Some jaw-dropping amateur jupiter images.

"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

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
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?

Why would someone do it? Well, for the attention maybe or to maybe see that
image in a publication somewhere. Over the last year, I know of one case
where an amateur image was stolen, modified, and used for another imager's
purpose. However, the ball dropped because that person was caught. One
positive benefit of posting an image on the web is that, with Photoshop and
other higher end programs, it is fairly easy to double check images to make
sure they're coming from where they're supposed to. That factor alone has
made the image stealing process quite difficult.

Juan



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

On Mon, 09 May 2005 16:30:35 GMT, "Juan Porch" wrote:

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".

This is not hard to do with images of DSOs, but it is a very difficult
thing to do with an image of Jupiter because it rotates so quickly and
its features are so dynamic. How would you combine two images made at
different times without introducing all sorts of odd artifacts?

_________________________________________________

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