New Moon pictures

On 3 Jun 2004 00:24:39 -0700, (Chris.B) wrote:


All such near perfection is still nothing like standing in the cold
under the stars. Straining to see (and hopefully capture) a wobbly
planet though watery eyes amid a wildly tossing sea of atmospheric and
instrumental aberrations.

Your methods are perfectly valid. I just prefer my own.

Ha ha - you make it sound as if astrophotographers/astrostackers press
a few buttons and Bob's your uncle. The recent daytime shot of Venus
I posted took 3 hours to capture. Most of this time was spent
locating the damned planet near to the Sun on a bright sunny day
without GOTO. Then there's the processing time on top of that and the
magical moment when the final image pops out. All in all a totally
memorable and human experience. On top of that, I also have a record
of the event that will serve to remind me of it for years to come.

To pick out the stack as art is a little unfair. There's little to
divide visual/photographic/CCD in terms of their science/art
characteristics. Yes - it's possible to make things appear with a
processed photograph that weren't there. On the whole the rendition
is just a clearer view than you can make out with your eyes.

I've yet to be able to grab a decent enough stack of Mars though. You
know - one that that will show those lovely canals ;-)

--
Pete
Homepage at http://www.pbl33.co.uk
Home of the Lunar Parallax Demonstration Project

"Chris.B" wrote in message
om...

All such near perfection is still nothing like standing in the cold
under the stars. Straining to see (and hopefully capture) a wobbly
planet though watery eyes amid a wildly tossing sea of atmospheric
and instrumental aberrations.

Indeed not. You talk as if imaging and visual astronomy are mutually
exclusive. They aren't. I share your concern for younger people who
immerse themselves in video games and artificial reality; it is one of the
reasons why I haven't watched television or the cinema for years. I
enjoy reality so much that I feel it would be soiled by viewing fiction.
But amateur astronomers' images are a honest interpretation of reality,
something which supplements, not replaces, visual observing.
Hmmmm, why do I get the feeling that I've just been trolled?!

MDJ nous a écrit :

Thankyou for your comments. There is a bit of an unsharp mask on it
but what further settings would you recommend?

I can't recommend you any setting, because it depends on your processing
software.
You must try with different values, but usually a radius between 1 and 3
pixels, a threshold of 1 to 3 levels are good figures to start for such a
picture.
Adjust the amount and appreciate the effect

--
Norbert. (no X for the answer)
======================================
knowing the universe - stellar and galaxies evolution
http://nrumiano.free.fr
images of the sky http://images.ciel.free.fr
======================================

Pete Lawrence wrote in message . ..

Ha ha - you make it sound as if astrophotographers/astrostackers press
a few buttons and Bob's your uncle. The recent daytime shot of Venus
I posted took 3 hours to capture. Most of this time was spent
locating the damned planet near to the Sun on a bright sunny day
without GOTO. Then there's the processing time on top of that and the
magical moment when the final image pops out. All in all a totally
memorable and human experience. On top of that, I also have a record
of the event that will serve to remind me of it for years to come.

Nowhere did I belittle your skill and patience Pete.(or anybody
else's) To do so would have been grossly unfair. I greatly appreciate
your sharing your fine images with us. I was delighted and amazed by
your Venus crescent. In comparison, my own (earlier) 'snaps' of Venus
were awash with false colour and not very sharp. So I do understand
the difficulties of capturing Venus. Particularly when so close to the
Sun.
I have sometimes used the shadow of a building to block any chance of
seeing the Sun in the unprotected field of view. Though it helps if
the object is trailing the Sun rather than leading! I would consider
the latter too dangerous to be worth attempting.

I'm with you on the lasting memory aspect of these unique moments. The
Solar Eclipse from the top of an ancient mound, complete with standing
stones and the Mercury transit from my back garden. With thin cloud
clearing (and with 4 completely flat camera batteries!) are still
fresh in my mind.

You haven't got Goto? What are you? A Luddite? ;-)

Chris.B

"Tom" . wrote in message ...

You talk as if imaging and visual astronomy are mutually
exclusive. They aren't. I share your concern for younger people who
immerse themselves in video games and artificial reality; it is one of the
reasons why I haven't watched television or the cinema for years. I
enjoy reality so much that I feel it would be soiled by viewing fiction.
But amateur astronomers' images are a honest interpretation of reality,
something which supplements, not replaces, visual observing.
Hmmmm, why do I get the feeling that I've just been trolled?!

Trolled? Definitely not! I hope this thread can remain on an
intelligent level. An open discussion helps everybody to settle (or
even alter) their inner feelings about changing technology ad how they
relate to it. Nobody should be hurt or made angry by such a
discussion. This isn't football! ;-)

Unlike you I enjoy the special effects of films. I thrive on them and
enjoy every moment. It doesn't stop me from smiling wryly (and often
grinning broadly) as bullets are stopped in mid air in the Matrix!
(Though I do dislike 98% of TV)

I do like stacked images. I just choose not to take that route. It's
been an interesting thread so far. You raise an interesting point
about kids. Are Pete and Norbert raising the kids expectations too
far? Should they be stopped before it is too late? ;-)

Regards
Chris.B

(andrea tasselli) wrote in message . com...

I still don't see how anyone can have a problem with stacking multiple
exposures. You're only working around the limitations of a technology
(i.e. improving signal/noise ratio).

I don't agree. I do have a problem with the end result.
Some of the published stacked images of Mars were simply apalling.
Not just unreal. On another planet!

BTW, you're a selective Luddite.

Thanks. Join the club. :-)

Chris.B

(Chris.B) wrote:
(andrea tasselli) wrote in message . com...

I still don't see how anyone can have a problem with stacking multiple
exposures. You're only working around the limitations of a technology
(i.e. improving signal/noise ratio).

I don't agree. I do have a problem with the end result.
Some of the published stacked images of Mars were simply apalling.
Not just unreal. On another planet!

I presume they were stacked *and* overly manipulated. Stacking is
scientifically valid, but over-use of photoshop is "art" (of the kind
FHM uses to make every bit of pseudo-totty with bad skin and a fat
arse look like a supermodel).


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

On 3 Jun 2004 07:22:21 -0700, (andrea tasselli)
wrote:

Good question, in a way. I can offer this as an answer: a number of
people processed the same raw image of jupiter and came to extremely
close results. This is quite telling if one consider they used most
likely different software and different methods, all unknown to each
other. Note also that different people see the same scene noting
different details as well as different hues so there is no such a
thing as an "objective" reality. If anything a digital image is closer
to objectivity than is human vision.

Yes, but in order to use a digital image you have to look at
it--using your human train of responses.
How is looking at a digital image more objective than looking at
one formed by the eyepiece? Two people could look at the same
digital image and note different details just as in the eyepiece.
The periodic smearing of detail in the eyepiece that observers have to

put up with has nothing to do with subjectivity; it produces an image
as optically "real" as anything can be. And although far from
perfect, the human eye is as objective a camera as anything can be;
the subjective aspect is rooted in what the brain does to the
information, regardless of how optically aberrated it might be.


Dan

Tim Auton tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY] wrote in message . ..

I presume they were stacked *and* overly manipulated. Stacking is
scientifically valid, but over-use of photoshop is "art" (of the kind
FHM uses to make every bit of pseudo-totty with bad skin and a fat
arse look like a supermodel).

"stacked *and* overly manipulated" ?

Steady Lad. We were discussing the verb! Not the adjective.

But thankyou for sharing. :-)

Chris.B

(Chris.B) wrote in message . com...
(andrea tasselli) wrote in message . com...

I still don't see how anyone can have a problem with stacking multiple
exposures. You're only working around the limitations of a technology
(i.e. improving signal/noise ratio).

I don't agree. I do have a problem with the end result.

End results have nothing to do with stacking. It's processing what
you're indeed after. Stacking is simply a way to fight noise (or,
better, to increase S/N ratio). If we didn't have noise we wouldn't
need doing it.

Some of the published stacked images of Mars were simply apalling.
Not just unreal. On another planet!

Well, yes. But let's see in another way. With so many poeple doing it
there is quite a good chance that some will capture something
significant. Drop the crap and keep the cream, that's what I say.


BTW, you're a selective Luddite.

Thanks. Join the club. :-)

No joining fees? :-)

Andrea T.