Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Astronomical Photography Forum
My latest Jupiter...my best ever Jupiter, May 25th
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jun 8, 2018 19:08:05   #
northcoast42 Loc: Puget Sound, Washington
 
It's been a while since I posted here. I was away for some time but I'm getting back into the astro world again, starting off with the planets, making plans for going off-site to do Mars in July...can't wait! Anyway, Jupiter is currently at -14deg declination which means, from my vantage point at 47deg N latitude, it's max crossing altitude is only 27degrees above the southern horizon. Pretty low so the seeing generally isn't very good. Never-the-less, I must have caught it when the currents were stable and the spirits decided to take pity and let me have this image. It's the best Jupiter I've been able to do to date. I can't wait to catch the planets higher in the sky. Unfortunately, for Jupiter that's still a couple of years away. 2024 will be a good year for imaging that planet.


(Download)

Reply
Jun 8, 2018 19:52:08   #
cessnalvr Loc: West virginia
 
Nice one

Reply
Jun 9, 2018 09:49:20   #
northmaple Loc: Englewood, FL
 
Great job!

Reply
 
 
Jun 9, 2018 10:41:17   #
Europa Loc: West Hills, CA
 
Nice job

Reply
Jun 9, 2018 13:24:06   #
bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
 
northcoast42 wrote:
It's been a while since I posted here. I was away for some time but I'm getting back into the astro world again, starting off with the planets, making plans for going off-site to do Mars in July...can't wait! Anyway, Jupiter is currently at -14deg declination which means, from my vantage point at 47deg N latitude, it's max crossing altitude is only 27degrees above the southern horizon. Pretty low so the seeing generally isn't very good. Never-the-less, I must have caught it when the currents were stable and the spirits decided to take pity and let me have this image. It's the best Jupiter I've been able to do to date. I can't wait to catch the planets higher in the sky. Unfortunately, for Jupiter that's still a couple of years away. 2024 will be a good year for imaging that planet.
It's been a while since I posted here. I was away... (show quote)

Very nice Jupiter! bwa

Reply
Jun 9, 2018 14:52:16   #
Albuqshutterbug Loc: Albuquerque NM
 
Very nice indeed.

Reply
Jun 10, 2018 10:45:41   #
Paladin48 Loc: Orlando
 
northcoast42 wrote:
It's been a while since I posted here. I was away for some time but I'm getting back into the astro world again, starting off with the planets, making plans for going off-site to do Mars in July...can't wait! Anyway, Jupiter is currently at -14deg declination which means, from my vantage point at 47deg N latitude, it's max crossing altitude is only 27degrees above the southern horizon. Pretty low so the seeing generally isn't very good. Never-the-less, I must have caught it when the currents were stable and the spirits decided to take pity and let me have this image. It's the best Jupiter I've been able to do to date. I can't wait to catch the planets higher in the sky. Unfortunately, for Jupiter that's still a couple of years away. 2024 will be a good year for imaging that planet.
It's been a while since I posted here. I was away... (show quote)



Reply
 
 
Jun 11, 2018 17:36:18   #
CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.
 
northcoast42 wrote:
It's been a while since I posted here. I was away for some time but I'm getting back into the astro world again, starting off with the planets, making plans for going off-site to do Mars in July...can't wait! Anyway, Jupiter is currently at -14deg declination which means, from my vantage point at 47deg N latitude, it's max crossing altitude is only 27degrees above the southern horizon. Pretty low so the seeing generally isn't very good. Never-the-less, I must have caught it when the currents were stable and the spirits decided to take pity and let me have this image. It's the best Jupiter I've been able to do to date. I can't wait to catch the planets higher in the sky. Unfortunately, for Jupiter that's still a couple of years away. 2024 will be a good year for imaging that planet.
It's been a while since I posted here. I was away... (show quote)

Beautiful very nicely done. Did you actually use a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm Lens to shoot this???
Craig

