Another Mars, Oct 22 morning

[iceman (Mike)]

Here's another Mars from yesterday morning, at 3:30am.

Seeing was acceptable, but not quite as good as the day before. I had the 2x barlow in from capturing the Moon the night before, so the first run was with the 2x barlow, and then switched to the 5x powermate.

The face is slightly rotated from yesterday's image, but not by a lot.

Thanks for looking.

[bird (Anthony Wesley)]

Thanks Mike, still a good image!

cheers, Bird

[Mick (Michael)]

Magic image Mike, wish the seeing was as good up here.

[Ric]

Fantastic Mike, you've captured some wonderful detail in these ones.

Top stuff

[citivolus (Ric)]

I'm curious, what is "RRGB"?

[DJVege]

Originally Posted by citivolus

I'm curious, what is "RRGB"?

I was thinking the same thing.

[matt]

Very nice again, Mike.

I must say, I really like the colour and overall look of your Mars images so far this apparition.

The earthy-ochre red looks really natural and very true to the colours we see in images taken from satellites in orbit around Mars.

You've also managed to get a nice 3D spherical 'look' happening.

Are you doing anything new in PS...or other processing to achieve this?

Well done

[iceman (Mike)]

Thanks for your comments. At the time of capture I didn't think the image would come out nearly as well as it did in the end.

Originally Posted by citivolus

I'm curious, what is "RRGB"?

RRGB is similar to LRGB, but instead of the "L" (Luminance Channel) being captured using a clear filter, I used the Red channel as a "fake" luminance.
What this means in practise, is that the detail in the image comes from the Luminance channel (in this case, the red channel), and the colour of the image comes from the RGB channels.

If it's just a plain ol' RGB image, the luminance is the combination of the 3 channels.

When the seeing is not really good, on Mars, the red channel generally always has the most detail. So using the Red channel as the "detail" (luminance) and the normal RGB to colour it, can enhance the look of the final image. It's probably not a "true" representation of the features though - for example, if there was a dust storm, the dust storm might only show up in the green or blue channel. In cases like that, it wouldn't be useful to use the Red channel as the luminance because you could be missing out on some real detail being shown.

I hope that explains it Please keep asking questions if it's not clear.

Originally Posted by matt

Very nice again, Mike.

I must say, I really like the colour and overall look of your Mars images so far this apparition.

The earthy-ochre red looks really natural and very true to the colours we see in images taken from satellites in orbit around Mars.

You've also managed to get a nice 3D spherical 'look' happening.

Are you doing anything new in PS...or other processing to achieve this?

Well done

Thanks Matt - I didn't use AstraImage for the Mars images this season, and I'm not using any Gamma during capture. I'm not sure if any of those are contributing, but i'm happy with the spherical look they're coming out with. My 2005 images did appear much "flatter", though they were with the ToUcam and the 10" dob.

I hope to get some more good seeing as Mars gets bigger - the 2005 apparition was just when I was getting a kick along in my imaging.

[DJVege]

Thanks Mike. I think I understand the process and the reasoning. Although it's a bit crazy just how much you need to know about colour, the local environment of an object and the atmosphere to get the best out of an image. I've read heaps and still feel like I know nothing.

Thanks again.

[davidpretorius]

i really like this mike,

nicest one out of oz so far

well done