|
Phil the more i have thought about this thread the more I have learned. Thank you. You are absolutely correct the study of the subject before imaging is key. Understanding the nature of the signal we are capturing is imperative. When imaging the Lunar Eclipse I finally understood something by playing around with the camera exposure settings. A short exposure gave lots of detail on the non-eclipsed section but almost nothing in the eclipsed section. Where as a longer exposure gave more detail on the eclipsed part and the non-eclipsed bit was over exposed. Further seeing Eric's recent Orion Post hammered in the idea that by combing these two using layers one can get a much better full image. Perhaps this is understood by many out there but for me this was something I had to do practically to understand. Eric's post of the image and explanation of his work combined with your work, have made me gain a new respect for this hobby and the imaging aspect of it. I had earlier written off imaging as not being important as visual observation. But I take that back now. There is a greater understanding to be gained in doing this. Signals, noise, filters it all makes sense now. What filter's are used and there specifications are not a random choice but a scientific one based on what we know of the subject.
Ken I also don't disagree with your method, experience also enlightens as much as reading about it. A place for theory and practical. The fun and joy of seeing results encourages us to learn more.
Regards
Fahim
|