Take a look at this Saturn shot

This is not my shot.
It is superb!!
Done with a Celestron 9.25" SCT.
http://tinyurl.com/44kvm

RichA wrote:
This is not my shot.
It is superb!!

Definitely. But unfortunately too heavily processed,
with lots of artifacts and lots of Encke Divisions...

Done with a Celestron 9.25" SCT.

Amazing anyway. Wish I see a more reasonably processed
version.

-- francois meyer
http://dulle.free.fr/alidade/galerie.php?maxim=12

wrote in message ...
RichA wrote:
This is not my shot.
It is superb!!

Definitely. But unfortunately too heavily processed,
with lots of artifacts and lots of Encke Divisions...

I took a look at it too and compared it to a late 90's Hubble image I have
here. Both images show the same general darkening and lightening of the
rings and what might actually be "lots of Encke divisions" might be Encke
and a small darkness just inside of Encke, also present on a Hubble image.

Done with a Celestron 9.25" SCT.

Amazing anyway. Wish I see a more reasonably processed
version.

Looks good to me, but here is another albeit better image with higher
resolution taken by a different person:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/damian....c11th_2004.jpg

This particular image is highly regarded and shows the same features as the
prior, just more highly resolved.

Al

-- francois meyer
http://dulle.free.fr/alidade/galerie.php?maxim=12

Al Roarke wrote:

wrote in message ...
RichA wrote:
This is not my shot.
It is superb!!

Definitely. But unfortunately too heavily processed,
with lots of artifacts and lots of Encke Divisions...

I took a look at it too and compared it to a late 90's Hubble image I have
here. Both images show the same general darkening and lightening of the
rings and what might actually be "lots of Encke divisions" might be Encke
and a small darkness just inside of Encke, also present on a Hubble image.

Done with a Celestron 9.25" SCT.

Amazing anyway. Wish I see a more reasonably processed
version.

Looks good to me, but here is another albeit better image with higher
resolution taken by a different person:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/damian....c11th_2004.jpg

This particular image is highly regarded and shows the same features as the
prior, just more highly resolved.

Interactions between the shadow of the globe on the ring passing behind
the globe and the ring itself reveal that both images contain processing
artifacts, even if less apparent on Damian's image.

You dont see anything like these on Hubble images and you should not see
them on a carefully (not heavily) processed image, as on this one by
Thierry Legault :

http://astrosurf.com/legault/sat03.jpg

Given this fact and knowing how rings are highly subject to rebound
effects during wavelet processing make it impossible to say with
reasonable confidence what are real features and what are artifacts,
particularly in the encke region.

More generally, my feeling is that the emergence of click-and-go
processing softwares have had the side effect of hiding the underlying
mechanisms of processing, and the destructive effects it can have when
mis-used.

Of course this is inevitable, these softwares are there to provide tools
that are usable by everyone and not only by experts in signal
processing, but we should not forget that an image showing artifacts is
useless unless you can demonstrate that the artifacts do not affect the
features you pretend to have revealed. And this is clearly not true in
Eric Todd's image, and most probably not true on Damians'.

We all agree the shots are awesome, my point is just that over
processing not only destroys real details and creates artifacts but also
destroys the smoothness and 'realisticity' of the image. Too bad, when
you had the opportunity and the skills to acquire good material...

- francois meyer
http://dulle.free.fr/alidade/galerie.php?maxim=12

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:59:27 -0500, RichA wrote:

This is not my shot.
It is superb!!
Done with a Celestron 9.25" SCT.
http://tinyurl.com/44kvm



Truly a marvelous and detail revealing shot, but I wonder if the person
making the image had any more fun or was more thrilled with the results
than I was with my handheld and unguided image of Saturn (go to
http://members.isp.com/universeofama...nomy%40isp.com and click on
"Unguided astro imaging."

I am an amateur astronomer and for me happiness is obtained with the
simplest of techniques utilized as best as possible.

The photo with the Celestron is very, very fine. . .but for me would
represent to much work. But then again, maybe the person who took it
enjoys that kind of thing.

I had time to try to image (unsuccessfully, but that was fun too) Comet
Machholtz just minutes later and then took the scope in and returned to a
warm house where I read astronomy forums for a good while and turned in for
a good night's sleep.

It was a fun night and rewarding evening.


--
Martin R. Howell
"Photographs From the Universe of Amateur Astronomy"
http://members.isp.com/universeofama...nomy%40isp.com

When I made the following statement in my reply to this thread: "I am an
amateur astronomer. . .," it was given to allude to the fact that personal
enjoyment of the discipline can be fully realized without becoming a
quasi-professional astro photographer. In my opinion, the persuit of
"incredible" images like the one cited in the original post are certainly
very nice but not necessary to the enjoyment of the hobby. Anybody who
points their scope to the sky and smiles at what they see or image (with
ANY level of success) should be justly proud of themselves.

We can all sing. Can we all sing well enough to put our voice on tour or
record? No. . .but I do occasionally sing in the shower and sometimes it
sounds great to me.


--
Martin R. Howell
"Photographs From the Universe of Amateur Astronomy"
http://members.isp.com/universeofama...nomy%40isp.com