Mr Gary Beal and do a comparison of optimized colour mode vs normal mode (I didn't do a "raw" comparison).
Details:
- 4" Tak FS102 (thanks Louie)
- 2.5x Powermate (thanks John) giving a FL of 2000 mm
- Seeing: Good to very good
- 5 fps, 0 gamma, 90-95% saturation, 1/33s exposure, no gain
The capture settings were identical between the optimised colour and normal modes. Nothing was changed between the two types of captures.
Conclusions?
Hard to tell.. it's obvious that the optimised colour mode does less sharpening or internal processing.. however it can also make the image look soft. When shown a comparison, my wife picked the "normal" mode one because it looked more detailed.
I did a slightly more aggressive than normal unsharp mask on one of the optimised colour ones to see how it then compares to the normal mode.
I think you can probably image in either mode, and both will produce acceptable results, but it's clear to me that they may require different amounts of post-processing afterwards.
A bit more image scale might've helped make the comparisons easier to see, but alas, maybe next time I'll try it on Rod's 10" LX200.
Although we were at the mini star party for dark sky feasts, I couldn't help but take advantage of Louie's 4" Tak FS102 on a vixen mount to do some planetary imaging.
I also took the opportunity to appease Mr Gary Beal and do a comparison of optimized colour mode vs normal mode (I didn't do a "raw" comparison).
Details:
- 4" Tak FS102 (thanks Louie)
- 2.5x Powermate (thanks John) giving a FL of 2000 mm
- Seeing: Good to very good
- 5 fps, 0 gamma, 90-95% saturation, 1/33s exposure, no gain
The capture settings were identical between the optimised colour and normal modes. Nothing was changed between the two types of captures.
Conclusions?
Hard to tell.. it's obvious that the optimised colour mode does less sharpening or internal processing.. however it can also make the image look soft. When shown a comparison, my wife picked the "normal" mode one because it looked more detailed.
I did a slightly more aggressive than normal unsharp mask on one of the optimised colour ones to see how it then compares to the normal mode.
I think you can probably image in either mode, and both will produce acceptable results, but it's clear to me that they may require different amounts of post-processing afterwards.
A bit more image scale might've helped make the comparisons easier to see, but alas, maybe next time I'll try it on Rod's 10" LX200.