Jump to content


Photo

Help with M42?

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Intensity2x

Intensity2x

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Northern NJ

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:07 PM

Anyone want to show me what my data is really capable of? I feel like there is a lot more here, but I can't get it out from the background noise...

I'm in a white zone with no filters, this was during full moon, and my alignment was not perfect, so certainly not best conditions :)

Posted Image

Calibrated and stacked Tif file is linked on that site, if someone wants to have a quick go at processing it. I'd really like ot knwo what the data is capable of so I can work on my processing. Thanks!

--Nick

#2 SteveRosenow

SteveRosenow

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 847
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Shelton, Washington

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:36 PM

I'll give it a go and see what I can come up with, then upload the final jpeg to my Flickr, with your consent.

-Steve

#3 Intensity2x

Intensity2x

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Northern NJ

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:52 PM

I'll give it a go..., with your consent.


I'd appreciate it, thanks!

#4 SteveRosenow

SteveRosenow

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 847
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2012
  • Loc: Shelton, Washington

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:58 PM

I'm able to bring out more data, but it seems to blow out the Trapezium. Going to save a few different versions then feather the Trapezium in, utilizing a pseudo-HDR method.

:)

#5 jsines

jsines

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Berkley. Michigan

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:26 PM

I'll run it through PixInsight to see what I can come up with later after work tonight on my home computer. I'm bored with nothing but clouds or extreme cold at night, so thanks for giving me something to do!

#6 Intensity2x

Intensity2x

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Northern NJ

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:34 PM

I'm bored with nothing but clouds


That's exactly why I set up during full moon, bad seeing, and 20 degrees out :) Been so long since there's been a decent clear night

#7 nwinston

nwinston

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 333
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Maryland, USA

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:39 PM

I had a try at processing your image, not bad for a full moon!

Here is a link to the full size image.

Attached Files



#8 pfile

pfile

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3165
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2009

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:39 PM

Posted Image

that's about 15 minutes in pixinsight 1.7

did you use flats? there's kind of a weird, square gradient in the picture that i was not able to remove. i have seen this before but i'm not sure what causes it.

rob

#9 Intensity2x

Intensity2x

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Northern NJ

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

Rob and Neil, wow! :ooo: You confirmed my suspicion that it's better than I am able to make of it. Guess I have some more practicing to do!

Yes, I used Flats, Darks, Dark Flats, and even Bias frames. I noticed that gradient too, I don't know what it is. It's the first time I have seen it in any of my pictures. It may have to do with the stacking. My alignment was a bit off. The stars didn't really trail, but the frame moved considerably over the imaging session. I had to crop out a wide margin after stacking.

There's obviously a lot of room for improvment in my raw data, but I'd like to get my processing skills up to a higher level too.

If anyone else wants to have a go at it, feel free!

#10 cclark

cclark

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2008

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:19 PM

Here is my attempt (also using Pixinsight 1.7).
You have captured a lot of detail in such short subs. Good going!

Chris

Attached Files



#11 jsines

jsines

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Berkley. Michigan

Posted 28 January 2013 - 09:44 PM

Here's my attempt, about 20 minutes in PixInsight. Thanks for giving me something to process, since I'm not producing anything to process right now. I oversaturated the colors a bit, that's something that can be dialed back, and I usually go through 3-5 different attempts in PixInsight before I settle. More time and I probably would have produced something without as much saturation. I don't think it's the best in the thread.

It was hard to tell whether there was a square gradient in the picture, or there was dust that surrounded the nebula. I think there's a lot of potential to get a great picture, possibly by creating a mosaic. Once I had this round gradient in my pictures, and I traced it back to my flats - I use a box with white paper in the middle, and white paper on the end where I shine the light. The white paper in the middle ended up having a circle shape from where the telescope rested, which caused a circular gradient in the flats. Maybe there was something like that going on in the creation of the flats, or maybe it's nebula dust, hard to tell.

Attached Files



#12 Intensity2x

Intensity2x

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Northern NJ

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:20 PM

And so I am noticing a trend... Everyone uses PixInsight? Where are all the photoshop people?! Is there a reason you prefer PixInsight to Photoshop? I never really looked into it because I have access to Photoshop for free.

As for the gradient, I am pretty sure its artificial. If you over-stretch the image it is very pronounced, and very linear along the bottom of the frame. As they say, nature never produces perfectly straight lines. I'll try to play around and see if I can figure out what caused it.

#13 Nils_Lars

Nils_Lars

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10055
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Santa Cruz Mountains , CA

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:54 PM

Some of us hold outs still use Photoshop but ive tried PI and its really a great program , ill probably get it someday.

You can still do pretty much all the same stuff in PS just takes some work.

#14 nwinston

nwinston

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 333
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Maryland, USA

Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:59 PM

I forgot to mention that I used photoshop to process my version.

