Return to Question

I attempted to do some lucky imaging of Jupiter using a permanent installation (Celestron $14$" SCT + Paramount ME II) and Nikon D5600 attached directly to a Baader Hyperion 8-24mm eyepiece (without a filter). The atmospheric conditions weren't ideal ($65$% humidity, $2$ m/s winds), the telescope was properly acclimated prior to use, and Jupiter was around $17^{\circ}$ elevation during imaging.

After processing $3600$ frames (from 1 minute of video¹ at $60$ fps) with Autostakkert 3 and then aligning the RGB channels and recomposing I got these:

Left (or top if your screen is small) is using $20$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is using $50$%. Since this is my first foray into planetary imaging my question is: are my results reasonable given the setup used and atmospheric conditions described?²

I'm asking because I've seen much better results from people using smaller telescopes. I think the discrepancy is the result of one (or several) of the following:

1. Something is wrong with the equipment I used.
2. I'm using the wrong equipment.
3. I'm not processing the images correctly.
4. This is the best the equipment could do under those conditions.
5. I did something wrong in my setup, imaging, or processing.

and I'm trying to rule out number 1.

Here is a single, unprocessed frame for reference:

Update

I have acquired a Bahtinov mask to rule out the focus as the issue, here is an exposure of Manubrij (Omnicron Sagittarii) with the mask:

At the time of imaging, the angular separation between Jupiter and this star was less than $6^{\circ}$. Conditions were much better this time, humidity was $38$%, winds were less than $1$ m/s. The telescope was acclimated for about 2 hours prior to use.

Again using $3600$ frames af $60$ fps I got these:

Left (or top) is with $10$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is with $20$%. This looks slightly better to me, but I'm still not sure if this is what I should expect from the equipment.

¹ Note that the video in the link has been compressed through ffmpeg using the H.265 codec with CRF of $25$.

² This result is just one example - I did $30$ minutes of imaging in $3$ minute segments over the course of several hours, applying the same process to other sets of exposures yielded similar results.

I attempted to do some lucky imaging of Jupiter using a permanent installation (Celestron $14$" SCT + Paramount ME II) and Nikon D5600 attached directly to a Baader Hyperion 8-24mm eyepiece (without a filter). The atmospheric conditions weren't ideal ($65$% humidity, $2$ m/s winds), the telescope was properly acclimated prior to use, and Jupiter was around $17^{\circ}$ elevation during imaging.

After processing $3600$ frames (from 1 minute of video¹ at $60$ fps) with Autostakkert 3 and then aligning the RGB channels and recomposing I got these:

Left (or top if your screen is small) is using $20$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is using $50$%. Since this is my first foray into planetary imaging my question is: are my results reasonable given the setup used and atmospheric conditions described?²

I'm asking because I've seen much better results from people using smaller telescopes. I think the discrepancy is the result of one (or several) of the following:

1. Something is wrong with the equipment I used.
2. I'm using the wrong equipment.
3. I'm not processing the images correctly.
4. This is the best the equipment could do under those conditions.
5. I did something wrong in my setup or imaging.

and I'm trying to rule out number 1.

Here is a single, unprocessed frame for reference:

Update

I have acquired a Bahtinov mask to rule out the focus as the issue, here is an exposure of Manubrij (Omnicron Sagittarii) with the mask:

At the time of imaging, the angular separation between Jupiter and this star was less than $6^{\circ}$. Conditions were much better this time, humidity was $38$%, winds were less than $1$ m/s. The telescope was acclimated for about 2 hours prior to use.

Again using $3600$ frames af $60$ fps I got these:

Left (or top) is with $10$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is with $20$%. This looks slightly better to me, but I'm still not sure if this is what I should expect from the equipment.

¹ Note that the video in the link has been compressed through ffmpeg using the H.265 codec with CRF of $25$.

² This result is just one example - I did $30$ minutes of imaging in $3$ minute segments over the course of several hours, applying the same process to other sets of exposures yielded similar results.

I attempted to do some lucky imaging of Jupiter using a permanent installation (Celestron $14$" SCT + Paramount ME II) and Nikon D5600 attached directly to a Baader Hyperion 8-24mm eyepiece (without a filter). The atmospheric conditions weren't ideal ($65$% humidity, $2$ m/s winds), the telescope was properly acclimated prior to use, and Jupiter was around 17 degrees elevation during imaging.

After processing $3600$ frames (from 1 minute of video¹ at $60$ fps) with Autostakkert 3 and then aligning the RGB channels and recomposing I got these:

Left (or top if your screen is small) is using $20$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is using $50$%. Since this is my first foray into planetary imaging my question is: are my results reasonable given the setup used and atmospheric conditions described?²

I'm asking because I've seen much better results from people using smaller telescopes. I think the discrepancy is the result of one (or several) of the following:

1. Something is wrong with the equipment I used.
2. I'm using the wrong equipment.
3. I'm not processing the images correctly.
4. This is the best the equipment could do under those conditions.
5. I did something wrong in my setup, imaging, or processing.

and I'm trying to rule out number 1.

Here is a single, unprocessed frame for reference:

Update

I have acquired a Bahtinov mask to rule out the focus as the issue, here is an exposure of Manubrij (Omnicron Sagittarii) with the mask:

At the time of imaging, the angular separation between Jupiter and this star was less than $6^{\circ}$. Conditions were much better this time, humidity was $38$%, winds were less than $1$ m/s. The telescope was acclimated for about 2 hours prior to use.

Again using $3600$ frames af $60$ fps I got these:

Left (or top) is with $10$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is with $20$%. This looks slightly better to me, but I'm still not sure if this is what I should expect from the equipment.