Reply
Jun 11, 2018 20:34:56   #
northcoast42 Loc: Puget Sound, Washington
 
Thanks Craig. Oh if it were only that easy! No I have a (relatively) new telescope. I used to use a 127mm refractor. I replaced that with a Meade 12" Catadioptric telescope with almost 3 times the focal length (2430 vs 952mm). I also used a 4x powermate and a new camera. I used to use an ASI120mm monochrome camera with an rgb filter wheel. I got good results but I wanted to shorten up the workflow and the post processing so I got an ASI224mc color camera which also supports USB3 as opposed to USB2 so I get a much better framerate. Now the only issue is at 47 degrees north, Jupiter is hanging out at 27 degrees (max) above the southern horizon (declination: -14deg) so the "seeing" is just not very good. Unfortunately it gets a lot worse next year when Jupiter's declination will be a miserable -22 degrees, which is where Saturn is currently. Anyway, when Jupiter turns the corner in 2021 and starts crossing higher than it is currently, that's when the good imaging starts. By 2024 it will be crossing at +20 degrees declination. Should be some great imaging then. I think this image is the best I've done with Jupiter to date but I expect much better images with this telescope as the planets get higher in the sky.
CraigFair wrote:
Beautiful very nicely done. Did you actually use a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm Lens to shoot this???
Craig

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 17:35:46   #
CraigFair Loc: Santa Maria, CA.
 
northcoast42 wrote:
Thanks Craig. Oh if it were only that easy! No I have a (relatively) new telescope. I used to use a 127mm refractor. I replaced that with a Meade 12" Catadioptric telescope with almost 3 times the focal length (2430 vs 952mm). I also used a 4x powermate and a new camera. I used to use an ASI120mm monochrome camera with an rgb filter wheel. I got good results but I wanted to shorten up the workflow and the post processing so I got an ASI224mc color camera which also supports USB3 as opposed to USB2 so I get a much better framerate. Now the only issue is at 47 degrees north, Jupiter is hanging out at 27 degrees (max) above the southern horizon (declination: -14deg) so the "seeing" is just not very good. Unfortunately it gets a lot worse next year when Jupiter's declination will be a miserable -22 degrees, which is where Saturn is currently. Anyway, when Jupiter turns the corner in 2021 and starts crossing higher than it is currently, that's when the good imaging starts. By 2024 it will be crossing at +20 degrees declination. Should be some great imaging then. I think this image is the best I've done with Jupiter to date but I expect much better images with this telescope as the planets get higher in the sky.
Thanks Craig. Oh if it were only that easy! No I... (show quote)

Interesting you used the new ASI camera and scope. The EXIF said you were using a Nikon camera and $13,000.00 Lens. Hahaha for EXIF.
Craig

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 18:45:58   #
northcoast42 Loc: Puget Sound, Washington
 
I never even looked at the EXIF after I finished processing but I just now looked at it in the original image on my computer and I downloaded my image from UH to check after you told me that. I'm not sure why or how you saw what you saw but the EXIF I saw on both my original image and the one I downloaded just stated the "Camera maker" as Nikon and the model as "Nikon COOLSCAN V ED." Neither of which is accurate. No other information under "Camera" and no information at all under "Advanced photo" except for noting the "EXIF Version" as "0220." In any event, nothing "Nikon" played a role in this image. I suspect during processing, the program defaults to those values when it has no other information. The image came from an .avi sequence taken with an ASI video camera. I think that information gets lost through the processing from thousands of frames in the .avi to a single .tif ( I suspect that's where the information gets lost) to a postable .jpg. Fortunately I still have the complete Firecapture data on the .avi sequence. When there's no identifiable lens or camera, the program just assigns the default, "Nikon Coolscan V ED," because I've scanned many thousands of my slides and negatives from the days of conventional film on that machine. I have a huge number of images on my computer that were taken (according to the EXIF) with a Nikon Coolscan V which, in a way, is true I suppose because it does take a picture (scan) of the slide or negative but the scanner plays no role in my astrophotography. I see no information at all on the lens maker or model in the properties. I have no idea how what you saw showed up in the EXIF data of the image you downloaded. Very strange! On another note...I wish I had a $13,0000 Nikon lens
CraigFair wrote:
Interesting you used the new ASI camera and scope. The EXIF said you were using a Nikon camera and $13,000.00 Lens. Hahaha for EXIF.
Craig

Reply
 
 
Jun 25, 2018 09:14:00   #
nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina
 
CraigFair wrote:
Interesting you used the new ASI camera and scope. The EXIF said you were using a Nikon camera and $13,000.00 Lens. Hahaha for EXIF.
Craig


I don't know who took what and really don't care but what I do know is this image is a scan using a Nikon COOLSCAN V ED scanner...not a camera (well technically a scanner is a camera) and it was further processed using Photoshop Elements, Ver 9. That much I know. There was no lens used with this image so I am confused as to where you got the 180x400 nikon lens info from. I am using Photoshop CC to pull this info - the image has not been upsized but carries original image size according to the PSCC RAW data readout.

