A couple of jups from 2nite

matt · #1 24-06-2006, 11:08 PM

Had the 9.25 out tonight primarily to tweek the collimation and check a few other components.

Thought I may as well capture a couple of Jupiter avi's.

These were taken with the TouCam and the 2.5x Powermate around 8-30pm.

A quick run through registax and up on the website they go. The one on the right is a Bell 1.3x resample

asimov (John) · #2 24-06-2006, 11:19 PM

Hey not bad, not bad at all!

Lovely & sharp; especially the resample!

And the seeing conditions Matt ?

matt · #3 24-06-2006, 11:24 PM

I'd say somewhere between 4 and 5 John

Much better than the 2 or 3 which has dominated for weeks but certainly not 6 or above based on what I was seeing on the screen and the jetstream map.

The image was snapping in and out of focus quick rapidly and the planet was wobbling around and unsteady for quite a fair bit of the time

davidpretorius · #4 25-06-2006, 12:59 AM

as asi says, that resample is very good! congrats!

Lester · #5 25-06-2006, 09:10 AM

Hi Matt,

Good one there especially the resampled.

iceman (Mike) · #6 25-06-2006, 09:15 AM

Great Matt, some of your best right there!

Robert_T · #7 25-06-2006, 09:17 AM

Matt, looks great, especially brought out Red Jnr... every one of these is capturing a moment in the history of Jupiter that wont be repeated.

One thing I noticed is that in your unsampled Jupiter looks a little small (I think). If your using a 2.5 powermate and with the C9.25 it should be the same image scale as when I use that combo. Are you by chance using an extension tube? - I ask because it's a peculiarity of the 2.5 that if you use an extension it actually reduces the amplification (a trap I fell into early on)

cheers,

matt · #8 25-06-2006, 09:53 AM

Cheers guys

Rob - no extension tubes.

Is the ToUcam in the 2.5x .... straight in the visual back.

Should the image scale be bigger?

asimov (John) · #9 25-06-2006, 10:08 AM

Hi Matt.

Your unsampled version is 532 X 399 pixels in size. I just resized one to that dimension. My image scale with this pic was 2X barlow, but I'm yet to confirm if I used my extension tube or not

I'll get back on that one.

matt · #10 25-06-2006, 10:20 AM

So.... is it too small or the right image scale John?

davidpretorius · #11 25-06-2006, 10:42 AM

double check you are not recording in 320x240.
what software are you capturing at matt?

asimov (John) · #12 25-06-2006, 10:46 AM

Yeah, the word 'binned' springs to mind here.

matt · #13 25-06-2006, 10:49 AM

Dave - capturing in K3CCDTools

What does "binned" mean?

matt · #14 25-06-2006, 11:15 AM

Okay, I've opened my unsampled jpeg in Photoshop, clicked on image size and it confirms it is 640x480.

I also checked the version I uploaded to IIS and it shows as 640x480 at the top of the browser window.

AND I opened the original avi in Virtual Dub and the file settings show it was captured as 640x480.

So what gives???

asimov (John) · #15 25-06-2006, 11:28 AM

Ok, I can now confirm both your pics are 640 X 480..I was looking at something different. I'll resize my image to the same.

matt · #16 25-06-2006, 11:31 AM

Glad we're clear

Now, to the original issue - why is my image scale so small?

ToUcam.... in a 2.5x Powermate... straight in the visual back.

Should the image scale be larger or is Jupiter just getting smaller in the sky, which is perhaps what Rob hasn't taken into account???

asimov (John) · #17 25-06-2006, 11:35 AM

Took the words right out of my mouth after comparing yours & mine together.

So what gives????? Even if mine was shot with just the 2X barlow, its still way bigger than your bloody 2.5X shot! What gives indeed!???

matt · #18 25-06-2006, 11:55 AM

John

Are you using the YUY2 codec?

I guess it's the default with the 900nc?

I've done the ToUcam 840k-900nc upgrade and I'm using it too.

I've also performed the Optimised Colour mod

Wonder if this has any effect?????

I've got my suspicions the use of the WcCtrl application might throw out my settings when it comes time to capture??? Could be re-setting defaults or something?

Last night it re-set my fps and also caused some probs with CCDTools

Robert_T · #19 25-06-2006, 12:07 PM

Hmmm, I had wondered whether it was just my perception as the planet is shrinking (slightly), but it still looked a little on the small size. I'll attach here and unmodified 640 x 480 image from a week and a bit ago for comparison, just the 2.5x powermate in the scope and toucam straight into that.

what dya reckon? different or not?

Robert_T · #20 25-06-2006, 12:10 PM

just did some blink comparating between your and mine Matt, you're is a lot smaller, more than could be accounted for by the planets recession in size in the last 9-10days... the mystery deepens