Solar Image processing. Myths and Legends.

I have just read an (unattributed) article in April’s Sky at Night magazine on solar imaging, and I have to say, from my own experience I disagree with a lot of it!

It says

“— requires a monochrome high frame rate camera set-up” and “use of a colour camera is inefficient”

Who cares? There is plenty of light from the Sun, efficiency isn’t a problem!

It also says that Ha features change quite quickly. True. As do the atmospheric “cells” that cause image wobble. It suggests you take a 1000-1500 frame avi. The time this takes immediately cancels any advantage there might be from a high frame rate. When you stack all these, you get a blurred image. The only reason you would take so many frames is to reduce noise. Again there is plenty of light from the Sun, so this isn’t an issue.

It suggests that you might need a flat frame (possible) and that you take a defocussed 500-1000 frame avi to achieve this. Why? It is much easier and more accurate if you need a flat frame to simply blur an image you have already acquired.

My images use a £50 colour camera with a not particularly high frame rate. I find a good compromise is 200 frames. This takes around 7 seconds.

Click on “Solar” on the blog and judge for yourselves!

While still in Victor Meldrew  mode, in the same magazine there is a review of a new Skywatcher 20” goto dob for £5499. I am sure that this is a splendid scope, but following my earlier post it is worth remembering that it is only 1 stop faster than Rob’s new 14”! I am pretty sure Rob didn’t spend that amount on it! In fact, in the review there are pictures of M42 and the Trapezium. There is also a picture of M51 of recent discussion. They look nice, but I would invite you to compare the pics with these window-sill images with a scope costing £100 ish.

Moral – Just because something is in print does not necessarily mean it is correct. This is a hobby, it is whatever floats your boat. You can spend a fortune if that is what you want to do, but you don’t HAVE to!

3 Responses

  1. Entirely agree. Quite lost on their explanation of imaging .There have been too many pipe dream reviews, strangely never seen a negative one ! What would be more useful would be detailed info on acheivable targets which the average observer could enjoy and reviews about sites where deep sky is possible. This might replace most of the first half of the magazine , which to me is quite incomprehensible!

    1. As for the absence of negative reviews,commercial influences at stake? You might very well say that, I couldn’t possibly comment – – – !

Leave a Reply