Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Astrophotography Lite!

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
41 replies to this topic

#26 M111

M111

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2006

Posted 30 July 2009 - 11:23 AM

I find that a dimensionally smaller, less-compressed image is often better looking than trying to squeeze an 800 pixel shot down to under 100K.

#27 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 30 July 2009 - 11:30 AM

So your saying I would look better in waist size 36 pants instead of squeezing into a size 32? It's all relative. One hair on your head - is not enough, but one in your soup - is too much.

Igor

#28 Rick Thurmond

Rick Thurmond

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2006

Posted 30 July 2009 - 05:40 PM

I found it difficult to compress my Veil Nebula image to 100K. Photoshop CS2 wouldn't do it. In the dialog it said it was making an image smaller than 100K, but the image on the disk ended up larger than that. What happened to JPEG2000? It was supposed to give cleaner and tighter compression than JPEG. I ended up moving the image into Aperture, then exporting it from there. It was able to make the image less than 100K, though the quality isn't what I like. I'll probably get a better scan and alignment done in October then put a final image on my website.
Rick

#29 Robert Provin

Robert Provin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 807
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2006

Posted 30 July 2009 - 08:13 PM

I found it difficult to compress my Veil Nebula image to 100K. Photoshop CS2 wouldn't do it. In the dialog it said it was making an image smaller than 100K, but the image on the disk ended up larger than that. What happened to JPEG2000? It was supposed to give cleaner and tighter compression than JPEG. I ended up moving the image into Aperture, then exporting it from there. It was able to make the image less than 100K, though the quality isn't what I like. I'll probably get a better scan and alignment done in October then put a final image on my website.
Rick

I too found it difficult to create an acceptable image (in my estimation) given the required constraints. So I will not be entering. Please don't read this as a complaint as I agree with the underlying philosophy, it's just not right for me at this time.

Robert

#30 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 30 July 2009 - 08:26 PM

Rick, this is what has been killing us on the Film Forums when entering the contest. Crop, cut, chop, and what happened to the wide field image? Jim had a fabulous frame entry that was shot with his 6x7. It just held up after compression, but was blown away by the higher resolution of the website.

I had to take the final image down to 8 bit first, then resize to 800 x 800. This greatly reduced the image size with CS2. Then quality was set to match the 100k limit.

I think you can still play around with the frame and re-submit it again if that works for you???

This is going to be one great frame when you are done with the drum scans. I bumped into Joe O'Neil up here at a meeting. He mentioned his stash of TP film in the freezer 4x5. I asked him if he was interested in selling it as you may be interested. You'd think I was asking for his right arm. I guess I was.

Igor

#31 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 30 July 2009 - 08:37 PM

It is difficult to properly display images within the guidelines in general, especially wide-field work. These images contain lots of data and do not take well to compression. Wide-field astrophotos, especially when done with medium formats or larger contain much more data. Digital images seem to display better as their constituent pixels are original to the image.

Take a look at the digital work next door, mostly narrow fields with relatively few stars and diffuse nebulae with some sharp details. Much easier to compress and still look half in the bag.

#32 M111

M111

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2006

Posted 30 July 2009 - 09:03 PM

What I usually do is start with an 800px photo and usually (read *always* with widefields) I find the compression artifacts are too much. Total oatmeal, as Igor describes. Then I'll make a 700px, 650px, 600px, 550px, etc., and compare. As they get smaller they will also get smoother. I'll try to find the largest of the bunch that has retains acceptable smoothness.

#33 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 30 July 2009 - 09:12 PM

Don't forget - we are shooting 6x7, which is much larger than 35mm. Then 4x5 inch goes way beyond 6x7. I don't think there would be ANY way to bring that size down to the guidelines.

I wonder if it would be worth doing a poll - CN that is, to really find how many are on dial up, vs higher speed. Anyone on the astro photography forums has got to be on high speed???

Igor

Hey Jim - got any spare E200? :roflmao:

#34 M111

M111

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2006

Posted 30 July 2009 - 09:32 PM

Yes, I understand these are larger format. I shoot 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 as well as digital. My method for reducing to a file size limit is same for all formats. One of the most difficult images I have found to reduce was actually a DSLR widefield with a 10mm lens. Digital wides are a real pain as the stars are little crunchy squares which look especially horrid when compressed.

All I am saying is, sometimes, given the constraints of this contest, the best looking image might be one that is less than 800px wide.

#35 Rick Thurmond

Rick Thurmond

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2006

Posted 30 July 2009 - 11:31 PM

Just now I tried shrinking it, then using less compression. I think for visual impact, 800x800 works better than a smaller but less compressed version.
Perhaps the thing that helps is that this is a long focal length view so the stars are pretty large. But the real destination for this image is a 16x20 on the wall anyway. That's why I need to get the drum scan. I've found an expert who really knows how to run his scanner, but $$$x3. Previous results are at www.rickthurmond.com. Look for M33 and M8 there.

#36 M111

M111

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2006

Posted 30 July 2009 - 11:45 PM

That's an awesome gallery, Rick. Indeed, I think prints are where film AP really shines brightest. This 100k stuff is for the birds. :)

#37 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 31 July 2009 - 05:00 AM

Anything shot high res and shrunk down to a small 72DPI screen image will look like junk. It actually is bad enough when viewing "whole screen", 1280x1024............

As you say Brendan, wide-fields suffer here. A wide shot including the Pleiades would render it like a blue corn flake..........

Not my cup of tea.

#38 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 31 July 2009 - 05:09 AM

I have little trouble with the 800x800 image restriction, but only if I could leave it uncompressed, say 300-400 kB. That to me would be an acceptable compromise.

On another note. Digital has "replaced" film. That statement is accepted elsewhere at CN, but shouldn't we recognize at least that dial-up modems went the way of the dinosours? Perhaps not, we should have a poll as Igor suggested.

#39 James Paulson

James Paulson

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,864
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2014

Posted 31 July 2009 - 11:59 AM

We love the frame your took. Would either yourself or Rick consider entering the monthly contest under the Film Forum. We would be honoured.

Igor


Asking Robert to enter the contest is akin to asking Payton Manning to join the high school football team. :bow: He was doing great astrophotgraphy before some of the guys were even born.

But that's just my opinion.

#40 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 31 July 2009 - 02:33 PM

Yes, I realize that - which is why I asked. We are honoured just to have him contribute on the film forum. Realizing the limitations of the guidelines would make any accomplished AP re-think entering the contest.

Robert - I probably stepped outside the boundaries here. Sorry. I for one, would ask that you keep posting any film images you take for enjoyment, and we will simply enjoy it for what they are. Great frames that we can look up to.

Igor

#41 Robert Provin

Robert Provin

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 807
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2006

Posted 31 July 2009 - 08:28 PM

Holy Cow! My apologies for causing such a stir!

1. I most certainly will continue to post photos and Igor I have seen no offense with any of the posts in this forum...but don't expect a lot of stuff real soon...I try and avoid work when ever I can! :grin:

2. Thanks for the kudos Jim regarding the work Brad Wallis and I did so many years ago, but really by today's standards, it was mediocre at best!

This is a great forum and you guys have it right. Keep up the good work. However, maybe at some point in the future, contest rules will be updated to better accommodate some of the new great work that's being done with film (like Rick's). :bow:

Robert

#42 BRCoz

BRCoz

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005

Posted 08 October 2009 - 10:00 PM

That was a great shot. I one day may get back at. I have one roll of Supra 400 waiting for that day. I should have stayed away from this forum, it got some juices flowing again.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics