Here's a shot of Copernicus, taken under good seeing conditions...

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/craters/2008-09-22_05-32-04_Red_cn.jpg
-- 
Pete Lawrence
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:54:48 +0100, Pete Lawrence
 wrote:

>Here's a shot of Copernicus, taken under good seeing conditions...
>
>http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/craters/2008-09-22_05-32-04_Red_cn.jpg

Hi Pete-

Both images are excellent. A few questions: are these single shots, or
did you use some lucky imaging? What was the exposure time? From the
file names, I'm guessing you've isolated the red channel? Is that to
control atmospheric dispersion?
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Sep 24, 12:54 pm, Pete Lawrence  wrote:
> Here's a shot of Copernicus, taken under good seeing conditions...
>
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/craters/2008-09-22_05-32-04_Red_cn...


Blimey! That's so sharp you can still see the builder's footprints all
around the edges!

Sorry, Pete. :-)

Superb shot!

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:05:47 -0600, Chris L Peterson
 wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:54:48 +0100, Pete Lawrence
> wrote:
>
>>Here's a shot of Copernicus, taken under good seeing conditions...
>>
>>http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/craters/2008-09-22_05-32-04_Red_cn.jpg
>
>Hi Pete-
>
>Both images are excellent. A few questions: are these single shots, or
>did you use some lucky imaging? What was the exposure time? From the
>file names, I'm guessing you've isolated the red channel? Is that to
>control atmospheric dispersion?

Hi Chris, 

Same technique used for both images. A high frame-rate camera
(Lumenera SKYnyx 2-0M) to grab multiple frames and then processed
through Registax before assembly. Indivudual frame exposure time was
30ms for both images. I use a red filter to reduce the effects of
atmospheric seeing. 
-- 
Pete Lawrence
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

What number red filter?

 I use a red filter to reduce the effects of
> atmospheric seeing.
> -- 
> Pete Lawrence
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:09:53 GMT, "MAT"  wrote:

>What number red filter?
>
> I use a red filter to reduce the effects of
>> atmospheric seeing.
>> -- 
>> Pete Lawrence
>> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk 
>

An Astronomik Type 2 red filter.
-- 
Pete Lawrence
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

Nice image for sure, but.......

Seeing is still the #1 factor to getting good images.  It took me several 
years and thousands of $$ to realize this fact.  There is a certain 
advertising "hype" that a firewire so-called "fast" multiple frame grabbing 
camera will defeat poor seeing conditions but this is definitely not the 
case.  I spent much time researching these cameras and in fact tested 
several of them, but I found CCD S/N ratio sensitivity insufficient for the 
truly rapid frame captures needed to overcome poor seeing conditions.

In the coming years, there may be several options and that is what I am 
waiting for.  One option is that CCD's are constantly improving so 
sensitivity may allow say 1/100 sec exposure at 60 fps for Jupiter, but I 
think that is a long way off yet.  Another is a technique similar to 
adaptive optics in some ways and different in other ways.... I once 
"borrowed" four C-8's, set them up within 10 feet of one another and aimed 
them at Jupiter.  Then,  using software, webcam movies were captured all at 
the same instant for one minute.  The results were significantly better than 
if a single telescope had been used because essentially you had 4 frames per 
instant time to choose from as being "good" or "bad" for stacking purposes. 
The final experiment was conducted among a dozen amateurs with twelve scopes 
in the 8- 12" range aimed at Saturn.  A technique called "match and freeze" 
was used to literally freeze the effects of the jetstream making Saturn 
independent of it.  This required using scope hand controllers to 
stop-go-stop again (to help defeat a fast jetstream) and the frames were 
captured at a certain point in the process.  Extremely tedious, but the 
image of Saturn was not unlike those of folks who are blessed with 
constantly good seeing.  So there are ways with current technology to defeat 
even a fast jetstream, but the process is far from cheap unless you can find 
enough volunteers.

