davidpretorius
03-05-2006, 01:05 PM
Have been following a very interesting discussion on UK astro about Damian peach. The main point being, David Tyler was in barbados was there with a C14, Damian was there with a C14, both using Lumenera, same seeing conditions as the scopes are metres apart. So apart from collimation and post processing, everyting was the same. David Tyler is no slouch, have saturns and mars photos (http://www.david-tyler.com/mars_montage_05.asp) that are top class.
I have been following the deconvolution thread, and was thinking how many ways are there to extract detail from a stacked image ( here are some to play with http://www.precons.com/iceinspace/gallery/jupiter_060426_1147/)
wavelets
unsharp mask
lr deconvolution
me deconvolution
vc deconvolution
and i have just tried the FFT filter in astra image and it worked too
combinations of the aboveRob and Bird and a few others seem to understand the maths of what is happening, but there must be something Damian does that still keeps him up there in particuliar to Jupiter. One thing, he works damn hard at it, and this experience shows out!
Here are a few comments
__________________________
Superb images - especially the Io transit image link to Damian's page.
Does anyone actually know the processing steps he goes through, especially the deconvolution/max entropy routines? I've been having a play with sample planetary images, and the detail you could extract with the right routines could be staggering I think - if done right; which he obviously does http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/cool.gif
Cheers - Rob2
_____________________________
He NEVER tells mate, i thought everyone knew that!!! He says its all down to seeing and collimation!!!!
Alan http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/grin.gif
_____________________________
Hi all
hopefully Damian is going to send me some raw data soon so you may all be able to have a play. I asked Damain if he could send over a short AVI
1. To see how steady the seeing is in Barbados and give us an idea of what good seeing looks like.
2. To see what accurate focusing actually looks like on screen.
3. So i could compare to my raw AVI
and lastly 4. So i could have a play to see how difficult it really is to process with good quality AVI's
Damian assured me he would be sending a clip after he has the main processing finished
Well have to wait and see if he sticks to his promise !
rich
___________________________________ ____
You mean there's some doubt?! I'm convinced there's (how do I put this eloquently?) "more to this than meets the eye". For alike equipment and camera (C14 & Lumenera camera - Damian & Dave respectively) why do the two shots, shot no more than 10ft apart, differ so much?
It's got to be down to after-the-event processing... I've been reading up a lot on the web of the benefits of deconvolution when it comes to amateur planetary imaging. Maybe this is the closely guarded secret that puts Damian's images a distinct cut above Dave Tyler's? He obviously hasn't shared his technique http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/grin.gif
If it was that easy to get images like that with no more than a couple of Łk's worth of kit, NASA wouldn't bother spending billions of dollars on space probe missions to achieve similar results http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/lachen001.gif
Cheers - Rob2
___________________________________ _
Hi All,
Common sense speaks volumes here, Rob2 hit the nail absolutlely square on. "chalk & cheese" images from the same spot with the same kit (slighlty different times). Damian has always played his cards very close to his chest. His knowledge of Photoshop, gained at college i beleive, probably plays a large part.
The length of time from Capture to publish (IMHO) is clue enough to show the extra eforts required to acheive these results. It is a sad shame that he continues to mask his skills with " The good collimation & Seeing" banner, having said that we all know these are the major factor anyway. Why is it that wherever Damian goes this "good Seeing" follows him?http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/huh.gif I think it is reasonable to assume that he has honed his skills both at the Telescope and in front of the PC to a higher degree than the rest of us.
Dave T's image is probably what we would all expect from an excellant AVI captured in good seeing with a correctly collimated quality instrument, whether taken from Barbados or Barnsley! , an excellent result!. Straight Registax alignment and processing, quick LRGB align & final tweak in photoshop and voila, Good job done, but are we really expected to believe the same of Damians results? Nuff Sed
Cheers
Dave
_________________________________
Blimey, the same old b**locks about Damian I see!
If you look at the latest image from Dave Tyler that appeared today, you will see that it is stunning - not to be considered inferior to Damian's in my opinion (the top one on this page):
http://www.david-tyler.com/barbados2006_jup.asp (http://www.david-tyler.com/barbados2006_jup.asp)
Many of Dave's Saturn images are also as good as Damian's.
Now I've worked with Dave (and Damian) from beginning to end when imaging planets and there are no amazing processing tricks that the rest of us don't (or can't) know. In fact I would say that I see many more 'fancy' processed images around here, and elsewhere.
When you watch Damian at work, it is quite amazing how much energy and effort he puts in. He is a *master* at the art of collimation, and good seeing does not follow Damian - quite the opposite he hunts down the seeing and has to image for hundreds of hours to find it. He images *every* clear night, and for many hours just to pick up those great moments.
