I have an Orion 100MM Refractor when I put it on Jupiter, I see no color. I can see shades of grey, but never the browns and such that I see in all of the pictures online. Is this just a limit of my scope, or all of the pictures that everyone posts modified somehow???

Right now Jupiter's colors are fairly muted.  The globe is a creamy buttermilk color and the two major bands, the North and South Equatorial Bands, are rusty red, or dark brown.  Even the Great Red Spot has become very pale pink over the past few years.  The colors aren't dramatic, but they shouldn't be shades of gray through a 100mm scope.  Are you using any sort of filter?

HarleyHetz:

Is this just a limit of my scope, or all of the pictures that everyone posts modified somehow???

 

 

No, your telescope isn't limited. The human eye isn't as sensitive as the cameras that take those images, so color in deep space objects, or planetary views through a telescope won't be as prevalent as you see in the images. Those images are long exposure and/or multiple long exposures that are processed and manipulated to correct and enhance color and detail to make them more presentable. Don't be misled by what you see posted when it comes to astro images. What you see (in the images) isn't what you get (in the telescope).

HarleyHetz:

I have an Orion 100MM Refractor when I put it on Jupiter, I see no color. I can see shades of grey, but never the browns and such that I see in all of the pictures online. Is this just a limit of my scope, or all of the pictures that everyone posts modified somehow???

Although you can see color in the planets such as Jupiter, you won't see it anything like the pictures. Don't even think about all those pretty pictures when you have your eye to the eyepiece of your telescope. Other than very few Deep Sky Object that might reveal some very faint dull color in larger telescopes, the planets will reveal their colors, but they won't be as bright and sharp as you see in pictures. Like Kevin said in his reply, It's not just that images are tweaked or modified, it's because the human eye isn't nearly as sensitive as a camera, especially to color in the dark sky.

100 mm Refractor should allow you to use 200x magnification, maybe a little more on a good night. Although you can observe and see detail in the larger planets at lower magnifications, 200x magnification is just about the minimum you want for observing the planets, 250 - 300 is better if the conditions permit. But all the magnification in the world isn't going to do you any good if the sky conditions are no good. You want the darkest skies you can possible get, Stable Astronomical Seeing and Dry Clear Transparency, Otherwise it will look pretty dull. If your looking at it while it is still relatively low in the sky then you have to look through more atmosphere which isn't helping any. Observing it when closest to your local Meridian is best. Additionally the eyepiece you use can make a world of difference too. If you're only using the eyepieces that came with your telescope you can't really expect pristine sharp images.

Is your 100mm Refractor a Achromatic or a ED Refractor. A regular off the shelf Achromatic refractor will produce Chromatic Aberrations that will rob color, contrast and detail from the planets. You will want a Aperture Mask/stop and or a Minus Violet / Anit-Fringing filter. Don't waist your time on the Lumicon Anti-fringing filter. It will work well for photographic purposes on a ED or APO but won't work on a mass produced off the shelf achromatic refractor.

Is your telescope dust cap one solid piece or is it two, does it have a cap on the cap? If it does use that to stop down the aperture which will help reduce the CA fringing around the planet.

Just to make things perfectly clear, planetary imaging does not involve long exposures.  In fact, some of the best images come from video or web cams and are the result of the computerized stacking of the best of hundreds or even thousands of very short video frames.  This gets around the problem of unsteady "seeing".

Through large apertures and under very good seeing, Jupiter can display a fair amount of color in its two major equatorial belts and in occasional dark red barges and blue-hued festoons.

I'd be remiss not to point out that observing the bright planets - Mercury (at times), Venus, Mars (at times), Jupiter, and Saturn - does not require dark skies.  In fact, observing Jupiter with a white light on can be beneficial, just as it is with the Moon.

http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/index.htm

The use of color filters for planetar observing is discussed at http://alpo-astronomy.org/mars/articles/FILTERS1.HTM and http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/observing/colorfilter/index.htm

Dave Mitsky

Here is a little experiment you can try, and have a little fun playing around with it. Typically used for larger aperture telescopes is a mask you can make using black wire screen, not silver or gray nylon screen. This is called a apodizing mask. You can read more about it here>> http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/p/17581/295983.aspx.. However since you are using a smaller refractor you can do as I did and got pretty good results and have a little fun with it.. Get your hands on a piece of black or dark charcoal wire screen and fix it to the front of your dew shield. This will reduce the glare on the planet making it easier to see surface detail. But you will also have some interesting (psychedelic) side effects to look at that could be distracting, something you will have to overlook and concentrate on the planet. This can help improve your planetary observing skill which is a little different from observing faint deep sky objects where you want to use averted vision rather than direct.

Dave is correct when "Observing" the planets dark skies are not a necessity, especially when observing Venus, clear transparency and stable seeing yes. Some of the best views I have had of Venus are right around the time of Sunset or Sunrise, you will still want to use some kind of filter. A polarizing moon filter or Neutral Density Filter will work. Some places like Orion have Venus filters.

The best views of Jupiter and Saturn I have had is when they are at or near the Meridian under clear dark stable skies. But I usually use a Baader Contrast booster filter, and or a a Moon and Sky Glow Filter, or when I use my 10" Dob I use the apodizing mask. On the other hand however, when "imaging" Saturn, Jupiter Mars etc, darker skies are better, except maybe Venus because it is so bright and overpowering. Additionally, web cam imaging of the planets will overcome "some" of the effect of unsteady astronomical seeing but not All. And it will not overcome the effects of unsteady astronomical seeing when in combination with poor transparency.

DaveMitsky:

Just to make things perfectly clear, planetary imaging does not involve long exposures.  In fact, some of the best images come from video or web cams and are the result of the computerized stacking of the best of hundreds or even thousands of very short video frames.  This gets around the problem of unsteady "seeing".

 

 

My post did make it sound as if long exposures were necessary in planetary imaging didn't it? But that wasn't the intention. Thanks for clarifying that Dave.

Kevin Bozard:

DaveMitsky:

Just to make things perfectly clear, planetary imaging does not involve long exposures.  In fact, some of the best images come from video or web cams and are the result of the computerized stacking of the best of hundreds or even thousands of very short video frames.  This gets around the problem of unsteady "seeing".

 

 

My post did make it sound as if long exposures were necessary in planetary imaging didn't it? But that wasn't the intention. Thanks for clarifying that Dave.

As a matter of fact when imaging Jupiter and Saturn you want to keep your web cam videos to around 2 Maybe 3 minutes tops, otherwise you will get rotation blur.

tkerr:

Additionally, web cam imaging of the planets will overcome "some" of the effect of unsteady astronomical seeing but not All. And it will not overcome the effects of unsteady astronomical seeing when in combination with poor transparency.

I didn't mean to imply that stacking multiple images was a panacea for bad seeing but rather that compared to the bad old days of film photography of the planets the results of this technique are nevertheless excellent.

I'm not sure what bearing transparency has on seeing other than what seems obvious.  In fact, I've had some superb views of Mars and Jupiter through thin clouds, with the clouds acting as a natural planetary filter.

Dave Mitsky

Just so other people are clear here, Cloud cover and transparency are not one in the same.

I've seen clear transparent skies with the occasional puffy cloud or thin clouds passing by acting like that filter you are suggesting. On the other hand I have seen many cloudless nights with very poor transparency making it hard to make out anything, High Moisture content throughout the atmosphere can mask or wash out the possibility of seeing any detail on the surface of the planets. Couple that poor transparency with turbulent air currents things get even worse. Like wind blowing across the surface of a pond of water. Stars and the planets become more of a diffuse glow. And if you really want to make things worse add in a little sky glow from light pollution or moon glow.

Yes, Tim, and that's what I meant by the obvious but high moisture content itself has no bearing on atmospheric steadiness.  Seeing is a function of atmospheric turbulence, which depends upon the jet stream, vertical lifting from cold fronts, thermal instability due to adiabatic cooling, the surface pressure gradient, the roughness of the surface terrain in the general area, the terrain at the observng site, and the type of ground at the site.

Dave Mitsky

What's Obvious to you or I might not be so Obvious to others who have not been at it so long. Even some who have been at it a while still confuse the Seeing and Transparency. Some still believe that poor transparency (Hazy Skies) equals bad Seeing, or that bad transparency equals clouds.

Hi Gang. I haven't been to the forum for awhile and hope everyone is well! I HAVE been using my scope as much as possible and enjoyed good seeing last night observing Jupiter and it's fireworks. I thought I had dust on my eyepiece at first then concluded that I was seeing a moon's shadow transit the planet. Really cool! Couldn't stay awake long enough to see all the moon's disappear.

As to color: I'm still saving for some planetary filters but have actually used my Orion Ultrablock to view Jupiter with great success. Other than the green hue, it's amazing how much detail becomes apparent using it. I'm able to pick out a number of additional bands and cloud detail that I simply can't make out without the filter.

 I wonder if a polarizing filter would accomplish about the same results? Anybody know?

Mark B:

I wonder if a polarizing filter would accomplish about the same results? Anybody know?

A polarizing filter can allow you to see additional detail by reducing the overall glare that tends to overwhelm your eye.  Another good filter for natural looking views of Jupiter is the Baader Moon and Sky Glow.