#15 cclark

cclark

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2008

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:24 PM

I really like PI for a few reasons:

1. It is written specifically with astro processing in mind. It takes me from raw images from the camera, calibration, stacking and all the way through processing. This really simplified my workflow
2. It has a great community of contributors. They are constantly writing new scripts that aid in processing, plate solving, etc.
3. It costs a lot less than PS (cost was a big factor for me)
4. Also, once I tried the demo and followed Harry's tutorials I saw how easy it was to use. I was confused at first (coming from GIMP), but the many videos really show how powerful the program is (and easy - once the lightbulb goes off).
5. Lastly, I looked at lots of pictures here and on Astrobin and focused on the one's that really spoke to me, then tried to use similar tools/approaches.

I guess the only thing I can't do in PI is acquisition - but that is where BYE comes in :-) another really great piece of software.

This is not to say you can't do all of this in PS, some people are really good at it. My above points just made me gravitate to PI. Basically an end-to-end solution with a record of good results that was in my price point.


I hope this helps,

Chris

#16 Tom and Beth

Tom and Beth

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3654
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:17 AM

If nothing else you helped me. Just a rank newbie gleaning what others are doing.

#17 pfile

pfile

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3165
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2009

Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:43 AM

there's definitely some kind of strange square gradient going on. it's not dust. the dust around M42 looks like this: (very organic)

Posted Image

anyway it's possible this is a stacking artifact but those usually look more discrete rather than smooth. but then again i didn't realize you cropped the image.

i use pixinsight for the same reasons as cclark mentioned above. it's great to use dedicated software. i use a mac so that was also a big factor - it was either nebulosity or PI and PI just appealed to me more.

#18 Intensity2x

Intensity2x

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Northern NJ

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:04 AM

Neil, since you're the only one that used photoshop, do you have any tips for me, or tutorials you found helpful? I've watched a bunch of videos, but I don't really know how to do much more than levels and curves, and people seem to have widely varying tactics on that.

BYE really is great. Some of the best money I ever spent. I'll have to check out PixInsight too. Can't really afford it right now, but maybe in the future, if it makes things that much easier. I had thought the majority of people used Photoshop, but maybe I'm wrong.

Back to that gradient... I stacked without bias and dark-flats (still used darks and flats) and the gradient was still there. I tried again with darks only (no flats or anything else) and it may be gone, but it is hard to tell because without flats there is a pretty harsh vignette. I stretched one of the flats out and didnt see anything weird with it. So, I'm not sure. Let me clarify on the crop. In the tiff I uploaded, I had DSS stack in "intersect" mode, meaning it should have cropped out the border artifacts itself. I originally (and normally) stack in default mode and I crop off the edges myself. I figured it was some sort of stacking artifact which is why I tried it in "intersect" mode.

#19 nwinston

nwinston

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 333
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Maryland, USA

Posted 29 January 2013 - 12:40 PM

Here is a good tutorial on photoshop processing. He talks about using curves, levels, layers, and filters to process an image of M42 much like yours: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=BBQQ_Gs6YHM

There are also some great processing instructions and techniques on Jerry Lodriguss's website: http://www.astropix....GIT/TOC_DIG.HTM

Fortunately, there is no one way to process astrophotos in photoshop. I would recommend trying out different techniques to see what works and what doesn't.

#20 Intensity2x

Intensity2x

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Northern NJ

Posted 29 January 2013 - 07:23 PM

Alright, here's a greatly improved one:
http://astrob.in/31013/B/

I am still struggling to get the color out while keeping the background noise at bay. But we're headed int he right direction!

#21 cclark

cclark

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 83
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2008

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:03 PM

Much better. Great job!

#22 Nils_Lars

Nils_Lars

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10055
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Santa Cruz Mountains , CA

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:52 PM

That came out great , usually takes a lot longer to improve that much.

#23 zerro1

zerro1

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5862
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Smokey Point , 48.12°N 122.25°W Elevation:512 ft

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:56 PM

there's kind of a weird, square gradient in the picture that i was not able to remove. i have seen this before but i'm not sure what causes it.


If you're talking about an artifact that presents as almost a frame; more prominent on the left and bottom... I've experienced this on my Canon XS. it's there with or without flats, with or without darks. I've not spent much time trying to solve it because the rare clear sky has been to valuable to waste troubleshooting. I never used to encounter this issue so troubleshooting will entail eliminating software and just using a timer/remote shutter. It could be related to controling via USB?:thinking:, maybe a bad USB:thinking:? shutter shadow? :thinking:

#24 Intensity2x

Intensity2x

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 214
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Northern NJ

Posted 30 January 2013 - 09:42 AM

Yep, thats what we are seeing. This is the first time I have seen it in any of my shots. I have changed neither my equipment nor my technique, as far as I know.

#25 jsines

jsines

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2011
  • Loc: Berkley. Michigan

Posted 30 January 2013 - 01:56 PM

That looks much better! Good job!






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics