Jupiter image scale comparison

[matt]

Because there's been a degree of conjecture and confusion in previous posts over the image scale I've been achieving on Jupiter in comparison with other folk using the same gear...

and that conjecture and confusion centering on my images being perhaps smaller than they should be using the same gear....

I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise to place one of my images alongside that of another using said same gear, to demonstrate said confusion.

So, I hope you don't mind Dennis, but I've used your awesome image of Feb 4 this year, taken with the 9.25, 2.5x Powermate and ToUcam, and placed it alongside mine of the other day ... using exactly the same gear.

I'm hoping this brings some "closure" to the debate

These 2 images are saved exactly the same size they were posted to IIS...

taken to PS... and saved as is.

Let this be an end to the madness!!!!!!!!!

By the way, this image also serves to demonstrate the incredible differences in seeing between very good .... and Canberra

[Robert_T]

Hey Matt, but how'd yours end up being bigger?

I could post one from last night usingthe 2.5x if you like... wouldn't like a perfectly good debate terminated prematurely just because of indisputable fact

[matt]

Rob

My guess is maybe my image was taken closer to Opposition (July 8 versus Feb 4) than Dennis', hence greater angular size? It's only marginally bigger.

The important thing is it isn't smaller

I'm also not sure my ToUcam adapter is the same size as Dennis' and thus has the chip the same distance from the Powermate?

By all means post your pic ... using exactly the same set-up

[asimov (John)]

I'll wait for a reply from Dennis here. He could have cropped & resized that image...anythings possible?

[matt]

Or he might not have...

can only go on the comparisons people have made on the "actual" images posted to IIS..

and on that basis the image scale is comparable

[asimov (John)]

Please clarify. You and Dennis used what size Barlow?

[asimov (John)]

Clarification attained by reading your SCP posts.

[matt]

We both used the 2.5x Powermate John, as outlined in my first post in this thread which referred to the gear which was used

You didn't need to visit SCP to get your clarification

Clear enuff?

[xstream (John)]

Just a friendly reminder guys.
Play Nicely Please!

[matt]

Please PM with outline why this mod interaction was needed

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

It still comes down to what each individual does with an image in PhotoShop, PaintShop etc.

Here is an example of what I mean. You say both images are as posted on IIS. These 2 are now posted on IIS. What's the difference? Post-process resizing!

No mystery! Just different size images of the same original images. Easy to do and often by accident.

[matt]

Hearing ya Ken

However... I know how to cut and paste into PS. Yes these 2 images have been previously posted on IIS.

Images are same size as originals. Rendered exactly as they originally appeared. That's the difference between my side-by-side and your fine example of what can go wrong when original image scale is not maintained.

No accidents here matey

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Matt, Images might be processed and posted at a different size by other posters though

Come on, argue! We've got to keep the moderators busy

[asimov (John)]

....As I was about to say, Yeah I missed that bit in your post about the 2.5X barlow.

[matt]

mate ... there's a good argument and then there's shooting fish in a barrel

And you my friend are one slow movin'.... misdirected.... strangely whiskered.... mud-lovin' member of the carp family

but i still love your work (LOL)

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by matt

And you my friend are one slow movin'.... misdirected.... strangely whiskered.... mud-lovin' member of the carp family

but i still love your work (LOL)

Mixed emotions huh?

[matt]

plenty to work through, Ken