Quick Report on Seeing 8/17/20

So, I was able to get out last night and between 9:30 pm to around 10:30 pm, the seeing was "very good" for the area.   

 

BUT as I've mentioned in a past post, there wasn't a wealth of sharp details on Jupiter to be seen.  It's very odd because when the seeing isn't great, sometimes, there are these fleeting microseconds when you see a wealth of detail on the planet.  I've wondered if that detail is an illusion.  Perhaps the mind perceives several microseconds of images that are moving around and "processes" the images like a "live stack".   Part of the reason I suspect this idea is that when I go back to the video frame-by-frame, I don't see any sharp frames.

In any event, by 11 pm, warm winds started up from the SE (rare) and the seeing began to crap out.

This is what it's like around 30% of the time.  And yes, that's best focus. 

Jet Stream or Why We Never Have Good Seeing

I was watching more of Christopher Go's processing video and he mentioned a website that tracks the jet stream around the world. 

Here's the link: http://www.stormsurfing.com/cgi/display_alt.cgi?a=glob_250

Normally, North America has about TWICE the jet stream activity so I need to get out there and continue to image the planets.   Obviously, the best places to image planets are going to be around the equator.   (From what I can tell, the red circles represent relative low pressure zones which are also centered around the Southwest in the above image.   Though we are not in the thick of the jet-stream, I suspect the low pressure creates its own problems.)

After watching more footage from different times of the year, in the US, the best places seem to be California and Florida.  The NE US looks like they are perennially locked into the jet stream.

Interestingly, this image answers the question: Why aren't there more high-quality images coming out of the UK?  The reason I was asking the question was that I noticed that a lot of planetary imagers are near or surrounded by water.   And so that in and of itself is not the best criteria.  (Later:  This does NOT explain why we are seeing good images coming out of the Netherlands (Emil Kraaikamp) and Belgium (Leo Aerts)).

Glancing around the world, besides SE Asia extending into the Oceanic countries, Northern Brazil and all the Latin American countries look good.  The equatorial countries around Africa look good also.   But the coastal areas of Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania look especially promising.  If these equatorial African countries had more amateur astronomers, I bet we'd be seeing world-class images coming from those areas.

The Horrors of Lacus Mortis

 

The shadows in the Western parts of Lacus Mortis inspire Lovecraftian terror.  What horrors await the first unlucky visitors of such an accursed plain!

1,969 frames out of 13,130.  8/9/20.  1:54 am.  20 day moon, 72% illuminated.  QHY 462C with the supplied IR850 filter.   C11, 2x TV barlow.   

Stacked in Autostakkert, wavelets in Registax, sharpened in Topaz, cropped, adjusted levels, channel mixer in Gimp.   This is a PNG instead of a JPG.

My previous Lacus pic is here.

Here are my ap's (the original footage was upside down):

Mediocre Jupiter in Color

 

 

 

Taken 12:25 am, 8/8.   This is 60 seconds (1,325 out of 5764 frames) through the C11, QHY 462C, TV 2x barlow, UV/IR filter, and I think the ADC.  96 fps.  Firecapture couldn't properly recognize the camera so I had to cough up $15 and use SharpCap.  

Though it's a disappointing result, it's like the best Jupiter data of the evening.   I'm quite puzzled at the low quality of the result as the video has frames that show about this much detail.  So initially, I was really excited but even after trying all kinds of different parameters, percentages, alignment points, this is it.

I feel like I'm getting better detail in Saturn and Mars which are smaller and and, in theory, more difficult to pull detail from.  I was reading about "coherence" in regards to frame rates, noise, and seeing.  At a certain point, it's meaningless and potentially damaging to go for more and more frame rates.   It depends on the histogram.  I was looking at some of my faster (200 fps) captures and though the video looks fine, individual frames can look extremely noisy -- even the "good" frames.   At the advice of online posts (always a risk even if there's a group consensus), I try for a 70% histogram in terms of exposure and gain.   But I'm wondering if that should be higher (90%?) when shooting at extremely fast fps?

In any event, this image doesn't seem to prove anything yet since it was shot at a "traditional" 96 fps which many seem to say is around a good speed (100 fps).

