From: Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@me.com>
Date: November 7, 2009 5:30:10 PM MST
To: Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Astro_IIDC] Re: full moon...
Hi Alan,
You probably know your way around it a bit but for me mastering anything in Photoshop takes hours of dedication! When my back`s recovered from the strain I gave it bringing the weighted mount in quickly, to avoid getting wet or when this blasted rain goes away I`ll give shooting the moon another go (if it`s still around then!). I`m yet to get my references(or to unconfuse myself) as to relative frame sizes with the Scorpion. I was shooting the Moon on the 5th with a Mogg 0.3 reducer as well as trying ROI`s..
Mark.
On 08/11/2009, at 11:14 AM, Alan Friedman wrote:
Hi Mark,
I tweaked the image in Photoshop using unsharp mask, curves and levels, nothing magical. I can't see any reason to use ROI if your goal is to image the full lunar disk. Use ROI when the full chip is not needed - ie, when shooting the planets.
best,
Alan
On Nov 7, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Mark Gaffney wrote:
Thanks Alan,
Now how did you do that tweaking...it looks excellent! I must have had the ROI set at 814 x 618 pixels for that movie. There wasn`t much logic to it but I was changing ROI`s experimentally whilst imaging at the same time. I still don`t believe that`s my image!!
Mark.
On 08/11/2009, at 7:34 AM, Alan Friedman wrote:
Hi Mark,
It doesn't look s! harp to me either. At this focal length, the seeing would have to be at the very worst levels to account for the softness in the image. You've posted an image that is reduced to 1/4 of the original size. Why not post a single frame from your data at full size... this might help others to diagnose the problems. I do see a shaft of lightness in your image that looks like a reflection problem. I sometimes get this from the reflections inherent in my Ha solar filter.
I've posted a tweaked version of your image... there is additional detail in them thar hills.
best,
Alan
On Nov 7, 2009, at 3:19 PM, milton_aupperle wrote:
Mark;
The image doesn't look sharp at all.
Was their turbulence or not? This is what my turbulence looks like:
ht! tp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astro_IIDC/files/Plane tary/SaturnAverageSeeing_MJA20090404.mp4
Things that affect Sharpness are
1) Poor focus
2) Turbulence
3) Poor Mount Tracking
4) Fog, clouds and Dew
5) Dirty Optics (including dirt / condensation on the CCD).
6) Not allowing the mirror / optics / Camera to cool down to ambient temperature, which also produces tube current.
Any one or combination of the above produces poor images.
HTH..
Milton Aupperle
--- In Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com, Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@...> wrote:
>
> Milton,
> Here it is in Files (at least Files will let me upload a Tiff file-I
> always thought things had to be converted to jpegs for Yahoo but maybe
> that`s just in Photos?)
> http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oLX1SvSQE_EMLpGNpDgXrefKY2fhxWlXHWWJbRddjME8vnQRp8WeH3Udsnn9x6gxmheJnr9QUqODUZmCWC7E2pQ5qqQA1ktTuDgK
> I was having trouble making it much sharper than this (I did tweak the
> focus knob numerous times when doing these trying to make it finer)
> but thought conditions were quite good-there was no dew for example
> which is often a problem, even with my dew strip. I`ve hurt my back
> bringing the mount & 2 x 11lb weights inside because of the recurring
> rain periods we`re getting. I`d brought in the C9.25`s tube but if I`d
> waited to undo the screws etc. on the mount I`d have gotten soaked!
> Generally speaking the Telegizmous cover is good but I noticed some
> moisture on top of the tube after removing it after a shower the other
> day..I think getting soaked is preferable to back strain though
> somehow...!
>
> Mark.
> On 08/11/2009, at 4:38 AM, Milton Aupperle wrote:
>
> > Mark;
> >
> >
> > Why not post it to the Files secti! on, so we can see it at full size?
> > Anything posted to Yahoos idiotic pictures section gets reduced to
> > 480x360 pixel size, which blurs it.
> >
> > As far as I can tell it doesn't look sharply focussed or you had
> > significant turbulence when it was shot, which makes achieving focus
> > difficult and capturing sharp frames difficult. Some nights here I
> > can't even bring the moon into sharp focus visually with a 25 mm
> > eyepiece at prime focus on the C8. But I live under the Jet Stream
> > and some nights I am surrounded by a loop of it on all 3 ! sides.
> >
> > Also, a general question to the group .
> >
> > I'm getting really fed up with Yahoo for hosting the Astro IIDC
> > group. If you've ever used the search engine here, it's absolutely
> > terrible at finding previous articles regardless of how you set up
> > the search query. Luckily I keep a copy of most of me "important"
> > FAQ type e-mails to the group so that I can flip through by date to
> > find the original posted onto the group and then refer you back to
> > the original thread.
> >
> > So I'm wondering what people think about possibly moving to another
> > group host, l! ike Google groups for example? I have not spent any
> > time looking into the pros and cons of other hosting services yet,
> > but I will if people feel that Yahoo is just sucking too much.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your opinion...
> >
> > Milton J. Aupperle
> >
> >
> > On 7-Nov-09, at 10:08 AM, Mark Gaffney wrote:
> >
> >> Hi, Here`s a shot taken on the 5th November (full moon) with my PGR
> >> Scorpion 1628 x1236 pixel mono camera;
> >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astro_IIDC/photos/album/1179371742/pic/1436279267/view?pi cmode=&mode=tn&order=ordinal&start=1&count=20&dir
> >> I`m wondering am I slightly out of focus, or can the haziness be
> >> accounted for by the light of the full moon?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>