My Quark images with a soft processing approach WIP though

[Guest Ewan]

Hello & evening,

A friend of mine, Dave, on SGL said he thinks it may be a good idea if I posted my Solar images on here for some feedback good & bad.

I have been imaging with a Quark for a while now but not as much as the weather will allow me (when will we get some great seeing ;-) ).

Like most I try to get the most amount of detail to show through without over cooking it, failed big time when I look back at some of my images lol when I started solar.

 

Now though I have come full circle & I am now taking the lighter approach & wanted to see what other people's reactions would be like to this 'processing flow'.

Anyway I know I am waffling on very sorry, here are a few images.

 

Thanks for looking.

Atb

Ewan

 

 

[Guest Ewan]

[Tweedledee]

Exquisite close-up detail. 

[Smithysteve]

Fabulous images! Wow! It's a likey from me ?

[Werisit]

Absolutely stunning Ewan!

[Guest Ewan]

Thanks guys, I wasn't too sure but from the replies so far I think I shall pursue this method more.

 

[Tweedledee]

Come back with some more of those. They are all brilliant, specially the warm orange ones, you can just feel the heat coming off those. 

[Guest Ewan]

35 minutes ago, Tweedledee said:

Come back with some more of those. They are all brilliant, specially the warm orange ones, you can just feel the heat coming off those. 

Lol thanks

[Guest Ewan]

Not sure on this palette though.

[Guest]

They are <expletive> brilliant. It helps if you have a good telescope and imaging equipment but these are far better than I get with a PST and compact digital camera. You don't have a spare Quark you can lend me for 20 years? I'd like to try one with a 127mm Mak and Bresser Electronic Eyepiece.

 

I might try the PST with the EE but I have a lot of focus issues with my PST

[philjay]

Excellent stuff Ewan I prefer the softer processing, same with non astro photos.

One sees oversharpened images everywhere these days and IMHO that takes away from the feel of the picture. Folks tend to get bogged down with bells lights and whistles that processing software can give, seeking the dramatic to make their pic stand out above every one elses, problem is, most every one else is doing it.

 

Those Quarks really perform well. Whats the stats on the images, e.g. how long/no of frames is a capture run etc?

 

Keep em coming

[Guest Ewan]

1 hour ago, Sunny Phil said:

They are <expletive> brilliant. It helps if you have a good telescope and imaging equipment but these are far better than I get with a PST and compact digital camera. You don't have a spare Quark you can lend me for 20 years? I'd like to try one with a 127mm Mak and Bresser Electronic Eyepiece.

 

I might try the PST with the EE but I have a lot of focus issues with my PST

Think you had a word 'bleeped' out there Phil ;-) lol, thanks very much for the comments really much appreciated. Atb mate.

 

1 hour ago, philjay said:

Excellent stuff Ewan I prefer the softer processing, same with non astro photos.

One sees oversharpened images everywhere these days and IMHO that takes away from the feel of the picture. Folks tend to get bogged down with bells lights and whistles that processing software can give, seeking the dramatic to make their pic stand out above every one elses, problem is, most every one else is doing it.

 

Those Quarks really perform well. Whats the stats on the images, e.g. how long/no of frames is a capture run etc?

 

Keep em coming

Thanks very much Phil (are you two twins ;-) )

The positive feedback from just this single post really sais a lot to me, I wasn't after any praise or 'whoop whoops', although that's nice also, it was an exercise I have been trying in various places & Dave from SGL pointed me to here as he was wondering what the members here would think, glad he suggested it.

 

I am very passionate about astronomy / astrophotography & in particular Solar imaging. I am very 'guilty' of the 'sharpening method as you described, your right everyone does it, yes it looks good but a 'flame is still a flame' as in soft & fluid. This is what I am trying to convey with my processing albeit I am still practicing with it.

 

I started solar imaging with my Altair 80mm EDT & Quark after trying WL first, I then wanted closer views & more detail so bought the 152mm TecnoSky & Baader 135,mm D-ERF along with a Grasshopper 3 IMX174 camera. Added a Samsung 850EVO SSD to the laptop so I was ready (I hoped anyway) for some decent captures. I look back at the 80mm / Quark captures I made & some do make me chuckle now, got spoilt with the larger glass now I guess.

