There's a size limit on the file and a limit on how many pixels high and wide it is. The standard on forums is usually 90x90 pixels, not sure about he size but I think the pixel count is the pressing one if it isn't a Gif animation.
Cheers Stuart! Yes I have, though intermittently since I live in Scotland. It takes me about half an hour to set up my mount and gear so it usually starts to rain before I get the chance to look at anything
Here's the full size un-cropped versions. One's got the brightness up so you can see the moons.
Very nice Parus, I get the same problem over here on the west coast of Scotland, and my telescope's not as big an aperture as yours as I get Jupiter as a white sphere with two grey bands but I do get the four main moons! Thanks for the pics.
Cheers, guys. Mine's a 6" F8 Newtonian so it's not really that big. The picture is an image stack so it's made from a few hundred frames from a two minute video all aligned and morphed together so the planet does have a bit more detail than you's see with your eye. The software thinks the moons are artifacts and tries to get rid of them so you set them as alignment points which it doesn't get on with which is why they're fuzzy. Through a telescope you will see banding, some fuzzy detail but super sharp points of light for the moons.
If you get a white sphere then it could be a case of increasing the focal length to resolve the light better by way of using a Barlow or a lower mm eyepiece.
I have a Barlow, but I need a lower eyepiece, was gonna get one for Xmas but chose the Legions of Rome deal instead. I to have a 6" but my mount isn't brilliant. But i've promised my self some upgrades and other bits in the summer with my bonus plus aload of WG stuff as well Just waiting on Orion now in a few weeks to get higher as I do have the right equipment for that!
Yeah, the mount does make all the difference. Mine's pretty decent but the eyepieces I use are absolutely guff and my barlow needs putting out my misery. I was using an EQ3-2 for a while before I got the computer controlled one I have now and it did my nut but I had a shot of a friends one and it had the dual axis motors on and that produced a rock steady image in his 6" since you didn't have to touch the mount controls at all. After seeing his I noticed that mine being the same model wasn't as stable so I gave it the once over and tightened the leg nuts and tuned out the slop and it's now pretty good. Never be too scared to faff with something in Astronomy.