Quote:
Originally Posted by von Tom
Nice comparison and analysis Ray. Thanks for posting. I know when I do my processing (especially sharpening) of Saturn I'm aware of trying to avoid introducing artefacts, especially in the rings as too much sharpening can add false rings etc. the images and posts on this forum have encouraged me to get the most I can from my images, particularly because they show detail that I never otherwise would have looked for. Images like yours help me judge what is really there and what is not.
Imaging and presenting Saturn can be a little subjective as sometimes ring fidelity/sharpness/colour is sacrificed for cloud feature details and vice versa. It depends upon what the imager is trying to depict or highlight. When I first started with Saturn I was mainly concerned with capturing the storm on the disc, so the rings were secondary to what I thought was of interest. I traded disc contrast for the C ring so that is wasn't visible, for example. At the moment I'm trying for better definition in the rings as the only cloud detail I can pick up on with my equipment is the hexagon (again, without others posting here probably wouldn't've have looked for it).
Cheers,
Tom
|
thanks for the interesting comments Tom.
We all face a balancing act depending on what we are trying to do and what we end up with is a matter of interpretation. As a group though, we seem to be unwittingly using evolutionary techniques to converge on a "true" representation, so Mark's question was a valuable sanity check.
Until Mark's post, I hadn't fully realised that we are actually trying to get reasonably close to what a planet looks like from space - without an intervening atmosphere
or scope. It is unrealistic to compare what is seen in a scope with what can be dug out of an image with sharpening, since there is no way to boost the contrast at high spatial frequencies in visual viewing - processed images
should have much more detail than can be seen in a scope.
Regards Ray