Had this been an avi file - no camera info would have been logged in the image data bank or raw data field....the same with processed images in PixInsight and other similar processing software packages where the images that were stacked, registered, and calibrated and then assembled.

But for a moment, just forget all of the above - regardless of whether it is a scan or not.....the following info is irrefutable.... the ASI120MM-C or ASI120MM-S has a native resolution of 1280x960 .....this image has a resolution which is easily identified, not only in the EXIF data but also by pulling the image's RAW data (pic attached) and also by just looking at the image size in PS (another pic is attached). This image has a resolution of 6359x4034 which is, incidentally, consistent with the native output of the Coolscan which happens to be 4000 optical resolution - and that matches the image size as shown in the above pic.

So, in short, this is a scan. The imager may have taken the original image...I dunno but the image above was scanned from either a print or another digital image. That's the short version.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jun 25, 2018 16:36:56   #
northcoast42 Loc: Puget Sound, Washington
 
Wow, this pretty much demands a reply. For someone who doesn't know or care "who took what" you made a number of accusatory and inflammatory, if not slanderous statements essentially accusing me of fraud. First, holster your arrogance "Nikonshooter" while I set you straight. I took this image. It's a real image, not fake, not scanned, not someone else's. It's mine from start to finish! The Nikon Coolscan had nothing to do with this image. It's NOT a scan in any way shape or form!!! There’s a reason why Nikon Coolscan appears in the EXIF and I’ll explain that in a moment. About the resolution; that's a result of two things. First, up-sizing and second taking the original image and, cloning it into a wider field black background because in the processing, I always crop the original .avi footage to give the stacking software a larger more stable target!!! Something else I almost always do with my planetary images is upsize them in PSE because the .bmp image coming out of Registax is always 72dpi. Despite what you think you know, you don't!! This image HAS indeed been upsized. It's easy to do as I’m sure you already know. Take that image and clone it into a wider field black background and the EXIF data becomes the EXIF data of the wide-field black background which is also in jpg format. That’s why Nikon Coolscan shows up in the EXIF data. I looked at the EXIF for the black field and Nikon Coolscan shows up. Why, I can only guess because the scanner played no part in the creation of the black field but what I think happened was when I converted the original black field file into a jpg, the computer assigned the scanner to it maybe because I had previously scanned several thousand images (MY slides and negatives!) and the computer defaulted to that in the absence of any other data. BUT IT'S STILL MY IMAGE and any image I clone into it is also still ALL mine! I regularly manipulate the black field image to fit the image I'm working with. The original EXIF data is long gone. As for the native resolution of the camera...you do know resolution can be and should be adjusted right? Right?!? It's called ROI and that too can be adjusted. The original data most certainly IS an .avi file but not from an ASI120mm or mc camera as you erroneously stated. I did this image with an ASI224mc (color camera) producing an .avi file! I still have it AND I can recreate this image if I so desire. I also retain the EXIF data associated with each .avi file I do. The next time you make an uninformed accusation, why don't you just keep it to your own paranoid self. I would have been more than happy to answer any questions you might have had about the details of my processing techniques had you even bothered to ask before lashing out with accusations of fraud! BTW, it's an easy thing to manipulate the EXIF data associated with any image but I'm an honest person. While I've done a number of photoshopped pictures in the past, I have ALWAYS (ALWAYS!!!) identified them as such. I've never passed off a fake picture as real in my life and never will and I absolutely would never ever take credit for someone else's work. You can take your implications and accusations and stick them where the sun doesn't shine!

Here’s the REAL EXIF file from the .avi I did on 24 May for this image. I did make one error. I said the image was done on 25 May. The processing was but it actually was filmed between 2300 and 2302 on the 24th. Sue me!

Any questions??


FireCapture v2.5 Settings
------------------------------------
Camera=ZWO ASI224MC
Filter=RGB
Profile=Jupiter
Diameter=44.42"
Magnitude=-2.49
CMI=149.1° CMII=341.5° CMIII=210.3° (during mid of capture)
FocalLength=9150mm
Resolution=0.08"
Filename=Jup_230149.avi
Date=240518
Start=230056.374
Mid=230149.960
End=230243.547
Start(UT)=060056.374
Mid(UT)=060149.960
End(UT)=060243.547
Duration=107.173s
Date_format=ddMMyy
Time_format=HHmmss
LT=UT -8h
Frames captured=4213
File type=AVI
Extended AVI mode=true
Compressed AVI=false
Binning=no
ROI=1304x976
ROI(Offset)=0x0
FPS (avg.)=39
Shutter=25.43ms
Gain=269 (44%)
Brightness=1
HighSpeed=off
SoftwareGain=10 (off)
AutoHisto=75 (off)
Gamma=41
HardwareBin=off
AutoExposure=off
WBlue=95
USBTraffic=100
WRed=52
Histogramm(min)=0
Histogramm(max)=110
Histogramm=43%
Noise(avg.deviation)=n/a
Limit=10000 Frames
Sensor temperature=23.0 °C

