Jupiter, NO COMPUTER PRESENT TO RECORD!

This is from an MPEG (converted to AVI for Registax) recorded in July on a Kodak EasyShare Z730

http://setisociety.org/jupiterjuly07.jpg

on a 6" Criterion, afocal. NO COMPUTER OR OTHER EXTERNAL RECORDING DEVICE WAS PRESENT WHEN THIS WAS TAKEN! I know other methods are currently better, but I imagine that if someone tries this with a bigger scope that the results could be pretty interesting, and no hassling or exposing the laptop or other devices to the elements!
Regards, Jason

Attached Image:

Judging from the response, please don't be put off by my lack of processing skills; I think that the next greatest advance in planet imaging could be in not having a PC or external device present while recording (believe me it is great not to hassle with cables and other peripherals, and now that Kodak has come out with a 12 megapixel HD movie/point-n-shoot camera for only $200 (mine is only a 640x480 in movie mode and 5MP still frame), I think that probably some time soon somebody with a bigger scope and better processing skills than myself is going to give it a try. A friend of mine said I overprocessed my last post so I've just re-processed that shot from that same AVI clip from my meager camera as gently as I know how too (I still have a lot to learn.) Here is lead-balloon number two

http://setisociety.org/jupiterversiontwo.jpg

Regards, Jason H.

Jason Higley said:

This is from an MPEG (converted to AVI for Registax) recorded in July on a Kodak EasyShare Z730

http://setisociety.org/jupiterjuly07.jpg

on a 6" Criterion, afocal. NO COMPUTER OR OTHER EXTERNAL RECORDING DEVICE WAS PRESENT WHEN THIS WAS TAKEN! I know other methods are currently better, but I imagine that if someone tries this with a bigger scope that the results could be pretty interesting, and no hassling or exposing the laptop or other devices to the elements!
Regards, Jason

Attached Image:

Definitely a nice catch Jason, and worth investing more time into it...
We do what we can with what we have, and you are doing just fine... keep it up! 8)

Jason, I think it comes down to more Megapixcels per picture but less shots to stack vs a webcam with less megapixcels but more frames. Under perfect seeing, your method could work, however, my guess is you would still need at least 50+ stackable frames. Also, shooting afocal adds extra glass in the optical path which could cancel out some of the resultion benefits. Interesting work, but at my site I barely get above average seeing so it wouldn't work for me.

Regards,
Steve

PS: Attached is the last time I tried afocal with my 4MP Powershot A80 + 55mm and the sunspot group 930 taken slightly in the trees, but shows decent details. 1 frame only.

Attached Image: