Well this is my first Saturn shot of the year that was imaged early this morning (before the neighbours cat scared the heck out of me! Darn they're sneaky!).
Both shots were taken with my 10" Newtonian F5 scope on an EQ6 (that was poorly polar aligned at the time of image capture). As always, I used my home made camera bracket and family video camera to capture the AVIs.
Anyway, I had just recollimated my scope and the jet stream map looked ok, plus there were no clouds around, so I decided to get some AVIs. The first image was made from 3 AVIs. One was done in just the normal camera mode to capture the colour, one was done in low light mode so I could capture the detail I wanted, and another was done in low light mode focused on the moons (though it was zoomed out more to get them all in). I processed them all in registax 4 and combined them all in photoshop. The moons are (in order from top left to bottom right) Titan, Rhea, Dione and Tethys.
Second Image:
When capturing the main avi of saturn I decided to see how large I could get the image scale (You know, just for the heck of it!). So I zoomed in, got the best focus I could and recorded away. I just threw the AVI into registax, processed it as per normal and used the coloured saturn to colourise it in photoshop. I was quite pleased with the result, and I plan on trying to make 3 AVIs on a future saturn night (one of each side of the rings and one on the planet) and use autostitch to join them all together. Has anyone else ever tested their image scale? I'd certainly like to see the results!
So now I have a question or two for the more experienced readers!
Zoom/magnification calculation:
I know that to calculate zoom on an eyepiece you do focal length divided by eyepiece. So for my scope that is 78.125X zoom with my 2X barlow. ([1250/32] X 2 ). So what happens now with camera zoom? For example if I then add on 10X optical zoom, do you multiply the scope+eyepiece by 10? Or would you just add 10 on. Or is there some other way that this would be calculated on the top?
Registax 4 Multipoint alignment:
I processed all the avis from this morning using the one point alignment in Registax. This is because whenever I used the multipoint alignment, it would give me ugly joins between sections (I would do three alignment points, one on each side of the rings and one on the main planet itself). I tried playing with some settings in the stacking process but nothing would seem to change it. Am I missing something, or is the multialignment process just for experimenting?
Nicely done Chris. Damn fine shot that first one. The second shot looks pixellated on my screen. Great start for the season though
It looks like you zoom at 10X is an interpolated zoom and not an optical zoom. Is this the case?
You're right about the magnification. If the eyepiece/scope combo gives 50X magnification and you are using 10X zoom on your camera that will equate to 50X mag. FWIW try to avoid using high zooms with your camera. You will more than likely get a better image is you increase your magnification by a shorter focal length eyepiece and a moderate zoom increase (no more than about 3X) rather than using high zooms.
It looks like you zoom at 10X is an interpolated zoom and not an optical zoom. Is this the case?
According to the camera, it has 10X optical zoom and 500X digital zoom. I'm not really up with all the zoom methods, but I assume after 10X zoom the camera's actual mechanics stop moving and the pixel size seems to increase instead (hence why the image on the right is madly pixilated. Then again, I knew it wouldn't be a sharp crisp image, I was just testing the image scale I could get straight from the camera).
The image on the left used about 14X zoom and the image on the right was about 44X. So they both should be 'overpixilated', but the one on the right should be even more so (based on my understanding of it). Does that sound right?
As for the appropriateness of using the camera zoom, I've never thought about using an eyepiece with a lower focal length... because I've never thought of using the camera (which has an almost 2" lens) with a 1.25" eyepiece! But it seems like that might actually work... I'm definitely going to test it next time I get down to my scope! (I was limited to my 2X barlow and 2" 32mm eyepiece).
And thanks for the confirmation on how to calculate magnification! I'm glad I haven't been talking complete rubbish when labeling it on my previous images
I hope what I wrote above makes sense! I'm not the best at explaining what I have going on in my head!
Chrissyo, Your saturns taken with the family's video camera are my amongst my favourite amateur saturns I have ever seen (and the one from last year) love the huge image size and widefields and you seem to have more depth of field, dynamics, or something, cant put my finger on it!?
onya, you have done it again!
Chrissyo, thats a nice image. Do you have a pic of your home made camera bracket? or one of your setup?
Yup, I just took some quick pictures. But before you view them keep this in mind - I'm not a woodworker! Nor do I have any woodworking skill or talent. Nor do I have any knowledge of such a thing as elegance or minamalism. With that out of the way, the first image is just the bracket and the second image is the bracket attached to the camera and the eyepieces (the camera has one of them tripod thingos on the bottom of it which is what keeps it on the mount). Naturally when I first made it I was quite worried about the camera falling off and breaking, so I had elastic bands around it for a few nights. But it is suprisingly sturdy and hasn't fallen off once yet (and I've been using the same bracket for about 2 years now).
Quote:
thats the second bigest saturn i have seen today!!!
Just out of curiousity, what was the first biggest? I wanna see it now
Necessity is the mother of invention Chrissyo, it's practical, it works and it's been tested in the field for two years.
Theres nothing wrong with that little invention.
Great images Chrissyo and a great capture of Saturns moons as well. Did you identify which moons they were.
cheers
Yup. The moons are (in order from top left to bottom right) Titan, Rhea, Dione and Tethys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ving
had a play with your huge one. couldnt get it how i wanted it tho.
hope you dont mind, if you do just PM me and i'll remove it
gotta say tho, love ya work!
Nah, I don't mind! I think you did a good job, you managed to get rid of alot of that darn hatching sorta pattern that the camera gave. I think I am gonna have to spend some extra time with some of my older shots in photoshop to see what I can learn to help increase quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_smith
Chrissyo that looks like a lot of wieght doe it all hang out of the focuser tube ?
Yeah, there is quite a bit of weight there. It never argued with my old focuser (just a regular rack and pinion one) and I recently got a new 1:10 fine focuser which also doesn't seem to mind the weight. The EQ6 is actually quite good for the weight as I can have the tube spun around so the focuser is pointing upwards (of course, this only happens in the mount is faced towards the horizon). But even when it is at right angles with the ground, the focuser seems to hold the weight quite well.
Darn they're sneaky!).
![[1ponders]'s Avatar](../vbiis/customavatars/avatar45_9.gif){kind=avatar}