nikonshooter wrote:
I don't know who took what and really don't care but what I do know is this image is a scan using a Nikon COOLSCAN V ED scanner...not a camera (well technically a scanner is a camera) and it was further processed using Photoshop Elements, Ver 9. That much I know. There was no lens used with this image so I am confused as to where you got the 180x400 nikon lens info from. I am using Photoshop CC to pull this info - the image has not been upsized but carries original image size according to the PSCC RAW data readout.

Had this been an avi file - no camera info would have been logged in the image data bank or raw data field....the same with processed images in PixInsight and other similar processing software packages where the images that were stacked, registered, and calibrated and then assembled.

But for a moment, just forget all of the above - regardless of whether it is a scan or not.....the following info is irrefutable.... the ASI120MM-C or ASI120MM-S has a native resolution of 1280x960 .....this image has a resolution which is easily identified, not only in the EXIF data but also by pulling the image's RAW data (pic attached) and also by just looking at the image size in PS (another pic is attached). This image has a resolution of 6359x4034 which is, incidentally, consistent with the native output of the Coolscan which happens to be 4000 optical resolution - and that matches the image size as shown in the above pic.

So, in short, this is a scan. The imager may have taken the original image...I dunno but the image above was scanned from either a print or another digital image. That's the short version.
I don't know who took what and really don't care b... (show quote)

Reply
Jun 25, 2018 20:12:25   #
nikonshooter Loc: Spartanburg, South Carolina
 
Send me the avi file just raw data via a program called “mailbigfile” and if ... if what you say is right you will get the biggest apology I can muster .... until then I can’t buy it!!!! My email is ed@emphoto.net

Reply
Jun 25, 2018 23:56:33   #
northcoast42 Loc: Puget Sound, Washington
 
Gee, let’s see…you’ve insulted me, questioned my integrity, accused me of fraud and now you’re calling me a liar. I’ve about had it with you. So...you think I'm lying. You think I just conjured the EXIF on the video out of thin air? "If what you say is right..."?!?! There’s no “if” about it. What I said WAS right. You were and are wrong and you’re in the wrong. If you had a problem with this you should have messaged me in private with questions instead of accusations and we could have remained cordial if not friends. I don't have to prove anything to you and I don't give a damn what you buy or don't buy but you've made this public so I'm obligated to respond. I’m going to let you have the raw footage. Afterward, you will publicly apologize to me in a separate stand alone post in this forum, not just as an addition to this string. If you don’t, then I’ll make a separate post “explaining” things. I’m sure more than one person read your false accusations. I want to make sure they have no question about my honesty and integrity. I also want to make sure that anyone interested knows you screwed up royally.
I’m not using your program. The file is currently stored on my Google Drive. You will receive an e-mail shortly with a link. The file is 4.99gb. I’ve never used Google Drive before but I think, if you have a google account, you can download the file. If you don’t have a google account, you can still view the file on line but won’t be able to download it. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up for one (it’s free). Up to you.

When you view the file, just so you understand this IS the video from which the image was derived, keep in mind the planet was imaged through the diagonal. For proper orientation, the final image was vertically flipped in photoshop. If you want the image to appear in the same orientation as the video, take it into photoshop and flip it vertically again.

By the way, go back into the forum and look at the compilation of May’s bright planets I did. Download that image and look at the EXIF data. You’ll see the exact same EXIF as you saw with this image. Why? Because I cloned those images (MY images I did with MY telescope) onto a black widefield background…the same black widefield background I cloned this image of Jupiter into. Ask yourself a question…if I had something to hide, do you really think I would be so stupid as to allow my images to be downloaded by anyone at UH? Starting to get the picture?
nikonshooter wrote:
Send me the avi file just raw data via a program called “mailbigfile” and if ... if what you say is right you will get the biggest apology I can muster .... until then I can’t buy it!!!! My email is ed@emphoto.net

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Astronomical Photography Forum
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.