Let's not be jealous of the people that are pushing our hobby into new territory, let's just rejoice in their work and try to learn from them and follow their lead. Let's face it, most of our work is inferior not because of that killer processing trick, but it is inferior in dozens of small ways that add up to getting a great image.
Cheers
Ian.
________________________________
I have been following the deconvolution thread, and was thinking how many ways are there to extract detail from a stacked image ( here are some to play with http://www.precons.com/iceinspace/gallery/jupiter_060426_1147/)
wavelets
unsharp mask
lr deconvolution
me deconvolution
vc deconvolution
and i have just tried the FFT filter in astra image and it worked too
combinations of the aboveRob and Bird and a few others seem to understand the maths of what is happening, but there must be something Damian does that still keeps him up there in particuliar to Jupiter. One thing, he works damn hard at it, and this experience shows out!
Here are a few comments
__________________________
Superb images - especially the Io transit image link to Damian's page.
Does anyone actually know the processing steps he goes through, especially the deconvolution/max entropy routines? I've been having a play with sample planetary images, and the detail you could extract with the right routines could be staggering I think - if done right; which he obviously does http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/cool.gif
Cheers - Rob2
_____________________________
He NEVER tells mate, i thought everyone knew that!!! He says its all down to seeing and collimation!!!!
Alan http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/grin.gif
_____________________________
Hi all
hopefully Damian is going to send me some raw data soon so you may all be able to have a play. I asked Damain if he could send over a short AVI
1. To see how steady the seeing is in Barbados and give us an idea of what good seeing looks like.
2. To see what accurate focusing actually looks like on screen.
3. So i could compare to my raw AVI
and lastly 4. So i could have a play to see how difficult it really is to process with good quality AVI's
Damian assured me he would be sending a clip after he has the main processing finished
Well have to wait and see if he sticks to his promise !
rich
___________________________________ ____
You mean there's some doubt?! I'm convinced there's (how do I put this eloquently?) "more to this than meets the eye". For alike equipment and camera (C14 & Lumenera camera - Damian & Dave respectively) why do the two shots, shot no more than 10ft apart, differ so much?
It's got to be down to after-the-event processing... I've been reading up a lot on the web of the benefits of deconvolution when it comes to amateur planetary imaging. Maybe this is the closely guarded secret that puts Damian's images a distinct cut above Dave Tyler's? He obviously hasn't shared his technique http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/grin.gif
If it was that easy to get images like that with no more than a couple of Łk's worth of kit, NASA wouldn't bother spending billions of dollars on space probe missions to achieve similar results http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/lachen001.gif
Cheers - Rob2
___________________________________ _
Hi All,
Common sense speaks volumes here, Rob2 hit the nail absolutlely square on. "chalk & cheese" images from the same spot with the same kit (slighlty different times). Damian has always played his cards very close to his chest. His knowledge of Photoshop, gained at college i beleive, probably plays a large part.
The length of time from Capture to publish (IMHO) is clue enough to show the extra eforts required to acheive these results. It is a sad shame that he continues to mask his skills with " The good collimation & Seeing" banner, having said that we all know these are the major factor anyway. Why is it that wherever Damian goes this "good Seeing" follows him?http://ukastroimaging.co.uk/forums/Smileys/classic/huh.gif I think it is reasonable to assume that he has honed his skills both at the Telescope and in front of the PC to a higher degree than the rest of us.
Dave T's image is probably what we would all expect from an excellant AVI captured in good seeing with a correctly collimated quality instrument, whether taken from Barbados or Barnsley! , an excellent result!. Straight Registax alignment and processing, quick LRGB align & final tweak in photoshop and voila, Good job done, but are we really expected to believe the same of Damians results? Nuff Sed
Cheers
Dave
_________________________________
Blimey, the same old b**locks about Damian I see!
If you look at the latest image from Dave Tyler that appeared today, you will see that it is stunning - not to be considered inferior to Damian's in my opinion (the top one on this page):
http://www.david-tyler.com/barbados2006_jup.asp (http://www.david-tyler.com/barbados2006_jup.asp)
Many of Dave's Saturn images are also as good as Damian's.
Now I've worked with Dave (and Damian) from beginning to end when imaging planets and there are no amazing processing tricks that the rest of us don't (or can't) know. In fact I would say that I see many more 'fancy' processed images around here, and elsewhere.
When you watch Damian at work, it is quite amazing how much energy and effort he puts in. He is a *master* at the art of collimation, and good seeing does not follow Damian - quite the opposite he hunts down the seeing and has to image for hundreds of hours to find it. He images *every* clear night, and for many hours just to pick up those great moments.
Let's not be jealous of the people that are pushing our hobby into new territory, let's just rejoice in their work and try to learn from them and follow their lead. Let's face it, most of our work is inferior not because of that killer processing trick, but it is inferior in dozens of small ways that add up to getting a great image.
Cheers
Ian.
________________________________