Cheers,
Al



"Pete Lawrence"  wrote in message 
news:717kd4dvnojdbfopnt6fvmuir8rtt9rom1@4ax.com...
> Here's a shot of Copernicus, taken under good seeing conditions...
>
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/craters/2008-09-22_05-32-04_Red_cn.jpg
> -- 
> Pete Lawrence
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:35:33 -0400, "Albert Maxwell" 
wrote:

>Seeing is still the #1 factor to getting good images.

I assume you mean high resolution images. Certainly, in the absence of
equipment problems (and assuming reasonable aperture), seeing is what
ultimately limits resolution.

>There is a certain 
>advertising "hype" that a firewire so-called "fast" multiple frame grabbing 
>camera will defeat poor seeing conditions but this is definitely not the 
>case.

In this you are very much mistaken. There is no doubt at all that
capturing and combining many short exposure images, especially when
images are selected for quality (lucky imaging) can significantly reduce
the effects of seeing. At my observatory, I never have better than 3
arcsec FWHM stars in a 10-second exposure, but I can get subarcsecond
resolution capturing planets with video. This is an extremely valuable
tool.

>  I spent much time researching these cameras and in fact tested 
>several of them, but I found CCD S/N ratio sensitivity insufficient for the 
>truly rapid frame captures needed to overcome poor seeing conditions.

S/N is only part of the picture. You can have poor S/N and still have
high resolution. Also, S/N is dependent on aperture. The larger the
aperture, the more photons you'll receive, and the better your S/N. So
you can't really generalize about cameras alone, you have to consider
the entire setup.


>In the coming years, there may be several options and that is what I am 
>waiting for.  One option is that CCD's are constantly improving so 
>sensitivity may allow say 1/100 sec exposure at 60 fps for Jupiter, but I 
>think that is a long way off yet.

I normally shoot Jupiter with a simple webcam, with 1/100 second
exposure and 15 fps. With a 12" aperture, I am not particularly limited
by S/N issues. That is, at 1/100 second the brightest regions of Jupiter
are nearing saturation on the sensor, so readout noise (and photon
statistics) are all I need to consider.

CCDs already have excellent quantum efficiency, typically recording
about 50% of the photons that reach them. So there is little room for
improvement there. For short exposure imaging, readout noise is the
primary problem. I expect this will be largely eliminated in the near
future. I already have a zero readout noise camera, and it can capture
images with exposures of only about a millisecond, with no noise
penalty. You simply collect enough that the photon noise reaches an
acceptably low level. There are also people working around the readout
noise problem by using image intensifiers.

But these tricks to deal with readout noise are for getting high
resolution on DSOs and other dim objects. They are not required for the
Sun, Moon, and bright planets, all of which can be imaged with very
ordinary video equipment (including webcams), at subarcsecond resolution
even under marginal seeing, and with extremely high S/N in the final
stacked images.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:35:33 -0400, "Albert Maxwell" 
wrote:

>Nice image for sure, but.......
>
>Seeing is still the #1 factor to getting good images...

Not too sure what the "but" is for? I never said that seeing wasn't
the most important factor.

>
>"Pete Lawrence"  wrote in message 
>news:717kd4dvnojdbfopnt6fvmuir8rtt9rom1@4ax.com...
>> Here's a shot of Copernicus, taken under good seeing conditions...
>>
>> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/craters/2008-09-22_05-32-04_Red_cn.jpg
>> -- 
>> Pete Lawrence
>> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk 
>

-- 
Pete Lawrence
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

"Chris L Peterson"  wrote in message 
news:t7lnd459kat4f9b7um53q6nl8jmdjbke7t@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:35:33 -0400, "Albert Maxwell" 
> wrote:
>
>>Seeing is still the #1 factor to getting good images.
>
> I assume you mean high resolution images. Certainly, in the absence of
> equipment problems (and assuming reasonable aperture), seeing is what
> ultimately limits resolution.

Yes, high resolution imagery.

>>There is a certain
>>advertising "hype" that a firewire so-called "fast" multiple frame 
>>grabbing
>>camera will defeat poor seeing conditions but this is definitely not the
>>case.
>
> In this you are very much mistaken. There is no doubt at all that
> capturing and combining many short exposure images, especially when
> images are selected for quality (lucky imaging) can significantly reduce
> the effects of seeing. At my observatory, I never have better than 3
> arcsec FWHM stars in a 10-second exposure, but I can get subarcsecond
> resolution capturing planets with video. This is an extremely valuable
> tool.

