Sorry if this comes through twice. Problems sending the first time. Thanks Thierry, No need to FTP the entire raw dataset. That's not something any observer should have to do! Especially with a day job. I would be interested in seeing one or two raw frames. Second, I note that I was in error about your not having provided bit depth - there it is in the middle of your original post. Sorry about that. In any case, my real intent was to bring to light the fact that an excellent observation was still apparently not in conformance with the posted rules. Perhaps I did that a little bit snidely, so my apologies to you, Ted and everyone else. I'm really not qualified to suggest more appropriate technical rules, however I am qualified to say that I think what you originally posted should be sufficient with regards to supporting data. I for one am interested in seeing all such observations, compliant or not with the rules we currently have. I just hope there can be a way to accommodate that here. We've already driven away one high-res observer, partly by sniping at the merits of some claims, and partly by imposing rules that seem a bit odious (to this outside observer). While the technical rules probably need some fine tuning, may I suggest that we move to a two-tiered system for high-resolution observations? Class A (scientific) would conform fully to any established technical set of rules in effect at the time. while Class B (casual) would not. Analogous to eyeball observations where one reports a phenomenon qualitatively, or says "I saw a water dump, it was great!", Class B high-res observations could simply be a "hey folks, look what I caught on video!". Perhaps the only rules for this type should be "no claims", and "at least one raw frame shown, even if it's the best one". Ted took the unenviable step of suggesting a set of rules. Unfortunately the ranks of high-res observers are so small that there was little feedback or suggestion of changes. I'm of no help as I don't engage in high-res observation (though I'd like to one day). Anyway, apologies for polluting the list with rules-talk. Is there a meta-list somewhere for out-of-band discussions? Cheers, Justin Quoting Thierry Legault <legault@club-internet.fr>: > Justin, although I did not want to overload the > e-mail and the web page (most visitors don't care > about detailed info such as observation site > coordinates), I can provide anything, there is no > secret. You just have to ask what you need :-) > > For the first video with Endeavour docked to ISS > (area of Pau, France), here are the data: > - observation site: lat 43°21'27"N, long 0°26'03"W, alt 183m > - ISS pass culmination at 3:54:35 UTC, altitude 77.4°, distance 354.0 km > - telescope: 10" Meade ACF, focal length 5500mm > (2.2x Barlow lens in front of the camera), yellow filter Wratten 12 > - camera Skynyx L2-2 monochrome, resolution > 1616x1212, recording 12-bit fits files, exposure > 2ms, gain and gamma unchanged (1) > - processed video contains 800 frames, beginning > at 3:53:24 UTC and ending at 3:54:50 UTC > - processing: each frame of the final video is a > combination of 15 consecutive raw frames (no > culling: all raw frames used), followed by > wavelet processing in Prism (wavelet type=cube, > coefficients: plane 1=4, other planes=1) > > I don't have a ftp account, but if you have one > please give me the corresponding info so that > I'll be able to upload the 3.2 gigabyte of raw > files (800 frames, 4 Mbyte each). > > I'm going to a business trip all the week (I'm > just an amateur astronomer, with a job for living > :-)), but next week-end I'll be compiling all the > data for the other videos and solar transits. > > regards > > At 17:48 05/06/2011, j.allport@utoronto.ca wrote: > >> > ------------------------------------ >> > From: Thierry Legault <legault@club-internet.fr> >> > Date: Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 4:40 AM >> > Subject: STS-134: videos of Endeavour and ISS, plus solar transits >> > To: SeeSat-L@satobs.org >> > >> > >> > hello, >> > >> > as usual I have travelled in western Europe to catch Endeavour during >> > STS-134, fighting with bad weather and average seeing. Here is the >> > compilation of the results: >> > >> > http://legault.perso.sfr.fr/STS-134.html >> > >> > You'll find a 3D video of a pass of Endeavour docked to the ISS >> > (stereo pair and anaglyph), another video with two passes of >> > Endeavour before return to Earth (unfortunately the seeing was bad) >> > and several solar transits. >> > >> > The videos have been taken with a 10" ACF Meade telescope on a >> > Takahashi EM-400 German mount heavily (hardware and software) >> > modified for real-time fast tracking with a guide camera on a finder. >> > The main camera is a Lumenera Skynyx L2-2 recording monochrome 12-bit >> > Fits files at 10 fps (one frame is 4 Mb and there are more than 1000 >> > frames for a pass). As usual in planetary imaging, each frame of the >> > final video is a combination of 15 to 30 consecutive registered raw >> > frames (in order to smooth turbulence and to improve signal-to-noise >> > ratio), followed by slight sharpening. >> > >> > During this vacancy period I have also taken other satellites, it >> > will take some time for processing and preparation of pages but soon >> > you'll see videos of passes of USA-186 (Keyhole), X-37B (OTV-2) and >> > Nanosail. Stay tuned... :-) >> > >> > regards >> > >> > >> > >> > Thierry Legault >> > www.astrophoto.fr >> > >> >> First, let me say that I find the data liked above absolutely >> outstanding. We are all better off for being able to share in Thierry >> and Emmanuel's results. >> >> Unfortunately, I can't be certain, but I think this report does not >> conform to the SeeSat list rules concerning high-resolution imaging. >> >> 1. It's not clear to me the intent of rule 1. Is the observer required >> to provide all available existing desginations from the 3 listed, or >> only one of the listed? I believe only the common name is provided. >> It's possible this is sufficient. >> >> 3. I was not able to find the observing location in the email above, >> or on the linked site. I propose that "Pau, France", or "Spain" is not >> of sufficient precision for me to evaluate the supplied data. >> >> 4. Date and time have been provided to the nearest minute. A factor of >> 60 too coarse to enable reasonable analysis of the data per SeeSat >> rules. Other observations on the same page have been provided to the >> nearest day. A factor of > 80000 too coarse. Further, even if the time >> to the nearest second were provided for the video, there are many >> still-frames shown from the video. It is not clear to me at what point >> in the video these were taken, compounded by the fact that the video >> itself has been accelerated. By my estimation, none of the presented >> data is in accord with this rule. >> >> 9. The data provided are deficient in several aspects: Total duration >> is provided for the solar transit images, but not for the pass videos. >> Exposure per frame is not provided for the video (though thankfully it >> is provided for the DSLR-taken transit images. Resolution and bit >> depth for the raw data are not provided. >> >> 10. Processing is described in a cursory manner on the linked >> equipment page (stacking in groups of 10, wavelet sharpened, and low >> level adjustment). It's not clear exactly what settings are used for >> such processing, nor is it clear whether there has been any culling >> from the raw data prior to stacking. >> >> 11. Raw data is not provided, nor is it offered as available on request. >> >> As such it is clear this post does not adequately address the list >> rules. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide if it's the >> posted data or the rules themselves that are inappropriate for the list. >> >> Regards, >> Justin >> > > Thierry Legault > www.astrophoto.fr _______________________________________________ Seesat-l mailing list http://mailman.satobs.org/mailman/listinfo/seesat-l
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 05 2011 - 22:32:34 UTC