 

I post on Solarchat & was being told 'afternoon solar imaging' is no good & you need really big scopes , filters etc to do well in this game, well 152mm is probably nearly a limit for the UK (I may be wrong) & I can only image in the afternoon because my house position doesn't afford anything else, so far I am very pleased how things are going but like most in the UK I wish the weather would play ball more ;-)

 

Sorry for waffling yet again lol

 

Anyway I normally capture for 20 seconds using either 2ms or 6ms Exp, sometimes I will go to 10ms but that will only bag 2000 frames. At 2ms I grab approx 4500 frames & 6ms approx 3200, all this depends on the Gain I use, as I use Genika I am still practicing with that as well (so many settings), if I go low Exp I have to use more Gain as you know but I can capture more frames which should offset the noise generated.

 

What I have found though is using a Gain of 50-75 in Genika gives very nice results or using the RAW capture mode.

I then use AS!2 (AS!3 works ok but is glitchy & it won't close down when I am finished with it), AP points around 50 in size & stack between 15% - 50%, again depends on seeing.

Then resulting stacks then go into IMPPG which I have found to be very much easier / better than Regi Stax hands down.

 

Sorry for the long reply guys didn't start off as meaning to.

 

Atb

Ewan

 

[Tweedledee]

17 hours ago, Ewan said:

Not sure on this palette though.

Personally I prefer the really bright and vibrant orange colours in your original first post. This one, although still superb, looks just a little too dark for my liking. The sun is not a red giant.  

[Bottletopburly]

!wow! SUPER BRILLIANT well done 

[Guest Ewan]

1 hour ago, Tweedledee said:

Personally I prefer the really bright and vibrant orange colours in your original first post. This one, although still superb, looks just a little too dark for my liking. The sun is not a red giant.  

Not yet it's not , sorry about the colouring Pete, I thought it was a little too dark my bad.

 

I must admit that's the one thing that bugs me, my stacked image in IMPPG looks fine, then once saved & opened in PS it looks a little darker then if I up to FB it looks even darker still.

I have calibrated my screen but maybe my eyes need sorting now.

 

I shall take on board what you said & much appreciated.

 

My wife suggested ages ago I should try & sell some framed Solar images but not sure the best way about going about it ie do I increase the Pixels per inch which then increases total size rather than just enlarge etc, something I want to look into.

 

Atb

Ewan

[Guest Ewan]

This a little better Pete ?

[Tweedledee]

20 minutes ago, Ewan said:

This a little better Pete ?

To my eyes, that is perfect. 

 

Sorry I can't give you any help with imaging or processing, but I do like your pics. So keep posting them. I'm all visual as you will see from my signature. 

[Guest Ewan]

5 hours ago, Sunny Phil said:

They are <expletive> brilliant. It helps if you have a good telescope and imaging equipment but these are far better than I get with a PST and compact digital camera. You don't have a spare Quark you can lend me for 20 years? I'd like to try one with a 127mm Mak and Bresser Electronic Eyepiece.

 

I might try the PST with the EE but I have a lot of focus issues with my PST

Hi Phil, I don't know much about the PST set ups but don't they tend to have a sweet spot with the focus point ?

5 minutes ago, Tweedledee said:

To my eyes, that is perfect. 

 

Sorry I can't give you any help with imaging or processing, but I do like your pics. So keep posting them. I'm all visual as you will see from my signature. 

I had noticed Pete , I have a pair of Celestron Binos & was thinking of using some of the solar film I have to make a couple of caps so I can take a 'reckie peep' at the disc to see where any spots are, think that would be do-able ?

I know I could look on Solarham lol

[+Bino-viewer]

Really impressive work there Ewan.

Hats off to you.

 

Its made me think about getting a Quark and having a go with my own scope.

Then i saw the cost of those ERFs....

[Guest Ewan]

8 minutes ago, Bino-viewer said:

Really impressive work there Ewan.

Hats off to you.

