Some jaw-dropping amateur jupiter images.

http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery...d=5420&c=21447

On the Anacortes forums, I noticed these images of Jupiter. Taken with
a C 14 on a Losmandy HGM mount. I guess the seeing is pretty good in
French Polynesia.

Clear Skies,
Uncle Bob

Uncle Bob wrote:
http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery...d=5420&c=21447

On the Anacortes forums, I noticed these images of Jupiter. Taken
with
a C 14 on a Losmandy HGM mount. I guess the seeing is pretty good in

French Polynesia.

Clear Skies,
Uncle Bob

Hi Bob:

Yep...the best I've ever seen. Even better than Grafton and Peach, and
that is saying a lot. INCREDIBLE detail, including some I'd only
noticed before in spacecraft shots!

Peace,
Rod

"Uncle Bob" wrote in message
ng.com...

http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery...d=5420&c=21447

On the Anacortes forums, I noticed these images of Jupiter. Taken with a
C 14 on a Losmandy HGM mount. I guess the seeing is pretty good in French
Polynesia.

Clear Skies,
Uncle Bob

lies..all lies

"Mike" wrote in news:JZJfe.46060$vN2.23650@clgrps13:


"Uncle Bob" wrote in message
ng.com...

http://www.buytelescopes.com/gallery...d=5420&c=21447

On the Anacortes forums, I noticed these images of Jupiter. Taken
with a C 14 on a Losmandy HGM mount. I guess the seeing is pretty
good in French Polynesia.

Clear Skies,
Uncle Bob

lies..all lies

I thought earlier images of Mars by the same people were bogus. I was wrong
(and I received the original AVI).


--
Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com
The IDA Pro Disassembler & Debugger - world leader in hostile code analysis
PhotoRescue - advanced data recovery for digital photographic media
latest review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1590497,00.asp

I thought earlier images of Mars by the same people were bogus. I was
wrong
(and I received the original AVI).


--


Hi:

I assume the guy ("LIES, ALL LIES!") is just kidding. I hope. ;-)

Peace,
Rod

RMOLLISE wrote in message
.com...


I thought earlier images of Mars by the same people were bogus. I was
wrong
(and I received the original AVI).


--


Hi:

I assume the guy ("LIES, ALL LIES!") is just kidding. I hope. ;-)

Peace,
Rod


I don't know about that. "There are lies, damn lies and then there are
statistics ".

best regards,
matt tudor

matt wrote:
RMOLLISE wrote in message
.com...

I thought earlier images of Mars by the same people were bogus. I was

wrong

(and I received the original AVI).


--


Hi:

I assume the guy ("LIES, ALL LIES!") is just kidding. I hope. ;-)

Peace,
Rod



I don't know about that. "There are lies, damn lies and then there are
statistics ".

Maybe that should be "There are lies, damn lies and then there's image
processing"
FWIW they look like nice pics to me.

Shawn

"RMOLLISE" wrote in message
oups.com...


I thought earlier images of Mars by the same people were bogus. I was
wrong
(and I received the original AVI).


--


Hi:

I assume the guy ("LIES, ALL LIES!") is just kidding. I hope. ;-)

Probably not, Rod. Since the webcam phenomenon, I've noticed a growing
trend of "artifact finder" folks, claiming that most of the detail seen by
webcams and other digital imaging is artifacts. You can show these folks
pictures from Hubble for direct comparison and they still scream "artifacts"
when it comes to the lowly webcam image. Just why this is happening, I'm
not sure, but I think it has something to do with the declining number of
film users. Let's face it, I've never seen a film image capture planetary
detail like a webcam or CCD camera can and I think some of the "film only"
folks feel threatened by that (please notice I said "some" here!). Add the
fact that digital images have a much harder time printing well, and they
feel they have stated their case.

On the other side of the coin, maybe these folks deserve some credit also.
There certainly have been cases within the last couple of years where a high
end image processing program was used to combine a Hubble shot, carefully
disguised and resolution reduced, with an extremely poor webcam image to
create an unheard of composite, or where someone has stolen a great amateur
image and combined it with theirs to produce that attention getting image.
So perhaps the "artifact people" are keeping the digital and even the film
folks "in check".

It's difficult to decide where to draw the line for sure.

Juan

Peace,
Rod

"Juan Porch" wrote in message news:LeMfe.70

Probably not, Rod. Since the webcam phenomenon, I've noticed a growing
trend of "artifact finder" folks, claiming that most of the detail seen by
webcams and other digital imaging is artifacts. You can show these folks
pictures from Hubble for direct comparison and they still scream
"artifacts"
when it comes to the lowly webcam image.


The most common artifacts in amateur astrophotography are extra rings and
over-sized divisions around Saturn, arising from the indiscriminant use of
contrast enhancement. A great image is one that doesn't *require* excessive
digital contrast boosting.

Ed T.

Juan Porch:
There certainly have been cases within the last couple of years where a high
end image processing program was used to combine a Hubble shot, carefully
disguised and resolution reduced, with an extremely poor webcam image to
create an unheard of composite, or where someone has stolen a great amateur
image and combined it with theirs to produce that attention getting image.

Why would someone do this? Where would the satisfaction come from? I'm
pleased? to note that no one _ever_ looked at one of my Jupiter pics
and said "Hubble." Nor have I had any trouble with other amateurs
stealing my astro pics and putting their own names on them ; -)

In the present instance, I accept these images for what they appear to
be--the finest amateur Jupiter pics to date. I know from (slight)
experience that the South Sea islands can have incredibly good skies,
particularly for lunar and planetary observing.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com