In my notes you will see that I'm now capturing around 6,000 frames and using the best 10%. This is in contrast to the 1,00 to 1,500 frames and best 50% or more that I was previously doing. I find that I'm now getting more and finer detail, and turning out better images, especially when capturing under less than ideal conditions.

Ed D

 

Thanks y'all. What amazes me is how a dinky little toothpick of a scope, which I happen to like a lot, can be paired with an entry level camera and get such detail.

Ed D

 

Keith,

Those are really nice images. The 60mm one is very detailed, while the 50mm one is representative of what can be seen visually through a larger scope.

I'm using SharpCap 2.9 for captures. These are the settings notes that the program generates:

[ASI120MC Camera (ZWO Design)]
Frame Divisor=1
Resolution=1280x960
FPS=Maximum
Colour Space=RGB24
Pan=0
Tilt=0
Exposure=0.04
Brightness=0
Gamma=50
White Balance=5000
Gain=50
Timestamp Frames=Off

I'm using a Celestron CG-4 GEM with an RA motor, polar aligned. I use AutoStakkert!2 for stacking. I found I get better results if the polar alignment is a bit less than perfect and I get a very slight drift over a few minutes time.

As for my camera settings, I play with the following: Gamma, frame rate, capture time, and capture image size. Gamma and frame rate are a balancing act. I try to keep the gamma as low as possible to minimize noise, while trying to keep the frame rate as fast as possible to get sharper "lucky" frames; all the while maintaining a bright enough image. The gamma settings that work out for me are usually 50%, and I don't exceed 80%, which starts showing hot pixels.

I was using captures of 1.5 minutes with around 1,500 frames, and using around 50% or more good frames. I found by trial and error that much higher frame counts and using around 10% of best frames gave me a more detailed image - most of the time. I think 6,000 frames may be a bit much. I'm planning to do captures with 5,000 frames. One reason is planet rotation because of the longer capture times. The other reason is the sheer size of the capture file - over 11gb.

Changing the capture image size won't change the size of the planet, only the total image size. I had been doing all my captures at 1280x960, then going through a convoluted process to magnify the planet. Now, I simply capture at 640x480 or 800x600 and then use my photo program to resize to 1280x960.

Ed D