Oh, yeah, I was able to use "RGB Balance" in Registax prior to exporting it.  With this QHY 462C camera, I've been spending like 30 minutes getting the color close in Gimp -- which, as I think about it, probably has something like RGB Balance.  👀

 I guess I could go back and try different alignment points...   😡

 

(LATER:  I was watching a youtube video with Christopher Go while he was recording Jupiter footage. He runs his histogram at 90-98% in Firecapture.   Plus he's running around 90-100 fps.   He mentioned he does 4 sets of RGB in good seeing, 6 sets in decent seeing, and 9 sets in average seeing.   I assume he doesn't shoot when it's crappy like here in Northern Arizona. 😜

 

But on a somewhat serious note, my images might be noisy because by shooting with a 60-70% histogram, I might be cumulatively just adding noise to my stacked images.  Hopefully, this extra signal in future data will translate into cleaner raw images.)

 

 

 

Another Saturn from 7/28

 

Stacked approx 2151 out of 14320 frames.   Although it is a little noisy, I think it's my best Saturn image in B&W.   This one does seem to hint at Enke's Gap.

Data recorded 11:23 pm on 7/28.  Was I using the IR685 filter?  I believe so.

And as another data point, here's a partial screenshot showing low number of alignment points...

If I only had been shooting RGB from the get-go...

 

Is Venus Boring?

 

Friends, it's not boring if you're cool.  (And Venus is not cool at an average temp of 462 deg C.)

Stacked 1,409 frames out of 28,188.  QHY 290 mono with IR685 (I think) through the C11 with TV 2x barlow.

Data collected here at 4:04 am on 7/29.

There is a slightly noticeable feature right above the center -- there is a hint of a dark square-ish area.  In some of the original video frames it seems to be barely present.  So there...

Oh, the more important point about all this...

So the reason why I haven't posted any Venus images is that I was getting artifacts in Registax.  The artifacts looked like the outlines of the square alignment points.   No matter how I re-arranged them, I would always see some remnant of the alignment points when I started sharpening.   At first, I thought it was some defect in Registax, but I also saw them when I brought the images into Gimp.

Then I decided to try a lot fewer alignment points and that was the solution.   But upon further research into alignment points, I stumbled upon this thread on Cloudynights:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/562976-autostakkert-alignment-points-question/?p=7644528

Now, I'm wondering if I've been doing this wrong all this time.   Do fewer alignment points produce better stacked planet images? 

(Later...)

Artifacts are back (no matter if I do less or more alignment points) and I'm getting weird "ringworm "on the planet.   They look like either dust motes OR reflections from the optical system.  I was using a cheap violet filter here and yeah...   It's possible that the "detail" on the lowest part of the planet is real cloud structure.

I've got a bunch of this footage and I think the verdict is NO on my crappy violet filter.

It looks like I've got to pick up a proper UV pass-through filter if I want cloudy details on Venus.

Just including the last mono stack that I took with the QHY 290 with Violet filter.

This is the best 5% of approx. 48,000 frames.  Data massaged in Autostakkert, Registax, Gimp, and even Topaz sharpen (then back to Gimp).  

Video was captured at 4:48 am on 7/31. 

There are some differently contrasted areas to the top and bottom, but they seem too symmetrical to be real.    In the planet disc itself, there are hints of different densities but nothing that stands out.  I did have to play around with alignment points AGAIN to get it to stack properly and so I'm including another screen shot.   This time I didn't really put down alignment points near the edge of the planet.

I was reading that barlow optics may have a deleterious effect on UV light transmission.   So, some people are advising against a barlow.   That really means you need a C14 and camera with 2.4 micron pixels. What you need is completely reflective optics like a traditional newt OR a quartz-based lens.  Link.

Considering the title, I couldn't help but include this link.

Saturn on 7/30

 

 

 

Best 2,685 frames from 22,382.  If you enlarge the image, you might be able to see hints of Encke's Gap?  

Taken 7/30, 11:42 pm.   QHY 290 mono with IR 685nm filter.  Stacked in Autostakkert, Registax and a little sharpening in Gimp.

(After looking at a couple of Saturn images and checking with the original video, I would say about 75% of the clear frames show the right side as slightly elongated.   So most of the time Saturn is not really symmetrical.   Weird.   Is this an optics issue?  My "earlier" Saturn shot from 8/8 shows this same phenomenon.)

