I've re-trampled my run from Sept. 22 a.m. UT into this
http://setisociety.org/jupiterMVI_0013sept22amUTdiff.jpg
Crueler, flatter, more granular, and smaller, but I think I've eeked out a little more cloud info.
Stats: Criterion RV-8, Canon Powershot SX-100 held up to a 7mm EP using an Orion SteadyPix camera mount. Re-processed the AVI of 1313 frames, more granular on this re-process but increased the contrast this time while still in Registax 5 (I've always avoided messing with the contrast in R5, but this time I needed the boost as my regular software wasn't up to it.) Also different this time I tried tracking using Center of Gravity (haven't used it before), net result seemed noiser as I couldn't get away with as many wavelets sliders as the previous version of this run, but I'll keep trying it though, I bet it'll be great on Mars and smaller objects! Also tried a 200 frame alignment image instead of 50.
Jason H.
http://setisociety.org/jupiterMVI_0013sept22amUTdiff.jpg
Crueler, flatter, more granular, and smaller, but I think I've eeked out a little more cloud info.
Stats: Criterion RV-8, Canon Powershot SX-100 held up to a 7mm EP using an Orion SteadyPix camera mount. Re-processed the AVI of 1313 frames, more granular on this re-process but increased the contrast this time while still in Registax 5 (I've always avoided messing with the contrast in R5, but this time I needed the boost as my regular software wasn't up to it.) Also different this time I tried tracking using Center of Gravity (haven't used it before), net result seemed noiser as I couldn't get away with as many wavelets sliders as the previous version of this run, but I'll keep trying it though, I bet it'll be great on Mars and smaller objects! Also tried a 200 frame alignment image instead of 50.
Jason H.
Attached Image:
