From: Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@me.com>

Date: February 25, 2010 2:04:21 PM MST

To: Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [Astro_IIDC] Re: Sorry for OT- got it


Yes sorry Milton, I should know better..?!Things tend to get carried away...


Mark.

On 26/02/2010, at 7:28 AM, albe albo wrote:


ok milton sorry for the OT



Da: milton_aupperle <milton@outcastsoft.com>

A: Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com

Inviato: Gio 25 febbraio 2010, 20:56:58

Oggetto: [Astro_IIDC] Re: REPORT: Experiment with a pretty big focal length X Mark Gaffney


 

Guys;

If you want to chat about non Astro IIDC stuff, please do it directly to each other, NOT on this list.

The list is about Astro IIDC and Astro IIDC related issues. It is not about Windows, Windows Drivers, TIS Tech support etc.

So please try and stay on topic so that I don't have to do this again.

Milton Aupperle

--- In Astro_IIDC@yahoogro ups.com, Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@ ...> wrote:
>
> Still haven`t quite solved it yet..I don`t know if he`s finished for
> the day? Looking on an app I`ve just got on my iPod Touch I see that
> it`s dark now in Europe (sun`s out in the Atlantic beyond England) As
> I`m writing it`s 6.20 am & UTC is 19.20 so I guess it`s13 hours
> different...
>
> Mark.
> On 26/02/2010, at 4:45 AM, albe albo wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> > i'm glad that Stefan answered promptly.
> > I hope that now you will be able to solve you problem too.
> >
> > How many hours of difference you have from UT?
> > Mine is +1
> >
> > TTYL
> >
> >
> > Da: Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@ ...>
> > A: Astro_IIDC@yahoogro ups.com
> > Inviato: Gio 25 febbraio 2010, 17:27:02
> > Oggetto: Re: [Astro_IIDC] REPORT: Experiment with a pretty big focal
> > length X Mark Gaffney
> >
> >
> > Hi Alberto,
> >
> > I got a response within minutes! I`m told the Taiwan office was
> > closed recently because of Chinese New Year. My plan was to wait
> > another few days & try again..Stefan mentions using the "Device
> > Manager" & the "Hardware Upgrade Wizard" to re-install the Microsoft
> > drivers...
> > I`ll try this soon..might get another couple of hours sleep first.
> > I`m often up at what we call the "witching hour" ( past 12 am) when
> > I look at my messages then return to bed after a cup of coffee & a
> > snack..!
> >
> > Mark.
> > On 26/02/2010, at 2:53 AM, Mark Gaffney wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Alberto,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your trouble, I`ve just contacted Stefan via the email
> >> address he provides...Here` s the text of the message...
> >>
> >> Hi Stefan,
> >> In response to my message to Alberto Albo & his enquiry...I` ve
> >> contacted the Asian department of The Imaging Source before &
> >> always got prompt responses in the past. This time however it`s
> >> been two weeks at least since my first enquiry & no reply. The TIS
> >> DBK 21A F04.AS camera is opening on all the applications which will
> >> run it on both my Macs (Mac Mini G4 & iBook G4- Astro IIDC,
> >> Craterlet & PHD) but not on IC Capture.AS 2.0, Metaguide or PHD on
> >> the PC. However my PGR cameras are both opening through Fly Capture
> >> on the same PC using the same firewire cable...? I`ve recently
> >> downloaded directx-feb2010- redst & reinstalled version
> >> tiscam-4.1.1. 1-tis but it`s still saying "The wizard did not find
> >> any supported devices. Please connect the devices you want to
> >> update". If I open IC Capture.AS 2.0 under Select Device it still
> >> says <No Devices found> This has me perplexed as the PC connection
> >> was working 2-3 months ago perfectly well..
> >>
> >> Mark Gaffney.
> >>
> >> Yours, Mark.
> >> On 26/02/2010, at 12:30 AM, albe albo wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Mark,
> >>> during my mail exchange with the TIS engineers i couldn't avoid to
> >>> refer your "disenchantation" .
> >>>
> >>> At the end of an email i asked them about your problem:
> >>> You has been very responsive with me and my problems so i'm
> >>> puzzled when a australian friend of mine wrote me such words after
> >>> i spoke enthusiastically about your seriousness:
> >>> "A bit OT here but I`m rather disenchanted with TIS at present as
> >>> I`ve tried to contact them twice recently without a response! I`ve
> >>> had trouble connecting my TIS DBK 21A F04.AS to anything on my PC
> >>> of late. It`s not the firewire cable as both PGR cameras are
> >>> working with it (through the PC) & not the camera as it`s still
> >>> working perfectly well through Astro IIDC & other apps on my
> >>> Macs...!!"
> >>> What could i say to him?
> >>>
> >>> So Mr. Stefan Geissler from TIS (Germany) answered:
> >>>
> >>> Regarding your Australian friend: The support in Pacific region is
> >>> done by my colleagues in Taiwan. Thus I
> >>> may not be involved.
> >>>
> >>> However, he wrotes, the camera is not recognized on the Windows PC
> >>> and on the Mac? In this case, I
> >>>
> >>> suspect, the camera is damaged. In Windows, he can check the
> >>> Device Manager. If the camera is not
> >>>
> >>> listed there, then either the camera is defect or the PGR FireWire
> >>> board driver disables detection
> >>>
> >>> of our camera. Also, if a laptop is in use, the FireWire cameras
> >>> must be powered externally. But I
> >>>
> >>> guess, he knows this. He may sent an email to support@imagingcont
> >>> rol.com and address me directly.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mark, Did you solve such problem already?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ciao!
> >>>
> >>> Alberto
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Da: Mark Gaffney <markgaffney@ me.com>
> >>> A: Astro_IIDC@yahoogro ups.com
> >>> Inviato: Gio 25 febbraio 2010, 00:54:21
> >>> Oggetto: Re: [Astro_IIDC] REPORT: Experiment with a pretty big
> >>> focal length (C11 @ f.92 = 26 meters)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A bit OT here but I`m rather disenchanted with TIS at present as
> >>> I`ve tried to contact them twice recently without a response! I`ve
> >>> had trouble connecting my TIS DBK 21A F04.AS to anything on my PC
> >>> of late. It`s not the firewire cable as both PGR cameras are
> >>> working with it (through the PC) & not the camera as it`s still
> >>> working perfectly well through Astro IIDC & other apps on my
> >>> Macs...!!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mark.
> >>> On 25/02/2010, at 10:39 AM, Mark Gaffney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Alberto,
> >>>>
> >>>> I`ve been able to open your new Mars images on my PC this
> >>>> morning! In the trade off between buying a TIS camera with a
> >>>> greater resolution (31 or 41 series) I decided nearly a year ago
> >>>> to go with a 7.4 micron PGR Flea 2, 640 x 480 pixel camera. It
> >>>> cost a cool $1400 new! There seemed little prospect I`d be
> >>>> beginning LRGB imaging any time soon back then so I chose the
> >>>> colour version. It gives a smaller but finer image. With the
> >>>> addition of the Scorpion 20SO to my stable of CCD`s I now have
> >>>> the option of monochrome & LRGB imaging although at only 4.4
> >>>> microns square for this camera...A similar Flea B/W would be nice
> >>>> & there was one available from the eBay seller Tim posted the
> >>>> information about, however I`d run out of spending money by that
> >>>> time..
> >>>> It is very interesting seeing you pushing your TIS cameras to the
> >>>> limit to of their endurance... !
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark.
> >>>> On 25/02/2010, at 7:07 AM, albe albo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you Milton thank you Ray.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Milton the teoric limit is the one I'm trying to verify with
> >>>>> such try.
> >>>>> I know the mathematical formulas: they seems absolute but...
> >>>>> perhaps for a single shot without atmosphere.
> >>>>> The summing method and the seeing seems to modify a little that
> >>>>> possibility.
> >>>>> I'd like to find that perhaps with such focal length i could
> >>>>> resolve less than 10 pixels... perhaps 7 or 6.
> >>>>> Watching the video while i was grabbing it sometimes showed some
> >>>>> nice detail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For such reason i'd like to own a ideal camera that could allow
> >>>>> me to go to 60 fps with good brightness and no noise.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The diagonal pattern is moving. Summing the frames UNALIGNED
> >>>>> produce a pattern free stack while aligning even a gray flat
> >>>>> patterned field produce a patterned stack.
> >>>>> Here the link to the files that i sent to TIS:
> >>>>> http://dl.dropbox. com/u/1094920/ DMK31AF03. AS-Pattern- Mayer-
> >>>>> NoMovies. zip
> >>>>> I have the 100 frames original movies too and it would be not
> >>>>> important to recompress them if necessary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> About the sharpness/contrast.
> >>>>> Ok for what you say about smallest details but about
> >>>>> the...macrosharpnes s (big details) i was thinking to the
> >>>>> possibility to increase the contrast a lot (only temporarily
> >>>>> during the estimation process) and to assign a variable blur
> >>>>> radius in order to cut off some medium-high frequencies (noise
> >>>>> and not precious details in this case) allowing to choose among
> >>>>> details of a certain given size.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Watching my movies:
> >>>>> What about downloading my IR movie (for thr moment) already
> >>>>> cropped and aligned and recompressed APPLE-PIXLET highest quality?
> >>>>> I compared pixel x pixel the 2 compressions and the difference
> >>>>> is really minimal so that i always recompress my movies after my
> >>>>> processing including the DSO.
> >>>>> The ir movie is less than 500 megabytes... .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> TTYL
> >>>>> Alberto
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Da: Milton Aupperle <milton@outcastsoft . com>
> >>>>> A: Astro_IIDC@yahoogro ups.com
> >>>>> Inviato: Mer 24 febbraio 2010, 19:23:59
> >>>>> Oggetto: Re: [Astro_IIDC] REPORT: Experiment with a pretty big
> >>>>> focal length (C11 @ f.92 = 26 meters)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Alberto;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When your at those extreme focal lengths, why not try binning
> >>>>> 2x2 (or even 4x4) when capturing? It will be 4x (or 16x)
> >>>>> brighter so you can reduce the noise levels or increase frame
> >>>>> rate and I doubt your losing much detail. Your way over the
> >>>>> theoretical resolution limits anyhow for F 92 on a per pixel
> >>>>> basis. Your image scale is about 0.0345 arc seconds per pixel
> >>>>> (about 376 pixel wide disk and about 13 Arc Seconds in real
> >>>>> size). Smallest feature resolvable by a C11 is likely around 10
> >>>>> pixels or 0.345 arc seconds, so with 4x4 binning, you'd likely
> >>>>> lose nothing. And let's not forget, there is no loss in size of
> >>>>> the image with my "forward sum" binning method either so the
> >>>>> image stays the same size and scale.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Something you really long focal length shooters need to remember
> >>>>> is that sharpness is a measure of contrast (change in brightness
> >>>>> as in light to dark) over distance, so the less contrast you
> >>>>> have or the wider the spacing between the light to dark area,
> >>>>> the less sharpness there is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With dark images (your blue image for example) that have
> >>>>> basically no contrast, therefore sharpness is likely only
> >>>>> influenced by noise which there is a lot of.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In your brightest case (IR image) , the faint features on Mars
> >>>>> are so diffuse that they don't even play any part in sharpness
> >>>>> estimate and get lost in the noise. The only thing that will be
> >>>>> perceived is the diffuse disk edge. And this "edge" is spread
> >>>>> over about a 50 pixel distance and reflects a change of around
> >>>>> 50 to 70 value over that distance, so that really isn't much
> >>>>> gradient at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Add to this all the noise in the images which is causing each
> >>>>> pixel to change value by up to 14 between frames and adjacent
> >>>>> pixels (I've measured this in the past and posted the Gain
> >>>>> versus Noise statistic for these cameras on the list) and it's
> >>>>> no wonder to me it can not figure out which frame is or isn't
> >>>>> sharp.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The other issue is that what you consider to be blurry may not
> >>>>> be from a contrast / over distance perspective. A double image
> >>>>> due to turbulence can produce a better edge than what you
> >>>>> consider being a sharp frame. One thing I have been seeing
> >>>>> lately here is a very fast high frequency (small scale) ripple
> >>>>> turbulence, which produces double features in the same frame