¹ Note that the video in the link has been compressed through ffmpeg using the H.265 codec with CRF of $25$.

² This result is just one example - I did $30$ minutes of imaging in $3$ minute segments over the course of several hours, applying the same process to other sets of exposures yielded similar results.

I attempted to do some lucky imaging of Jupiter using a permanent installation (Celestron $14$" SCT + Paramount ME II) and Nikon D5600 attached directly to a Baader Hyperion 8-24mm eyepiece (without a filter). The atmospheric conditions weren't ideal ($65$% humidity, $2$ m/s winds), the telescope was properly acclimated prior to use, and Jupiter was around $17^{\circ}$ elevation during imaging.

After processing $3600$ frames (from 1 minute of video¹ at $60$ fps) with Autostakkert 3 and then aligning the RGB channels and recomposing I got these:

Left (or top if your screen is small) is using $20$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is using $50$%. Since this is my first foray into planetary imaging my question is: are my results reasonable given the setup used and atmospheric conditions described?²

I'm asking because I've seen much better results from people using smaller telescopes. I think the discrepancy is the result of one (or several) of the following:

1. Something is wrong with the equipment I used.
2. I'm using the wrong equipment.
3. I'm not processing the images correctly.
4. This is the best the equipment could do under those conditions.
5. I did something wrong in my setup, imaging, or processing.

and I'm trying to rule out number 1.

Here is a single, unprocessed frame for reference:

Update

I have acquired a Bahtinov mask to rule out the focus as the issue, here is an exposure of Manubrij (Omnicron Sagittarii) with the mask:

At the time of imaging, the angular separation between Jupiter and this star was less than $6^{\circ}$. Conditions were much better this time, humidity was $38$%, winds were less than $1$ m/s. The telescope was acclimated for about 2 hours prior to use.

Again using $3600$ frames af $60$ fps I got these:

Left (or top) is with $10$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is with $20$%. This looks slightly better to me, but I'm still not sure if this is what I should expect from the equipment.

¹ Note that the video in the link has been compressed through ffmpeg using the H.265 codec with CRF of $25$.

² This result is just one example - I did $30$ minutes of imaging in $3$ minute segments over the course of several hours, applying the same process to other sets of exposures yielded similar results.

I attempted to do some lucky imaging of Jupiter using a permanent installation (Celestron 14" SCT + Paramount ME II) and Nikon D5600 attached directly to a Baader Hyperion 8-24mm eyepiece (without a filter). The atmospheric conditions weren't ideal (65% humidity, 2 m/s winds), the telescope was properly acclimated prior to use, and Jupiter was around 17 degrees elevation during imaging.

After processing 3600 frames (from 1 minute of video¹ at 60 fps) with Autostakkert 3 and then aligning the RGB channels and recomposing I got these:

Left (or top if your screen is small) is using 20% of the stack, right (or bottom) is using 50%. Since this is my first foray into planetary imaging my question is: are my results reasonable given the setup used and atmospheric conditions described?²

I'm asking because I've seen much better results from people using smaller telescopes. I think the discrepancy is the result of one (or several) of the following:

1. Something is wrong with the equipment I used.
2. I'm using the wrong equipment.
3. I'm not processing the images correctly.
4. This is the best the equipment could do under those conditions.
5. I did something wrong in my setup, imaging, or processing.

and I'm trying to rule out number 1.

Here is a single, unprocessed frame for reference:

¹ Note that the video in the link has been compressed through ffmpeg using the H.265 codec with CRF of 25.

² This result is just one example - I did 30 minutes of imaging in 3 minute segments over the course of several hours, applying the same process to other sets of exposures yielded similar results.

I attempted to do some lucky imaging of Jupiter using a permanent installation (Celestron $14$" SCT + Paramount ME II) and Nikon D5600 attached directly to a Baader Hyperion 8-24mm eyepiece (without a filter). The atmospheric conditions weren't ideal ($65$% humidity, $2$ m/s winds), the telescope was properly acclimated prior to use, and Jupiter was around 17 degrees elevation during imaging.

After processing $3600$ frames (from 1 minute of video¹ at $60$ fps) with Autostakkert 3 and then aligning the RGB channels and recomposing I got these:

Left (or top if your screen is small) is using $20$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is using $50$%. Since this is my first foray into planetary imaging my question is: are my results reasonable given the setup used and atmospheric conditions described?²

I'm asking because I've seen much better results from people using smaller telescopes. I think the discrepancy is the result of one (or several) of the following:

1. Something is wrong with the equipment I used.
2. I'm using the wrong equipment.
3. I'm not processing the images correctly.
4. This is the best the equipment could do under those conditions.
5. I did something wrong in my setup, imaging, or processing.

and I'm trying to rule out number 1.

Here is a single, unprocessed frame for reference:

Update

I have acquired a Bahtinov mask to rule out the focus as the issue, here is an exposure of Manubrij (Omnicron Sagittarii) with the mask:

At the time of imaging, the angular separation between Jupiter and this star was less than $6^{\circ}$. Conditions were much better this time, humidity was $38$%, winds were less than $1$ m/s. The telescope was acclimated for about 2 hours prior to use.

Again using $3600$ frames af $60$ fps I got these:

Left (or top) is with $10$% of the stack, right (or bottom) is with $20$%. This looks slightly better to me, but I'm still not sure if this is what I should expect from the equipment.

¹ Note that the video in the link has been compressed through ffmpeg using the H.265 codec with CRF of $25$.

² This result is just one example - I did $30$ minutes of imaging in $3$ minute segments over the course of several hours, applying the same process to other sets of exposures yielded similar results.