Hmm, that is quite interesting. A couple of times, Matt has posted either Jupiter or Lunar images that have really surprised me with the detail and clarity he managed to achieve, when on the same evening, around the same time, my results were significantly poorer.
Now, the variables appear to be:
- Operator skills.
- Equipment.
- Processing.
- Timing.
- Data.
- Conditions.
Not wanting to take anything away from Matt, I don’t think that it was lack of operator skills on my part, in terms of setting up, focusing, collimation, capture settings, etc.
Also, I don’t think the variation can be attributed to differences in equipment (Matt’s C9.25 vs my Mewlon 180) other than the C9.5 will win hands down simply due to larger aperture.
In terms of processing, unless Matt has discovered a magic formula, I suspect any variation in our approach, tools used and technique would not account for Matt’s superior results.
Timing – I noted that we had been imaging within a couple of hours of each other, some 20kms apart; maybe there is something here?
So, it looks like Data and Conditions may be the main culprits? That is, Matt’s location nearer the bay side may contribute to slightly better conditions compared to my in land location?
At least, I hope that is the answer, otherwise its back to school for me!
Cheers
Dennis