> >>>>> (even at 5 ms exposures) , separated by 0.1 to 0.3 arc seconds.
> >>>>> So a single sharp edge now has two sharp edges one offset from
> >>>>> the other. Those frames actually come out as having a higher
> >>>>> sharpness rating because they have more edges. I weeded out
> >>>>> most of them manually, but you can still see it in 2.5x barlow
> >>>>> inset image of Aristarchus here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.outcasts oft.com/AstroIma ges/SRArisOcePro
> >>>>> c_20100126. jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if you look closely.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have been testing a way that allows you to select the spatial
> >>>>> distance for measuring sharpness, but it takes a lot of time to
> >>>>> work it all through, and I'm not yet convinced it will make any
> >>>>> difference. For example, once you hit a certain size with some
> >>>>> movies of different Astro targets, it makes no differences as
> >>>>> far as what frames it selects for increasing distance (always
> >>>>> the same order and same frames). And the sharpness algorithm is
> >>>>> different for Lunar and Planetary sources too, as Lunar tends to
> >>>>> have sharper edges where as Planetary doesn't, so I'm having to
> >>>>> run a lot of tests before I can draw a conclusion as to if it's
> >>>>> "better" or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you want to send me your movies on a CD (or DVD as the case
> >>>>> may be for movie sizes) be like Jim (and Allan has) so I can
> >>>>> look at them and test with them, that would be great. If not, I
> >>>>> have to make do with what I have shot and my seeing is nearly
> >>>>> always turbulence limited, so I can't go beyond 5 meter focal
> >>>>> lengths.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lastly, your diagonal noise is referred to as Fixed Pattern
> >>>>> Noise. If it doesn't move laterally (the Texas Instrument
> >>>>> TLSV1501 chip set FW cameras had this very bad) and is constant
> >>>>> in position, then stacking lots of frames will not remove it, it
> >>>>> will make it far more noticeable as it will be perceived as
> >>>>> "signal". You might be able to remove it using a say 255
> >>>>> averaged flat frame images of a uniformly gray area (wouldn't
> >>>>> even need to be done on the telescope, as it's camera noise),
> >>>>> but you need to have the camera at those same high gain levels
> >>>>> and at that temperature to duplicate it. With the Texas
> >>>>> Instruments based cameras, the pattern would change as the
> >>>>> temperature changed, so for the first 5 minutes the line
> >>>>> orientation was all over the place until it reached thermal
> >>>>> equilibrium and then it was fairly constant. An example of it is
> >>>>> shown in:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.outcasts oft.com/AstroIma ges/MVMJS_ 04_03_28. jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> where you can see it in the browner edge areas of Jupiter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> HTH..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Milton Aupperle
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 24-Feb-10, at 8:44 AM, albe albo wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello to all,
> >>>>>> some days before the 74" telescope image published by Jim, i
> >>>>>> did my BIG experiment pushing my new C11 at f. 92 .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ Astro_IIDC/ files/
> >>>>>> Planetary/ 100207-BigMars- Mayer.jpg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I know that i'm out of the theoretical resolution power for
> >>>>>> that OTA but i noticed that many amateur astronomers went
> >>>>>> beyond their OTA limit perhaps because of the multi image
> >>>>>> stacking that in the latest years changed the methods of
> >>>>>> creating lunar and planetary images freezing and then averaging
> >>>>>> the seeing deformations.
> >>>>>> Perhaps we are "exploiting" the seeing which could behave like
> >>>>>> an additional lens modifying the characteristic of the OTA.
> >>>>>> Even reading the book written by Mobberley i noticed that he
> >>>>>> had the suspect about the different limits in webcam astronomy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Considering the defects of my image (noise and blurriness) i
> >>>>>> was pleasantly surprised by it because there are lot of