Not So Great Rupes Recta and Rima Birt

 

My goal here was to get Rupes Recta and Rima Birt, and although I was able to get 33000+ frames and stack around 3,000 frames, it just doesn't look great.  I tried stacking 30 percent, 9 percent (this image) and 1 percent.   And they look out of focus.  I looked at the raw video and it looked fine.  But I guess it was just barely out of focus.   I only collected one video of this target and in retrospect, I should have planned for 4-5 videos where I refocused for each one.  

Video was captured on 7/29 at 10:02 pm.  This is a 10 day old moon, illuminated at 78%.

(This is through the QHY 290 mono cam, C11, TV 2x barlow.....  Now that I think about it, this was the first night of shooting with the new camera and I know that I forgot to use the UV/IR filter on some of my first footage.   This is probably the reason for the focus issue.)

 

Mars on 8/8 Color (sort of)

 

 

 

Stacked 1,266 out of 21,104 frames.   Used the QHY 462C, but my stacked image was blue for some reason so I did some channel mixing in Gimp and got it close, but I think I'm missing some blu-ish atmospheric cloud color.

 

 

I made this comparison image by turning mine to match the one that shows up in Stellarium.  The interesting thing is that I had to pick 6:10 am on Stellarium to get a rough match to mine taken at 4:50 am.  (The green circle is centered on Olympus Mons which you can barely make out as a faint bulls-eye in my photo.)

Plato with 7 Craterlets

 

1,242 frames out of 13,807 frames (9%) stacked in Autostakkert; and processed in Registax and Gimp.

Data taken at approx. 2:36 am on 8/8.  (19 day moon, 80% illuminated.)

C11, 2x TV barlow, Astromania ADC, QHY 462C.  The original video is green.  So I had to do some channel mixing in Gimp to get it to B&W.

You can definitely see 6 craterlets and mostly 1 more.   There are about another 7-8 "maybe" craterlets which tells me the resolution here is around 1.5 - 2 km.

The blurry parts in the lower left, upper left and a little bit of lower-mid right were problems in Autostakkert.

 

 

 Re-stacked with more alignment points in Autostakkert so I could preserve more edge areas.  Spent a a fair amount of time in Gimp to dial this in.  I purposefully left some noise in order to preserve detail.

 

 

 

 

In Gimp, under the 'Filters -> Enhance ->' menu, there is a really handy bluring tool called, "Symmetric Nearest Neighbor" menu.   This is really useful! 

 

 

 

Just showing the alignment points.   Most of these were generated from Autostakkert.  But I removed mabye 50-60 points that seemed redundant OR emphasized a non-existent 'line'.  I added around 100 points by hand on features visible in the lower left and upper left areas.  I also used a reference image from CloudyNights to help place harder-to-see alignment points in Plato.  I probably could have spent more time placing alignment points on fainter craterlets.

 

The larger question I have is if more aperture will get me better resolution?   In the most obvious sense, the answer is yes, but the issue is seeing.

Saturn on 8/8 in COLOR

 

Best 2,115 frames out of 7052 (30%).   Taken with the same equipment except for the QHY 462C camera. 

Data collected at 12:41 am on 8/8.    

Why is the background blue?   >sigh<

 

 

 

Did some color correction in Gimp, but the result became noisier.  😖

 

 

Jupiter with Moon 12:46 am on 7/30

 

Best 1317 frames from 12,930 frames.  Same setup (C11, 2x TV barlow, IR 685nm filter).  Stacked in Autostakkert and Wavelets in Registax.  Captured at 141 FPS.

The clip was approx. 90 seconds and one the consquences of going so long is that the east and west edges have some smudgy distortion.   Definitely could be worked on by using WinJupos.

Mars on 7/30

2,186 frames out of 36,440 frames taken approx. 3:27 am local time on 7/30.   Same setup as previous posts with the Baader 685nm cut-off filter.   Stacked in Autostakkert and Wavelets in Registax 6.   Yeah, that artifacting around the edges, I know.

(Later:   This image is showing the "chokepoint" between Syrtis Major (on the left side) and Terra Sabaea to the right.  The round lighter area above the chokepoint is Hellas Planitia.  And the big light area below is Arabia Terra.  Maybe sometime in the 2030's, we'll have people there?)

Same session.   Total frames around 41,600.  But with Green (visual) filter.  3:54 am on 7/30.  I tried stacking in Autostakkert but came up with a much "blurrier" image.   Picked about 200 alignment points in Registax and did light wavelets processsing.  It looks out of focus, but I took great pains to to dial in focus.   The video coming down through the green filter was pretty awful with lots of shaking; and I never got a "crisp" focus no matter how long I tried.   It could be the cheap "Optcorp" brand green filter.   Mars is shrinking so quickly that I don't know if I'll have more time to get a better result with better filters.

(Later: Though not conclusive by any means, I held up the green filter to my eye and scanned around the room.   I can see plenty of red and blue objects so I suspect the green filter is very "wide" and this may contribute to a lack of focus.)

Slightly better B&W Jupiter

Same night and same equipment from previous post.  But this is only 15% of the 16,099 frames taken at around 12:51 am on 7/31.   I've noticed that planets are better after they've past their zenith for about 2 hours.   So, basically maybe I should only shoot when they are in the 12:30 to 2:00 am POSITION (not time).

(Later:  Just wanted to include a note about processing in Autostakkert...   I initially tried to place my own alignment points (about 210) but I ended up with a .tif file where I got artifacts when I sharpened.  For the image above, I let Autostakkert pick 1188 alignment points and had a better result.  So I think in general, it's fine (or possibly advisable) to have 1000+ alignment points.)

Mediocre B&W Jupiter in Typical Lousy Flagstaff Seeing

Stack of approx. 7000 out of 14000 frames taken through the C11 with Baader 685nm IR passthrough filter.   The camera is a QHY290 mono and I used a TV 2x barlow.  Yes, it looks better when it's this small.   I used Autostakkert 3 and Registax to stack and process.   (Data was taken on the night of 7/30-31.)

This is pretty much what you get in Flagstaff.  Even when the seeing is "good" and the planet doesn't move much, you still can't resolve the kind of fine detail that you could in Florida.  

I need to dig deeper into Autostakkert because when I tried to just pick the top 5 percent of the images to stack, the result in terms of detail wasn't any better.  The only difference is that I ended up with a much noisier master .tiff file.

The noise issue reminded me that I could have shot a dark and captured with cleaner data.  The unknown issue is how much (if any) that will reduce my FPS.

I was perusing other folks's Jupiter images around the country and for a lot of folks this stacked and slightly processed image is merely a single "okay" frame they would be capturing in regions where atmospheric seeing is much better.

Reflectix Insulation on SCT ???

So I've been reading about the problems with internal heat currents in SCT's.  I've experienced these problems since I started doing astronomy a long time ago; and I thought I'd investigate the advantages of keeping the tube warm enough so there isn't a large temperature differential in the tube walls vs the air in the tube.   The current "standard" is to wrap a layer of Reflectix Insulation around the tube.

This is a shot of the 11" SCT in the early morning light showing the Reflectix.  Throughout the night, I noticed that video taken of the lunar surface was less "wavy".    It was subtle but noticeable.   This should increase the accuracy of the stacking down the road.  My next question in terms of the Reflectix is whether I should double-up on the layers.   There was a somewhat contentious thread on CN about this stuff and a few people seemed to indicate that a second layer was definitely helpful.  In theory this should also help with DSO imaging. 

However, as the waviness was somewhat mitigated, I noticed that there was still this high-frequency shuddering of the image.   I'm not sure what this is.   I assumed it was atmospheric, but it might be in the system.   The AP900 mount on the pier will vibrate for 2-3 seconds if you bang the pier or mount.   And I've ofted wondered if there is a harmonic frequency that will basically constantly happen in the background.   I've thought about cutting a wooden disc and fitting it in the pier bottom, then filling the pier with expanding foam.   In theory, this should eliminate any obvious "ringing" harmonics -- or at least make them extremely high frequency and therefore immaterial.  Also, I was thinking of getting some sorbothane feet:  https://www.amazon.com/Isolate-Sorbothane-Vibration-Isolation-Circular/dp/B019O6HF6C

The challenges never end.  :/