elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Jul 28, 2017 9:34:45 GMT
Messier 16 is a conspicuous region of active star formation, appearing in the constellation Serpens Cauda. This giant cloud of interstellar gas and dust is commonly known as the Eagle Nebula, and has already created a cluster of young stars. The nebula is also referred to the Star Queen Nebula and as IC 4703; the cluster is NGC 6611. This is a shot with the RisingTech IMX244 electronic fan cooled at 10x15" mean-stack with Risingsky software. And the SW 200/800.Has some post processing with Levels, Saturation, Contrast, Curves and selective Gaussian Blur. But the signal is strong and clear. There is nothing there that the camera has not been able to capture. An excellent camera, cheap and very suitable for videoastronomy in my opinion
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jul 28, 2017 11:54:52 GMT
WOW! WOW! WOW! You really have this camera singing! Your image is really mind-blowing when enlarged to full size
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Jul 28, 2017 15:29:47 GMT
This chip is doing a good work. And Risingsky software, when it becomes better known does the job very well.
I see you know the discussion on Infinity / IMX224 in Cloudy Nights. It is a pity that the strict rules that prevent image modification do not allow to demonstrate that the definition of IMX224 is superior to that of ICX825. I have photos of the same objects with one and another camera and wins IMX224 but all of this pictures are been post-processed to enhance at máximum details. Unpublishable in CN.
The only advantage of Infinity is its software that is simpler to understand and use, but when you know Risingsky well you lose this advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jul 28, 2017 17:13:10 GMT
Ahhh, you noticed my post in CN and 'liked' it The 224 sensor is a very versatile sensor. Cheap too, which helps the average person get a good camera that they can afford
|
|
|
Post by davy on Jul 28, 2017 22:26:29 GMT
Good post guys, it's good to see what the camera can do rather than what can be done with the software.. I gives folk a better prospective of how there images should look,, instead of something that came from the Hubble
|
|
|
Post by ChrisV on Jul 29, 2017 5:58:01 GMT
That's really really nice. Do you think the cooling helped ?
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Jul 29, 2017 8:46:39 GMT
Thanks for the comments.
I am in favor of capturing the maximum signal with the camera without setting any parameters with the software. Only exposition/Gain/White balance/ Dark field correction. Don't touch histogram never.
There are specific programs and much better than these of the cameras to improve the photos.
The parameter correction options they offer make sense only if we want to show live what is seen in the sky. But to be able to rescue all the data and to show them well it is necessary to adjust the details very accurately and neither Sharpcap nor the rest do it too well. There are no exact rules on this topic of Videoastronomy, each one does what he thinks best to have acceptable results and is nice to share difference points of view.
Chris I think that this electronically fan-cooler does a good work. I have not tested experimentally.
|
|
robrj
Member
Posts: 248
home town/country: Escondido, CA
|
Post by robrj on Aug 2, 2017 23:20:19 GMT
This chip is doing a good work. And Risingsky software, when it becomes better known does the job very well. I see you know the discussion on Infinity / IMX224 in Cloudy Nights. It is a pity that the strict rules that prevent image modification do not allow to demonstrate that the definition of IMX224 is superior to that of ICX825. I have photos of the same objects with one and another camera and wins IMX224 but all of this pictures are been post-processed to enhance at máximum details. Unpublishable in CN. The only advantage of Infinity is its software that is simpler to understand and use, but when you know Risingsky well you lose this advantage. To be fair, it's not really nonpublishable on CN. You're free to post and compare processed images in BI&I. The restriction is primarily in the EAA forum as they've defined the difference in imaging and EAA as post processing. So by definition, you're not supposed to post processed images. They're looking for images as you would see them on the screen while collecting. They do allow some minor post processing as long as it's to get the image like it was on the screen. For instance, I've had images that looked great on the screen when I was observing but look dim and faint the next morning on my computer screen. So you're allowed to brighten or adjust contrast on them up to match what was perceived at the screen. If some had their way, we could only post screen captures. I don't favor that as it reduces resolution. However, it's a creeping restriction. As more and more features get added to observing software, it will twist more minds to try and rationalize why it's not all imaging (which is what I believe). I have an Ultrastar-C which is the same chip as the Infinity (and the same cost!). Fortunately for me, I won mine in a raffle. I probably wouldn't have bought one, especially with all the newer cheaper cameras out now like the ZWO cameras and the Rising Sky cameras. But these larger pixel cameras are nicer in bigger scopes because of the wider field of view and better image scale.
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Aug 3, 2017 7:36:48 GMT
This is precisely one of the things I find wrong with CN.
Why do we have to accept image modifications only with the capture software? The important thing is the signal that we get with our telescopes and our cameras in just 30 seconds. Disclosing the signal captured with an appropriate program should not be prohibited, if not, supported.