Do you have a high resolution image to show then, like those coming from 
Peach and others?  You're talking about reducing the effects of turbulence 
and the technique you describe does do that to a certain extent, but not 
high resolution with low noise unless the atmospheric conditions are 
favorable.

>>  I spent much time researching these cameras and in fact tested
>>several of them, but I found CCD S/N ratio sensitivity insufficient for 
>>the
>>truly rapid frame captures needed to overcome poor seeing conditions.
>
> S/N is only part of the picture. You can have poor S/N and still have
> high resolution.

Ok, technically, yes but the image will be far from presentable.

Also, S/N is dependent on aperture. The larger the
> aperture, the more photons you'll receive, and the better your S/N. So
> you can't really generalize about cameras alone, you have to consider
> the entire setup.

True, the larger the scope, the more light reaches the CCD, but then again 
larger scopes are more susceptible to atmospherics.  A catch 22 so to speak.
>
>>In the coming years, there may be several options and that is what I am
>>waiting for.  One option is that CCD's are constantly improving so
>>sensitivity may allow say 1/100 sec exposure at 60 fps for Jupiter, but I
>>think that is a long way off yet.
>
> I normally shoot Jupiter with a simple webcam, with 1/100 second
> exposure and 15 fps. With a 12" aperture, I am not particularly limited
> by S/N issues. That is, at 1/100 second the brightest regions of Jupiter
> are nearing saturation on the sensor, so readout noise (and photon
> statistics) are all I need to consider.

I should have mentioned "planetary high resolution" in my initial response 
as the discussion is getting away from that realm.  It does no good to 
capture at those settings or even aperture- for the purpose of high 
resolution, low noise planetary imaging-  if seeing conditions are not good.

> CCDs already have excellent quantum efficiency, typically recording
> about 50% of the photons that reach them. So there is little room for
> improvement there. For short exposure imaging, readout noise is the
> primary problem. I expect this will be largely eliminated in the near
> future. I already have a zero readout noise camera, and it can capture
> images with exposures of only about a millisecond, with no noise
> penalty. You simply collect enough that the photon noise reaches an
> acceptably low level. There are also people working around the readout
> noise problem by using image intensifiers.

Ah, image intensifiers.  It is worth experimenting with those further.

> But these tricks to deal with readout noise are for getting high
> resolution on DSOs and other dim objects. They are not required for the
> Sun, Moon, and bright planets, all of which can be imaged with very
> ordinary video equipment (including webcams), at subarcsecond resolution
> even under marginal seeing, and with extremely high S/N in the final
> stacked images.

You can image a planet under any conditions ending up with the results you 
speak of.  However, if atmospheric conditions are poor to average will you 
end up with a very high resolution, low noise and presentable solar system 
object type image, based on the best amateur equipment available today?

The aforementioned question or "challenge" so to speak was what prompted me 
to conduct my research.  These essentially "glorified" webcams were being 
marketed (still are) for greater than $1K amounts in some cases with users 
being quite disappointed when they failed to meet the resolution of the guy 
near the equator or in an excellent seeing location.  As of 2007, I had not 
yet found a single camera with a CCD capable of achieving truly high 
planetary resolution in poor to average seeing conditions with low noise and 
an aesthetic result after stacking and processing.  Not a single camera, but 
as I mentioned before, the volunteer and several scopes approach did begin 
to achieve such results.

The bottom line is that I guess it all depends on what you seek.  I want 
high resolution, low noise planetary images taken under 5/10 or less seeing 
conditions.  And, yes, I'm looking at this primarily from an aesthetic and 
not a scientific, data-based point of view, although one must include such 
data for a realistic image.

Al
 _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com

Pete Lawrence wrote:
> Here's a shot of Copernicus, taken under good seeing conditions...
> 
> http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/lunar/craters/2008-09-22_05-32-04_Red_cn.jpg

Nice :)

What sort of resolution do you think that is giving?

-- 
Abo