I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of clear
emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of clear

emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

Can you supply an example of what you are talking about?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/9/22 20:16, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of

clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?


The solution is simple: view only those images from the known planetary imagers. There have been well established certain names over the last
two or three decades. These individuals have produced great images consistently without artifacts. A prominent name coming to mind is
Damien Peach, but there are others as well. Individuals impressing me
from a decade or two back were Eric Ng and Chris Go. Ed Grafton,
although he used traditional CCD camera, also produced low artifact
images. There were some in Australia as well. Of all these, if I were
to take a guess, I'd say that Peach was probably still active because he
seemed to spare no expense with his scopes and travel necessary in order
to obtain the excellent images he shared with the world.

Where I more seriously question image authenticity is in DSOs. After
Hubble, I began seeing supposed amateurs producing resolution
approaching Hubble's in their astrophotos. I remember seeing images of
M57, for example, that had sharpness that shouldn't have been, at least
in my mind and all after Hubble. On the other hand, perhaps it was the
effect of Ha filters. Those seem to produce sharp results and I suppose
if combined with RGB properly could give greater resolution. I will at
least consider that possibility.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 21:28:35 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of

clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

Can you supply an example of what you are talking about?

No, but here is an example of the opposite, and image devoid of any artifacts due to softness. I think some of the programs used in astronomy have been tuned to extract detail without much consideration for esthetics. Easy to go overboard on the
processing.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/836260-first-planetary-image-saturn/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 22:48:14 UTC-4, Al Stuill wrote:

On 8/9/22 20:16, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of

clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

The solution is simple: view only those images from the known planetary imagers. There have been well established certain names over the last
two or three decades. These individuals have produced great images consistently without artifacts. A prominent name coming to mind is
Damien Peach, but there are others as well. Individuals impressing me
from a decade or two back were Eric Ng and Chris Go. Ed Grafton,
although he used traditional CCD camera, also produced low artifact
images. There were some in Australia as well. Of all these, if I were
to take a guess, I'd say that Peach was probably still active because he seemed to spare no expense with his scopes and travel necessary in order
to obtain the excellent images he shared with the world.

Where I more seriously question image authenticity is in DSOs.

Like where they overcook and fake the colouration?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 21:28:35 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of

clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

Can you supply an example of what you are talking about?

Good example of a well-detailed picture with artifacts.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/836495-saturn-and-jupiter-in-good-seeing-1482022/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:38:23 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 21:28:35 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of

clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

Can you supply an example of what you are talking about?

Good example of a well-detailed picture with artifacts.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/836495-saturn-and-jupiter-in-good-seeing-1482022/

So, do you claim that there are details on this photo that do not actually exist? Hoe]=w about this one...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5BbpcKWkAAYk7V?format=jpg&name=medium

... do you see fabricated details here, too?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 5:29:10 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:38:23 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 21:28:35 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of

clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

Can you supply an example of what you are talking about?

Good example of a well-detailed picture with artifacts.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/836495-saturn-and-jupiter-in-good-seeing-1482022/

So, do you claim that there are details on this photo that do not actually exist? Hoe]=w about this one...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5BbpcKWkAAYk7V?format=jpg&name=medium

... do you see fabricated details here, too?

How about this one?

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/298505683_611091627239200_7836364199163042304_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=4D-dVTps4NYAX95oFl_&_nc_oc=AQmUizcSKRcVZHAC1LZ_
TGUlVprnAyySz0hlYgO7N3Nsi0FunUJT18NvAUeUCyIeWhoOZ0frhIFYRarjsHeSqRj1&tn=yHv5RMUkaW-96FPk&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-2.xx&oh=00_AT8Iw6txj4SELcCMxJe_ms1SMy45gcHMpX-AaEAZRrPdzw&oe=62FD9851

Any flaws detected here?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 7:14:01 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 5:29:10 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:38:23 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 21:28:35 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point

of clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

Can you supply an example of what you are talking about?

Good example of a well-detailed picture with artifacts.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/836495-saturn-and-jupiter-in-good-seeing-1482022/

So, do you claim that there are details on this photo that do not actually exist? Hoe]=w about this one...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5BbpcKWkAAYk7V?format=jpg&name=medium

... do you see fabricated details here, too?

How about this one?

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/298505683_611091627239200_7836364199163042304_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=4D-dVTps4NYAX95oFl_&_nc_oc=AQmUizcSKRcVZHAC1LZ_

TGUlVprnAyySz0hlYgO7N3Nsi0FunUJT18NvAUeUCyIeWhoOZ0frhIFYRarjsHeSqRj1&tn=yHv5RMUkaW-96FPk&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-2.xx&oh=00_AT8Iw6txj4SELcCMxJe_ms1SMy45gcHMpX-AaEAZRrPdzw&oe=62FD9851

Any flaws detected here?

Gorgeous image.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 13 August 2022 at 20:29:10 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:38:23 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 21:28:35 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point of

clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

Can you supply an example of what you are talking about?

Good example of a well-detailed picture with artifacts.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/836495-saturn-and-jupiter-in-good-seeing-1482022/

So, do you claim that there are details on this photo that do not actually exist? Hoe]=w about this one...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5BbpcKWkAAYk7V?format=jpg&name=medium

... do you see fabricated details here, too?

No, but fabricated implies intent. No such motivation, just poorly manipulated controls in software.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, 14 August 2022 at 02:14:01 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 5:29:10 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:38:23 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

On Tuesday, 9 August 2022 at 21:28:35 UTC-4, palsing wrote:

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:16:05 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

I've seen some amazing planetary images, shots from 10-20 inch scopes that vastly eclipse what professional observatories did years ago. What I don't quite get though are the highly overprocessed images. The images are manipulated to the point

of clear emergence of artifacts. Surface of Jupiter's clouds looks more like the curdled milk of the inner Orion nebula at high power. What I'm wondering is if the processors can see this and do the realize it isn't detail on the planet?

Can you supply an example of what you are talking about?

Good example of a well-detailed picture with artifacts.

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/836495-saturn-and-jupiter-in-good-seeing-1482022/

So, do you claim that there are details on this photo that do not actually exist? Hoe]=w about this one...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5BbpcKWkAAYk7V?format=jpg&name=medium

... do you see fabricated details here, too?

How about this one?

https://scontent-lax3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/298505683_611091627239200_7836364199163042304_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=4D-dVTps4NYAX95oFl_&_nc_oc=AQmUizcSKRcVZHAC1LZ_

TGUlVprnAyySz0hlYgO7N3Nsi0FunUJT18NvAUeUCyIeWhoOZ0frhIFYRarjsHeSqRj1&tn=yHv5RMUkaW-96FPk&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-2.xx&oh=00_AT8Iw6txj4SELcCMxJe_ms1SMy45gcHMpX-AaEAZRrPdzw&oe=62FD9851

Any flaws detected here?

There are some. Mild jaggedness in some of the image, but good real details on it and the moons.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)