It's not cheating, it's helping of technology to perfect existent digital data more accurately.
|
|
robrj
Member
Posts: 248
home town/country: Escondido, CA
|
Post by robrj on Aug 3, 2017 17:30:04 GMT
This is precisely one of the things I find wrong with CN. Why do we have to accept image modifications only with the capture software? The important thing is the signal that we get with our telescopes and our cameras in just 30 seconds. Disclosing the signal captured with an appropriate program should not be prohibited, if not, supported. It's not cheating, it's helping of technology to perfect existent digital data more accurately. It's not wrong. It's their forum and that's how they've chosen to differentiate between astrophotography and EAA. They have sections for both just like they separate deep sky AP with planetary AP. Because the techniques and goals are different they've chosen to separate them. If you were to post processed short exposure images in the BI&I section, they would accept that. The forum had elected to separate the two so that each discipline can have it's own place to discuss technique and equipment. As I said, you can freely post in the Beginner & Intermediate Imaging forum because that's what you're doing according to them. They've defined EAA as live viewing on the screen (or with NV) at the scope with no post processing. So if you're putting post processed images into the EAA forum, you're putting it in the wrong forum. It would be like posting an EAA image in the visual forum. They simply don't want the mixing of the two. The problem with processing is the detail becomes integrated with the skill of the person doing the processing. They want to see what the camera is capable of in it's own right. The cleaner your image is without processing, the better it is for use with EAA/Video Astronomy. If you have to use post processing to clean up the image and extract detail that's not visible at the scope, then you're not doing video astronomy or EAA. Even here on this forum, we distinguish between the two: astrovideoforum.proboards.com/thread/1666/video-astronomy
|
|
|
Post by davy on Aug 3, 2017 21:11:42 GMT
This is precisely one of the things I find wrong with CN. Why do we have to accept image modifications only with the capture software? The important thing is the signal that we get with our telescopes and our cameras in just 30 seconds. Disclosing the signal captured with an appropriate program should not be prohibited, if not, supported. It's not cheating, it's helping of technology to perfect existent digital data more accurately. It's not wrong. It's their forum and that's how they've chosen to differentiate between astrophotography and EAA. They have sections for both just like they separate deep sky AP with planetary AP. Because the techniques and goals are different they've chosen to separate them. If you were to post processed short exposure images in the BI&I section, they would accept that. The forum had elected to separate the two so that each discipline can have it's own place to discuss technique and equipment. As I said, you can freely post in the Beginner & Intermediate Imaging forum because that's what you're doing according to them. They've defined EAA as live viewing on the screen (or with NV) at the scope with no post processing. So if you're putting post processed images into the EAA forum, you're putting it in the wrong forum. It would be like posting an EAA image in the visual forum. They simply don't want the mixing of the two. The problem with processing is the detail becomes integrated with the skill of the person doing the processing. They want to see what the camera is capable of in it's own right. The cleaner your image is without processing, the better it is for use with EAA/Video Astronomy. If you have to use post processing to clean up the image and extract detail that's not visible at the scope, then you're not doing video astronomy or EAA. Even here on this forum, we distinguish between the two: astrovideoforum.proboards.com/thread/1666/video-astronomyAnd oh boy ,, it gets difficult at times to try and seperate it all,, We try and keep the essence of the forum to video Astronomy,, but we have made concessions for 😂😋 grey area video Astronomy , lol. But ken has started to mellow in his Twilight years and has started to chill a bit 😎. And I just plod along ,, Seriously ,, it's a hobby and we're here to enjoy it,,
|
|
elpajare
Member
Posts: 438
home town/country: Girona-Spain
time zone gmt +/-: 1
|
Post by elpajare on Aug 4, 2017 6:59:24 GMT
ha,ha,ha... yes it is. We are doing this for fun.
In my opinion everything should be valid as long as the process is fully explained.
In CN it is difficult to know where you can put a photo. In the Begginers forum you meet people who make Astrofoto with long exposures, etc. And those who make Viseoastronomy with short expositions. The results can be very different.
It must be recognized that Videoastronomy- Videophotography is a new branch of astrophotography and that total freedom should be allowed to develop rapidly.
The limits are only short expositions but you should never ban the use of software to improve the photos.
|
|
|
Post by davy on Aug 4, 2017 9:49:47 GMT
We are a smaller forum compared to cloudy nights,, they have been going a lot longer than us but in our favour is ,, a smaller group dedicated to video Astronomy and we are not shy at changing things if asked to by our members, We as a group like to embrace new technology but we don't make it comprises the old way,, we embrace it all and as you say as long as folk put up how it's done,, no problems in my view
|
|
robrj
Member
Posts: 248
home town/country: Escondido, CA
|
Post by robrj on Aug 4, 2017 15:19:06 GMT
ha,ha,ha... yes it is. We are doing this for fun. In my opinion everything should be valid as long as the process is fully explained. In CN it is difficult to know where you can put a photo. In the Begginers forum you meet people who make Astrofoto with long exposures, etc. And those who make Viseoastronomy with short expositions. The results can be very different. It must be recognized that Videoastronomy- Videophotography is a new branch of astrophotography and that total freedom should be allowed to develop rapidly. The limits are only short expositions but you should never ban the use of software to improve the photos. I don't really have a problem with it either as long as it is explained and we're a much smaller group. But like Davy said, they're much bigger. They have a lot of users that they cater to with many different targets, interests and goals. That's why they separate it out so much. There's even a call there to separate out the Night Vision people into their own forum. Not because they're not EAA (in fact they're more pure EAA that we are with cameras), but because the volume of topics is so large, they get lost in the shuffle. In the same way, they've designated AP to be distinct from video astronomy and have made processing the separator. Fundamentally when we use cameras, we're all imaging. The gear and the exposures can be similar (there's a thread in BI&I about short exposure AP). But BI&I has over 33K topics. EAA has over 5K topics. It just makes it easier for someone who wants EAA topics, results and techniques to go to a specific forum. If they start allowing touched up photos, the EAA topic can get crowded out, so they feel it's better to put it in BI&I. It's the same for telescopes. They have a forum for CATs, Refractors and Reflectors. One could argue that they're all telescopes and we should be allowed to post in any telescope forum, but it causes relevant threads to get buried. Think of it this way: BI&I is open to all DSO imaging whether or not you process. If you start talking about video astronomy techniques or ask video astronomy questions then they'll refer you to the EAA section because it's a topic that is better addressed in the specific forum. But if you post a processed image there, they won't care even if the exposures are short. EAA is a more specific type of imaging but also includes NV. If you post general AP questions there, they'll refer you to a section that better represents what you're doing. Some can seem to come across as harsh but try not to view it in that manner. They're not being mean (it's hard to tell sometimes with writing). They just want to keep the separation so that the topic is only about EAA and results from EAA techniques. They're not just picky about processed photos. I've seen some complain about a 3d Printed EAA scope. Even though the scope was dedicated to EAA, technically it wasn't about EAA. They felt is was more appropriate to put it in ATM (Amateur Telescope Making). So we don't beat this to death (if it isn't already ) I'll just end here. Feel free to respond but I probably won't respond further unless there is some new point to make.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Aug 4, 2017 15:52:39 GMT
That's another thing that we have that CN doesn't. A section for NV HEREThey aren't shoved aside. They are still in a Video Astronomy Forum, in their own place. Same as beginners, etc. Our index has lots of sections, yet all to do with Video Astronomy. The problem with CN is that all the subjects are jumbled into one section and it's hard to find specific info about things to do with Video Astronomy. If I want to learn about what Video capture devices or filters or Focal reducers people use it's a hard search to find out in CN. Whereas, in here you just go to 'Hardware Discussions' and they are all listed. We cover the same subjects but ours are separated into sections for easy finding. I like CN, but in here it's easier to find a subject.
|
|
|
Post by davy on Aug 4, 2017 18:24:08 GMT
Think we can all agree that it's a hobby and for fun and enjoyment,, cloudy nights as ken has pointed out is restricted to how they have there post,, there was section is only a portion of there forum just like sgl,,, but I knew all this when I first developed the VAF, but we are a dedicated video astronomy site and we kind of tweak it to suit folk,, not all the sections of the forum get used,, night vision being one although Von gave it a really good try,,, but we have it and other sections that can be used by groups.
This forum has always been about promoting the hobby and help folk and I think we do ok concidering the big forums such as cloudy nights and stargazers lounge have been around a lot longer, we have made more threads and post's since starting than sgl has ,so we are doing ok,,, cloudy nights EAA section has some really knowledgeable members and I like picking up info from there ,,, for me I get the enjoyment in doing this, supporting video Astronomy through our forum..
But as many longer term members know the forum has also tried to help , mallincam and Joe's night skies network over the years and though they didn't take off we still are proud of the fact that we try and bring video Astronomy groups together,,, this is why we have links to the other forums in our menu bar,, it's not about the forum in here it's about the hobby
|
|
|
Post by howie1 on Aug 4, 2017 23:12:31 GMT
Thanks davy and Ken for the forum BTW! I wonder if NV will actually end up surpassing the original VA side of astronomy. Military, Police, Councils and security are all pushing those NV devices and will continue to do so. There are already different color phosphors (?) in the sensors, so who knows when the same high real-time observing nebs NV stuff becomes colour too!? I enjoy watching the NV guys YouTube vids of galaxies, nebs and clusters in real time multi-frame per second viewing. Pretty neat stuff!
|
|