Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Astrophotography and Sketching >> Beginning and Intermediate Imaging

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
Madratter
Postmaster


Reged: 01/14/13

Detail in the Soul Nebula
      #6257240 - 12/16/13 10:31 PM Attachment (11 downloads)

This object is normally done as a wide field, but there is plenty of detail in it as can be seen here. This is 35 HA subs of 5 minutes each binned 2x2 (total of 2 hour 55 minutes).



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
terry59
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/18/11

Loc: Colorado, USA
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: Madratter]
      #6257271 - 12/16/13 10:50 PM

That looks nice. I was wondering which part you were shooting

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jbalsam
sage
*****

Reged: 07/06/12

Loc: Darnestown, MD
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: terry59]
      #6257289 - 12/16/13 11:09 PM

Your image (at full resolution) shows a denoising issue that I've been curious about while playing with PixInsight. I use their a trous wavelets transform, and I see the same thing as in your image (when I'm denoising images that I know could use more data): fairly smooth results, with randomly interspersed darker pixels. I've played with settings quite a bit to try to remove them, but I can't do it without producing an objectionably "over smoothed" look. Have you noticed the same thing?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
terry59
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/18/11

Loc: Colorado, USA
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: jbalsam]
      #6257320 - 12/16/13 11:38 PM

Quote:

Your image (at full resolution) shows a denoising issue that I've been curious about while playing with PixInsight. I use their a trous wavelets transform, and I see the same thing as in your image (when I'm denoising images that I know could use more data): fairly smooth results, with randomly interspersed darker pixels. I've played with settings quite a bit to try to remove them, but I can't do it without producing an objectionably "over smoothed" look. Have you noticed the same thing?




Not trying to usurp his thread but have you tried cosmetic correction?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
CounterWeight
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 10/05/08

Loc: Palo alto, CA.
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: jbalsam]
      #6257334 - 12/16/13 11:49 PM

Nice close up of what I call the mouth part of this nebula . You have a lot of detail in there given your exposure time. The lower level signal starts becoming granular, only thing I think would help is longer sub exposures.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jbalsam
sage
*****

Reged: 07/06/12

Loc: Darnestown, MD
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: CounterWeight]
      #6257353 - 12/17/13 12:02 AM

Terry - no I haven't. If you look at Madratter's image at full resolution you'll see what I'm talking about. There are literally hundreds of thousands of darker pixels fairly evenly distributed all over the image (noise remnants). Cosmetic correction as I understand it would not be feasible (i.e. going through the image in PS with the spot removal tool or something like that). The only way I've solved it is by taking more data. The only time it's really an issue is when I want to share an image after one or two nights of integration (before it's really complete). It seems like the sort of issue that PI would be able to solve easily. All of the problem pixels are single pixels (first level wavelets?), but for some reason they don't get removed. Maybe they're just too far beyond the standard deviation of other nearby pixels to be considered as noise?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Madratter
Postmaster


Reged: 01/14/13

Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: jbalsam]
      #6257619 - 12/17/13 08:07 AM

Thanks Terry. This section is centered around IC 1871 instead of the Soul Nebula proper which is IC 1848.

Thanks Jim. I had planned to collect more data on it the other night. Two hours in, I discovered I had centered it wrong. Doh! I then switched over to the Jellyfish.

Josh, I have certainly noticed what you are talking about and it is a pain. I think you can reduce it by doing the initial integration with Winsorized and the lower bounds at 2 instead of the default 4. But I have stopped doing that because of the risk of clipping real signal.

I did the noise reduction here using tgvDenoise so it is not just a atrous wavelets issue.

And hijack away guys. As I have stated in the past, I never mind technical discussions hijacking my threads.

Edited by Madratter (12/17/13 08:08 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
terry59
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/18/11

Loc: Colorado, USA
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: jbalsam]
      #6257686 - 12/17/13 08:58 AM

Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong process. It's been a while since I had the issue some time ago.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
terry59
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/18/11

Loc: Colorado, USA
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: Madratter]
      #6257696 - 12/17/13 09:03 AM

Quote:

Thanks Terry. This section is centered around IC 1871 instead of the Soul Nebula proper which is IC 1848.

Thanks Jim. I had planned to collect more data on it the other night. Two hours in, I discovered I had centered it wrong. Doh! I then switched over to the Jellyfish.





Did you intend to image IC 1848? I shot that last night with better stars in the lower right hand portion of the image after removing the filter from the carousel and putting it back in.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Footbag
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/13/09

Loc: Scranton, PA
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: terry59]
      #6257751 - 12/17/13 09:34 AM

Looks good. I've passed this up as a long FL target for a while. You found a spot with some very nice interest.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DrDispatch
sage
*****

Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: Spf, Mo
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: terry59]
      #6257756 - 12/17/13 09:37 AM

Very kewl image MR, as usual !
Terry- remove & replace that filter made the corners better?
wonder if the male threads are cut a little off on the filter itself?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Madratter
Postmaster


Reged: 01/14/13

Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: DrDispatch]
      #6257857 - 12/17/13 10:35 AM

Terry, I deliberately went after this section. I had spotted it in other wider images and knew I wanted to do it.

Thanks Adam and Dr.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Madratter
Postmaster


Reged: 01/14/13

Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: Madratter]
      #6257863 - 12/17/13 10:38 AM

Terry, I'm happy to hear you got some better results. With my carousel the filters are held flat with some rubber rings.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
terry59
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/18/11

Loc: Colorado, USA
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: DrDispatch]
      #6257878 - 12/17/13 10:45 AM

Quote:

Very kewl image MR, as usual !
Terry- remove & replace that filter made the corners better?
wonder if the male threads are cut a little off on the filter itself?




Interesting hypothesis. I was assuming that the glass was tilted but maybe your explanation is correct. I have the Astrodon ordered and will see what it does


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DrDispatch
sage
*****

Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: Spf, Mo
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: terry59]
      #6257976 - 12/17/13 11:41 AM

i used to be a machinist. was the 70's, still these long runs of parts on these modern machines have to have variances, be my luck to get one of the several cut during setup process:)

some of this stuff you can throw $$ at it and not get rewarded. the astrodons seem to be the best in this case


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
DrDispatch
sage
*****

Reged: 10/26/12

Loc: Spf, Mo
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: DrDispatch]
      #6257978 - 12/17/13 11:43 AM

terry, the glass may be tilted!! I had not thought of that:))
opinions are like.....:))))
but someone will guess it right!!!

I had the QHY FW and the 2" baaders caught about 1.5 threads, that was all there was, so thin!

Edited by DrDispatch (12/17/13 11:45 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rigel123
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/29/09

Loc: SW Ohio
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: Madratter]
      #6258084 - 12/17/13 12:40 PM

That's close to the same FOV I used for my image of this one, great job!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SergeC
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 03/23/12

Loc: Gainesville, FL
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: Madratter]
      #6258263 - 12/17/13 02:29 PM

Nice shot, there's some cool detail and structure there.

It does look a bit grainy in the low signal area, but I don't think it detracts from the image overall. I'm finding I need to grab at least 4-6hr of Ha to smooth out that low signal.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
terry59
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/18/11

Loc: Colorado, USA
Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: SergeC]
      #6258608 - 12/17/13 05:26 PM

Quote:

Nice shot, there's some cool detail and structure there.

It does look a bit grainy in the low signal area, but I don't think it detracts from the image overall. I'm finding I need to grab at least 4-6hr of Ha to smooth out that low signal.




Yes, I am finding that low signal areas at f/7.5 to be tough with just a few hours anyway.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Madratter
Postmaster


Reged: 01/14/13

Re: Detail in the Soul Nebula new [Re: terry59]
      #6258632 - 12/17/13 05:37 PM

My guess is that the ideal exposure where read noise gets overwhelmed is probably at least ten and more probably twenty plus minutes. Unfortunately, until I get OAG going, I need to live with five minute exposures. That is fine for LRGB where it does hit or come close to ideal exposure times.

My telescope is running at roughly f/5.8.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
21 registered and 15 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  nitegeezer, WOBentley, dr.who, rflinn68 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 710

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics