Did get a little red Mars near the moon recently, and saw planets last night before Moon rose (LATE, as it's doing these days,) but nothing like what you've got!

I've got it borrowed for a month with another month option if I want and probably another month after that if no one is desperate to have it and I post some good pics. My "local" club has a few items like that but they are far enough away I don't make use of it much. A camera you can mail and don't have to mess with in person unlike say a telescope so I went for it.

So anyway, I hooked it all up and got this blurry mess, I had seen demos but it doesn't prepare you for the pot of boiling oatmeal it looks like on a bad night after you just spent an hour and half getting everything set up just right.

Ran it through the software, I could tell there was something there but it had multiple issues almost like an old analog TV, ghosts where they didn't stack right so I just kept tweaking until all of a sudden I had a clearer picture than I had hoped to get.

complete with backyard observatories everywhere we lived (that had roofs that rolled off)
and that's 50 some years ago when I was a kid growing up. He had a dark room in the basement
to develop his shots.

Nice work!

Planetary Image Pre Processor, that one really saves a lot of time and processor cycles in Registax.

I image a 480x480 subframe and ~40 frames per second, PIPP cuts the frames down to 100x100 for Mars and 160x160 for Jupiter.

With video as noisy as mine is you have to trick Registax into aligning solely on center of mass rather than looking for a specific feature since the features are jumping around all over the place. There's a menu that lets you blur the image for aligning purposes, I'm using a really heavy blur for the alignment, it seems like the more blur I use the better it works.

I don't know anything about photographing through a telescope, and I'm trying to figure out how you get a picture like that with the planets moving out of view as quickly as they do. Does your scope track the target, or is your camera really fast?

However unless your mount is very high quality and expensive (which mine decidedly isn't) the image still moves around and shifts some by the time you have the tiny dot of a planet magnified to the size you can see any detail.

The solution is to shoot a video which freezes individual moments of shifting blurry sight and then combine hundreds or thousands of blurry frames into a single sharp picture in the computer with mathematics. Looking out through our atmosphere is like trying to look a the bottom of a pool, unless the water is very still the picture is blurred and moments of stillness are infrequent and brief.

The best amateur telescopes today aren't really optically much better than the best fifty years ago (some of the antiques are prized for excellence), what's changed by light years is the sensors and most of all the processing of the images. Even Hubble images look fairly pathetic until they've been processed through a powerful computer system, you'd never guess what they were if someone showed them to you.

All the space images you see online and in magazines are not a direct representation of what the sensor picks up, there is a lot of art, science and judgement in making the beautiful images you see since the human eye will never witness them directly.