 

Its made me think about getting a Quark and having a go with my own scope.

Then i saw the cost of those ERFs....

Hi Rob, really kind thank you.

The feedback seems positive & considering I only joined yesterday I feel very humbled by the generosity on this forum, thanks again.

 

If it was me starting out in Solar imaging Rob do what I did, buy the Quark as you will not regret it.

Paired with that 132mm you would pull in some fantastic detail PLUS you could use an internal 2" Ha filter which is way cheaper than a D-ERF.

If you enjoy it & get hooked, of course you will , then save & buy a full D-ERF.

 

I have sat out there for about 7 hours straight with the 152 aimed at the orb, no heat issues at all & best of all you get no thermal current in the tube distorting the image capture.

Fingers crossed for a spell or two this weekend eh.

 

Atb

Ewan

Edited April 21, 2017 by Ewan

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ewan said:

Hi Phil, I don't know much about the PST set ups but don't they tend to have a sweet spot with the focus point ?

I had noticed Pete , I have a pair of Celestron Binos & was thinking of using some of the solar film I have to make a couple of caps so I can take a 'reckie peep' at the disc to see where any spots are, think that would be do-able ?

I know I could look on Solarham lol

You're right about the PST.  It has lots of limitations but was the only affordable option at the time. The Quark is a bit more but not too much.

 

Yes, using Baader film with binoculars works well. Just take a peek, as many of my images were made from drawings:

 

I use the <expletive> tag myself (own invention), It means "insert naughty word of one's own choice".

[Tweedledee]

1 hour ago, Ewan said:

 

I had noticed Pete , I have a pair of Celestron Binos & was thinking of using some of the solar film I have to make a couple of caps so I can take a 'reckie peep' at the disc to see where any spots are, think that would be do-able ?

I know I could look on Solarham lol

Good idea.  I think Sunny Phil uses binoculars on the sun regularly. I made some Baader solar film filters to fit my binoculars and they were fine until I lost them. Found them all crumpled under some boxes in the garage so put them in the bin. 

 

Make sure you check them by looking for pinholes with the naked eye before using them with optics. Don't take any chances by magnifying a magnitude of -26. 

 

Read this first...

https://www.eastmidlandsstargazers.org.uk/topic/10058-solar-safety/

[Guest Ewan]

This was probably pushing my set up way past it's limits to be honest, looks ok as a smaller image, that or stand in the next village & look at it ;-)

I used ROI to take this @ 640 x 480 but maybe a 2x Barlow would have been a better choice then shot @ 1280 x 960, not an expert with using Barlows doing solar so any tips would be welcome but I think I am on the right lines.

Atb

I won't post anymore as I don't want to 'out stay my welcome'.

Why didn't I know about you guys before

[Tweedledee]

Don't stop posting them Ewan. 

 

Your permission to put one on my desktop background would be appreciated. If not - tough, cos it's too late, I've done it and get a warm glow every time I fire up the laptop. 

 

I could probably work out the image scale from the details you have given, but can't be bothered right now. So do you have the precise arcseconds per pixel you are getting in these images, or just a field width. This is a very detailed scale you are working at. 

[Guest Ewan]

27 minutes ago, Tweedledee said:

Don't stop posting them Ewan. 

 

Your permission to put one on my desktop background would be appreciated. If not - tough, cos it's too late, I've done it and get a warm glow every time I fire up the laptop. 

 

I could probably work out the image scale from the details you have given, but can't be bothered right now. So do you have the precise arcseconds per pixel you are getting in these images, or just a field width. This is a very detailed scale you are working at. 

I always put my images up Pete to share so your more than welcome.

Tbh I am terrible with Arc sec's & all that, I really must learn that side I think.

 

I think I am on the right track as said before but could you clarify ?

 

My camera res is 1920 x 1200 but when I use 640 x 480 the exp can't go too low or the image is quite faint even with high Gain settings, but if I use a 2x Barlow I should be twice 'as close' shall we say so a higher res could be used to get roughly the same image scale as 640 x 480 ?

 

Confusing I know but hoping you get what I mean lol

Atb