You are not logged in. [Login] Entrance · Main Index · Search · New user · Who's Online FAQ · Calendar

Astrophotography and Sketching >> CCD Imaging & Processing Previous   Index   Next   Threaded

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all) kfir Simon Vendor-PowerNewt Reged: 09/21/10 Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB?       #5677061 - 02/13/13 06:16 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Hello everyone. From time to time I get the feeling that maybe LRGB imaging is not necessary - and only RGB is sufficient enough - meaning no need for Luminance! I know there are some imagers that image Nebulae only in RGB without Luminance and get great results. My traditional way was to image Lum in Bin 1 and RGB in Bin 2 to color the Luminance. With this in mind I took this image of M42 only in RGB (each channel for 9 minutes) - and took a separate Luminance image of 9 minutes to see if it really matters. To my surprise - the Lum didn't add at all to the final result, on the contrary - it made the beautiful colors of the RGB wash out and didn't add to the details. Therefore I decided to keep only the RGB image. Please see here: http://www.pbase.com/tango33/image/148764474 Some thoughts: Does RGB imaging (Without Lum) work only on bright Nebulae? Since we need the color data - isn't it better to image only in RGB and extract the LUM from it? (Since LUM is R+G+B) I would like to hear your opinions and/or experience on the subject! All the best, Kfir Post Extras:       Nicola Vendor: Skymonsters.net. Reged: 05/23/06 Loc: Milan, Italy Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: kfir Simon]       #5677070 - 02/13/13 06:25 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Kfir, your thoughts are correct. RGB is enough provided: - you shoot a total integration time for RGB that you would do with LRGB - you have a fast f/ratio scope (and this seems to be your case) People imaging with an f/10 will probably stick with LRGB binning 2x2 for colors. But..it depends also on the object. While an RGB will fully describe an emission nebula, it will loose some info with reflection nebulas/dust clouds/galaxies as the total spectrum is a continuum. BTW: With a fast scope such as yours I would not bin IMHO. Edited by Nicola (02/13/13 06:26 AM) Post Extras:       Inverted sage Reged: 01/19/13 Loc: LP Land Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Nicola]       #5677189 - 02/13/13 08:11 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   I think the big benefit to LRGB is that you can do all the processing on just one layer "L". You really do not need to spend much time at all processing RGB if you do L. If your results were the same, it's probably because you did spend time on RGB, which, in my experience just isn't necessary, or even correct (for the reasons you mention) when adding an L layer, as the L will add all of the processed detail. The only thing you really need from the RGB is color, you do not need to spend time bringing out the detail in RGB, it eill, as you experienced look funny because when you do stretch and sharpen the RGB layers to bring out details, it changes the range, noise, saturation etc.. in ways not really compatible with the L layer. Also, it is easier to see contrast and subtle detail in B/W, although this would apply to RGB if done separately in greyscale. To me though, the magic is the L layer, that is where everything happens and really helps the processing workflow if used correctly. Post Extras:       freestar8n Carpal Tunnel Reged: 10/12/07 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: kfir Simon]       #5677212 - 02/13/13 08:40 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   I think a key misunderstanding about LRGB is that it does not, in fact, somehow "increase SNR". Instead, it just lets you make a more visually pleasing image by spending more time on luminance than color - because human color perception is not sensitive to high spatial frequency. So - unlike noise models and so forth, you won't find LRGB used in professional work - because it only applies to aesthetic imaging - not quantitative scientific work where SNR is the primary concern. So - the "theory" behind LRGB is that a high res L combined with quick, low res color should look great - but it never worked that well for me because it doesn't look as natural as a normal RGB - especially for something like a star cluster. And if people want to muck around with the stars and colors with heavy processing - they can do that with RGB anyway. So my impression is that LRGB is less fashionable nowadays - especially with binned color since binning may not have much win with LRGB. But what matters is how it looks after you process it the amount you want to process. Theoretically LRGB should look better than RGB with a given amount of imaging time - but I think it depends on personal taste and personal amounts of processing. Frank Post Extras:       Bob Gillette sage Reged: 08/29/08 Loc: New Hampshire Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Inverted]       #5677216 - 02/13/13 08:42 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Anyone