| What is the reason for absense of "crisp"? | |
|---|---|
| Post Processing | |
| Focus | |
| Exposure | |
| Gain | |
| The fact the mirror was last cleaned years ago | |
| Login to vote and view results. |
2.11
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
I few days ago I got to try a pretty good astrocamera, ToupTek ATR3 CMOS 26000 KPA to be exact. This was my first time using it, and my first target was Jupiter. However, it seems that the image clarity is slightly off. This could be due to a number of reasons, from poor exposure and gain to post processing. Also keep in minв that the telescope I was using didnt get any cleaning in multiple years, so that might be one of the reasons. I stacked 100 RAW images to get this one. What do you think?  |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Hi, did you apply any wavelet sharpening? It seems like using Registax could enhance the details if you haven't already. And could you specify the time interval during which you captured the images? Ideally, it should not exceed 1.5 to 2 minutes if no derotation has been applied. |
7.76
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Did you really expect anything better with a measly 100 exposures? Of all the items you listed NONE of them is relevant and the most important is missing: the seeing! That would have been N.1 N.2 would have been the number of exposure, culled out of the worst ones: that would have been run in the thousands, not in the hundreds. N.3: Image scale. Yours is way too high from what I can see, which is also related to the fourth: N.4: Frequency of capture: here is at least 30 fps or higher depending on gain setting and image scale (so it pays off to have it as high as reasonable given the seeing and the scope aperture) N.5: Length of exposure per image (that is length of captured movie in seconds). Relates to image scale and Jupiter rotation which is pretty fast. All the items you listed above: none of them matters (well maybe processing does) |
1.20
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
seeing. seeing. and again seeing. Thats the main reason for planetary images not being crisp. CS Markus |
|
1.51
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Isn't the IMX571 a deep-sky camera not a planetary camera? Aren't asi585mc and asi678mc based cameras the best planetary camera's currently? |
1.81
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Hi @Alien_Enthusiast,You have a great camera, but it might not be the ideal choice for planetary photography.Its speed and resolution could be limiting factors; for instance, the 26MB sensor might offer excessive resolution while being relatively slow. A quick search on AstroBin reveals that there are no planetary photos taken with this model, which is quite telling.For optimal results in this field, consider using a high-speed camera and of captpturing at least between 20,000 and 50,000 frames. This would significantly enhance the quality of images of planets.I should mention that I'm not deeply immersed in planetary photography and still consider myself a novice in the broader field of astrophotography. Therefore, please take my advice with a grain of salt.Other experienced photographers have also highlighted the critical role of 'seeing' – the atmospheric condition affecting the visibility of celestial bodies – in achieving quality planetary images. Which it's a vital aspect to consider in Planetary photography.CS |