> >>>>>> obstacles with such focal length.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) The camera worked at 15 fps but the gain was almost at the
> >>>>>> upper limit for each channel with very high levels of noise. I
> >>>>>> didn't want to lower the fps at 7.5. In addition my DMK31 shows
> >>>>>> a lot of diagonal banding when it's used at 15 fps with a very
> >>>>>> high gain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) even if the camera gain was at max the level of the CCD
> >>>>>> illumination is still low.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3) With such magnifications i guess that even the eyepiece that
> >>>>>> i used for the the projection becomes a very critical component
> >>>>>> of the optical chain because of its extreme usage (9mm
> >>>>>> orthoscopic by University Optics).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4) Another serious problem is that it is almost impossible to
> >>>>>> perform a decent automatic selection between the good and the
> >>>>>> bad frames even if some good frames are present! Often i find
> >>>>>> very good frames alternated with useless blobs both classified
> >>>>>> at the top of the "sharpest frames". Since I took 3400 image x
> >>>>>> channel it's hard to select them manually!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5) an unexpected problem was represented by the big size of the
> >>>>>> planet that clearly shows the rotation more than smaller size
> >>>>>> not allowing very long sessions of IR-R-G-B sequences. In this
> >>>>>> case from the beginning to the end the sequence took 20 minutes!
> >>>>>> Note: for this sequence I did an additional mistake that
> >>>>>> usually doesn't happens. I took this sequence as R-G-B-IR while
> >>>>>> usually i do IR-R-G-B. For Mars it is mandatory that IR & R
> >>>>>> must be very similar while in this case i noticed a big
> >>>>>> rotation between R (the first) and IR (the last)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All those factors together afflict such kind of experiments not
> >>>>>> allowing a "fair" comparison with shorter focals.
> >>>>>> I was wondering and dreaming about a camera that could grab at
> >>>>>> 60 FPS even with such low condition of light but keeping a low
> >>>>>> noise but i guess that such camera don't exist or it is veeery
> >>>>>> expensive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Example: being able to capture this huge disk with the same
> >>>>>> speed and sensitivity of a f. 20 (60 fps&low noise) i guess
> >>>>>> that the sharpness would increase and the noise would decrease
> >>>>>> a lot allowing better processing and a better evaluation.
> >>>>>> Perhaps even using a more sophisticated "magnifier" (barlow,
> >>>>>> ocular, powermate, etc) could help for a better result.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Unfortunately i don't know a (cheap) camera that could perform
> >>>>>> such ideal sensitivity and low noise so... for the moment i
> >>>>>> must postpone this verification.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nobody else experimented the TIS diagonal banding?
> >>>>>> I'm in touch with TIS engineers and i sent them some stuff.
> >>>>>> I noticed the banding only at 15 fps. with high gain (not at
> >>>>>> 7.5 or 3,75 or 30)
> >>>>>> Such banding shift across the screen so that if you stack the
> >>>>>> frames without aligning them the banding seems to cancel itself
> >>>>>> while the banding itself seems to be used like an "hook" to
> >>>>>> align the images otherwise after the alignment process it
> >>>>>> should statistically disappear but, on the contrary, often it
> >>>>>> becomes more visible.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's all for the moment (did someone resist to read all
> >>>>>> that? )
> >>>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alberto
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ Astro_IIDC/ files/
> >>>>>> Planetary/ 100207-BigMars- Mayer.jpg
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Milton J. Aupperle
> >>>>> President
> >>>>> ASC - Aupperle Services and Contracting
> >>>>> Mac Software (Drivers, Components and Application) Specialist
> >>>>> #1106 - 428 Chaparral Ravine View SE.
> >>>>> Calgary Alberta T2X 0N2
> >>>>> 1-(403)-453- 1624
> >>>>> milton@outcastsoft. com
> >>>>> www.outcastsoft. com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>