Imaging with an OSC camera is shooting RGB, unless you take the added step of separating the channels and creating an artificial Lum, uwhich I suspect most of us don't. I do both OSC and mono. On bright objects like M42, I find, as you did, no significant difference. But on fainter objects, I do see higher resolution and greater sensitivity with the mono Lum. Try your experiment on a mag 9-11 galaxy and seen if you perceive a difference with the same total integration time. Bob B Post Extras:       Inverted sage Reged: 01/19/13 Loc: LP Land Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Bob Gillette]       #5677394 - 02/13/13 10:44 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Just to add on one thing, I think I was not clear about. When you enhance contrast of the RGB layers and process them, you effectively add black and decrease the RGB signal in some areas. Right, that is what contrast is, a change between intense and less intense signal. So, the now darker areas, unless they perfectly match the dark areas of the L, will effectively cancel out some color because while the L may illuminate it, but there is no longer color there. And vice versa. So, you actually are usually better off with fairly low contrast on the RGB layers. I've found I get very satisfactory results doing little more than applying a mild Gaussian blur to the RGB, to remove some noise and adjusting the intensity to merge well. Going much further than this with the RGB layers usually results in disappointment in my experience. But it is preferable to focus on the L too, as then you get a sense of how everything fits together, in one layer. Trying to process the RGB separately, you don't really get that sense until you merge them. Once you merge them, and start processing, then your basically just using an expensive OSC with extra steps.. Post Extras:       BlueGrass Carpal Tunnel Reged: 07/25/09 Loc: Wasatch Front, UT Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Inverted]       #5678475 - 02/13/13 10:13 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   ... but shooting RGB with a mono vs. OSC gives you much more control over how much of each channel to capture or add to the final image. OSC always captures more green if present than red or blue and that needs to be removed or adjusted in post processing. Post Extras:       bill w Postmaster Reged: 03/26/05 Loc: southern california Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: BlueGrass]       #5678614 - 02/13/13 11:46 PM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   yes in my experience mid to long focal length with poor transparency and light pollution. makes a huge difference especially for faint galaxies and reflection nebulae. 3 times the signal per unit time. less so for objects that are largely mono or bichoromatic emission nebulae. need to be careful with LRGB combine that you have enough RGB. takes some skill. suggest RGB sub exposure length be 3x luminance. can combine this data with luminance with some improvement in background smoothness your mileage may vary Post Extras:       SL63 AMG professor emeritus Reged: 12/21/09 Loc: Williamson, Arizona Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Nicola]       #5678645 - 02/14/13 12:21 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: BTW: With a fast scope such as yours I would not bin IMHO. If the seeing is good, I don't bin my RGB subs, I shoot LRGB all binned 1x1. In fact, I am imaging M78 RGB right now at F/3.6 binned 1x1. The subs look great. I have a fast scope, clear dark skies and good seeing. I never really thought about not using Luminance data. Adam Block teaches to use deconvolution on almost all galaxy luminance masters. I wonder if deconvolution is necessary anymore if processing the luminance with PixInsight's HDR wavelets. It's something to think about and discuss. I look forward to hearing from the experts. Post Extras:       alpal Carpal Tunnel Reged: 06/15/09 Loc: Melbourne Australia. Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: bill w]       #5678650 - 02/14/13 12:29 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   The Luminance has a higher signal to noise ratio than any particular colour of RGB. Therefore in the faint areas of the picture - luminance will enable us to see the low s/n data which would otherwise be invisible in the noise. The only test would be on a very faint object such as a galaxy & in particular it's faint arms. Post Extras:       pfile Carpal Tunnel Reged: 06/14/09 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: alpal]       #5678673 - 02/14/13 12:52 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   i still do deconvolution on my L; it's the most "pure" way of sharpening the image. after DBE the next step is deconvolution thru a mask, to protect the low-SNR areas. then it's off to nonlinear-land... Post Extras:       Leonardo70 scholastic sledgehammer Reged: 04/16/09 Loc: Turin - Italy Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: pfile]       #5678782 - 02/14/13 05:22 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Hello Kfir, my opinion (with in mind your fast scope) : - R+G+B isn't equal to L due to the filters cut - L is necessary for faint objects and better SNR (now i use always after one year i used a RGB only) - Colors become washed if you work separately on L and RGB (mix togheter as soon as possibile) and work on it, better to use an L-LRGB approach - Don't use a bin2 for color (you are fast and don't need) - Use Sum instead of Mean for color stacking (i also use for L) , you'll gain more dinamic when stretching it according the luminance. This mean to use a good rejection tools. All the best, Leo Post Extras:       freestar8n Carpal Tunnel Reged: 10/12/07 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Leonardo70]       #5678890 - 02/14/13 07:30 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: L is necessary for faint objects and better SNR This is typically how LRGB is described, but the problem is that in color imaging, you just have R, G, B signals - and you want each signal accurately recorded and with low noise. If you multiply L by R to get a "better" R - you may get an R channel that looks better - but the signal has been corrupted by mixing in G and B data from the L, into R. So L has more detail and so forth - but it doesn't do anything to improve the SNR of the color channels. One text that gets this right is Berry/Burnell's handbook where they say LRGB makes for a better looking image with a given total exposure time - by combining a good looking L channel with low res color. It's a perceptual thing - not an SNR thing. If LRGB really did improve SNR, it would be used professionally to capture better data in a color channel. It's just used for making nicer *looking* images in a given time - and even then, some people like its results and others don't. Frank Post Extras:       Ken Crawford super member Reged: 06/02/09 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: freestar8n]       #5679162 - 02/14/13 10:52 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   The luminance channel is better for sharpening systems like Decon and others. One of the ways to improve the total signal is if you take unbinned RGB data, you can combine the RGB into a synthetic Luminance then combine your deep luminance and the RGB luminance together for a combined signal Luminance. This method is used by Jay GaBany and myself for the professional Star Stream Team survey to enhance the contrast of the very faint streams. This method we us has been explained in several AJ papers that we have produced on the subject. That way you are not just using the RGB result to colorized the Luminance, you are using the RGB + L combined to produce a better result. You can then use the RGB result to colorize the "Super L" and use the standard L to Decon and apply as a sharpening layer. Post Extras:       Inverted sage Reged: 01/19/13 Loc: LP Land Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Ken Crawford]       #5679201 - 02/14/13 11:09 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: So L has more detail and so forth - but it doesn't do anything to improve the SNR of the color channels. It seems it is improving "luminance SNR" though, especially if used in a way such as Ken described. However, perhaps skewing the color rendering or "color SNR". It sort of depends what "signal" we're interested in I guess. From an EE perspective (I/m not an EE, so, could be wrong), I think usually signal is consider as both intensity and frequency/wavelength, so, then in that view, perhaps it would be fair to say it improves sampling of the intensity at the expense of wavelength sampling? Edit: I changed "frequency" to "intensity" above Edited by Inverted (02/14/13 12:03 PM) Post Extras:       freestar8n Carpal Tunnel Reged: 10/12/07 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Ken Crawford]       #5679226 - 02/14/13 11:20 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   If you are taking L and also taking R, G, B, then sure you can improve the SNR of your L by summing the RGB into the L - assuming L is really equal to the sum of R, G, B. But the result is a higher SNR L - not a higher SNR R, G, B. If you just wanted a high SNR L, you would have been better off not exposing R,G,B at all and instead do all as L. In the AJ2010 paper - which I assume is representative of what you are referring to, as far as I can tell the RGB info is only used to make a reference color image to enhance the aesthetics of the figures - but the analysis is based strictly on L. If you have a paper that describes the SNR improvement of the R,G,B channel information by combining with L I'd be happy to take a look at it. Frank Post Extras:       Ken Crawford super member Reged: 06/02/09 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: freestar8n]       #5679269 - 02/14/13 11:40 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   The RGB Sum + L was used to produce higher contrast in the streams but the Lum only was used for the professional measurements and analysis. You are correct that you could keep going longer in L only for the "best" results but the idea was to use the RGB signal since we have it to improve contast in the streams - which we do for display only. This way the RGB signal was not just used to tint the Lum channel. In other words, we have the data we might as well use it! The Max-Planck guys measured my L only channel on NGC4216 down to 29.3 mags / sq/ arcsec and the combined RGB + L gave a higher s/n ratio of the streams. Post Extras:       freestar8n Carpal Tunnel Reged: 10/12/07 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Ken Crawford]       #5679280 - 02/14/13 11:47 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: This way the RGB signal was not just used to tint the Lum channel. In other words, we have the data we might as well use it! Sure - that makes perfect sense. But people think that LRGB is a way actually to improve the color accuracy of an image - by somehow increasing the SNR of each R,G,B channel. I claim this is incorrect, and cite Berry/Burnell as a source that gets it right. LRGB relies on a perceptual trick to make a color image look better - by spending more imaging time on luminance than color. The result just looks better - but the inherent color accuracy or "SNR" has not been improved. So people shouldn't feel there is an inherent SNR win by doing LRGB vs. RGB. But there is a chance the end result would be perceived as higher quality and look better - or not. Frank Post Extras:       Ken Crawford super member Reged: 06/02/09 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: Ken Crawford]       #5679282 - 02/14/13 11:50 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Frank, See page 5 of this paper that describes the RGB combined method. http://www.cosmotography.com/images/ngc5907_def.pdf I joined the team after this paper and is where I learned the method. Once it was described, we did not have to keep talking about it. But as you see, the combined data was used and we still will use now for contrast enhancement. We just take the data and carefully process it to specs, we don't do the analysis - the PI and other pros do. Regards, Regards, Post Extras:       Ken Crawford super member Reged: 06/02/09 Re: Do we need Luminance for imaging? or only RGB? [Re: freestar8n]       #5679288 - 02/14/13 11:53 AM Edit   Reply   Quote Quick Reply   Quote: Quote: This way the RGB signal was not just used to tint the Lum channel. In other words, we have the data we might as well use it! Sure - that makes perfect sense. But people think that LRGB is a way actually to improve the color accuracy of an image - by somehow increasing the SNR of each R,G,B channel. I claim this is incorrect, and cite Berry/Burnell as a source that gets it right. LRGB relies on a perceptual trick to make a color image look better - by spending more imaging time on luminance than color. The result just looks better - but the inherent color accuracy or "SNR" has not been improved. So people shouldn't feel there is an inherent SNR win by doing LRGB vs. RGB. But there is a chance the end result would be perceived as higher quality and look better - or not. Frank Agreed !! It does not help the color channels at all. I have found however that with today's processing tools, you will never have a problem pushing color as long as you have enough of it Great stuff Frank! Post Extras:       Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)

Previous   Index   Next   Threaded

Extra information 16 registered and 21 anonymous users are browsing this forum. Moderator:  Oldfield, bilgebay  Print Thread Forum Permissions       You cannot start new topics       You cannot reply to topics       HTML is disabled       UBBCode is enabled Thread views: 1543 Jump to *Announcements and News* -----   Cloudy Nights Announcements   Discussion of CN Articles, Reviews, and Reports   Celestial Events*General Astronomy* -----   Beginners Forum   General Observing and Astronomy   Outreach   Light Pollution*Equipment Discussions* -----   ATM, Optics and DIY Forum   Binoculars   Binoviewers   Cats & Casses   Classic Telescopes   Equipment   Eyepieces   Mounts   Observatories   Reflectors   Refractors    Video and Electronically Assisted Astronomy*Astrophotography and Sketching* -----   Beginning and Intermediate Imaging   Film Astrophotography   DSLR & Digital Camera Astro Imaging & Processing   CCD Imaging & Processing   Solar System Imaging & Processing   Sketching   Astro Imaging/Sketching Contest *Observing* -----   NEO   Planetary and Solar System Observing   Lunar Observing   Deep Sky Observing   Double Star Observing   Solar   Variable Star Observing and Radio Astronomy*Telescope Specific Forums* -----   Celestron NexStar    NexStar GPS / CPC Telescopes   Questar Forum   Meade ACF/RCX / LX / GPS    Meade ETX*Speciality Forums* -----   Arizona Science and Astronomy Expo   NEAF (Northeast Astronomy Forum) and NEAIC (Northeast Astro Imaging Conference)   AstroArt   Astronomy Clubs and Star Parties   Astronomy Software & Computers   AstroWebsites   Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others   Space Rocks   Stellar Media*Swap and Shop* -----   Shop and Swap Audio Components*CN Feedback and Vendor Announcements* -----   Vendor and Group Announcements*International Year of Astronomy 2009 - Forums are now closed.* -----   IYA Archive Info

CN Forums Home