29 replies to this topic

[galacticinsomnia]

Still struggling with my post work.  I debated posting this, but trying to move forward.
Added 2.5 hours of integration last night. 

Here is the shot and edit.





Here is the data..
Full stack 16bit Tif.  Feel free to play, if you can share any tips or tricks with Siril, Photoshop, or Affinity. 
https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing


Clear Skies !!

[bobzeq25]

No bruised feelings for honest feedback?

 

The stack is stretched, so it's not worth the time to try and process.  DSS?

 

Stack.  Click save to file on the left.  In the save box, be sure "settings embedded but not applied" is checked.  Now the stack is linear.

 

Either out of focus (most likely) or the RC collimation is out.  Full width at half maximum is 8 pixels.

[galacticinsomnia]

No bruised feelings for honest feedback?

 

The stack is stretched, so it's not worth the time to try and process.  DSS?

 

Stack.  Click save to file on the left.  In the save box, be sure "settings embedded but not applied" is checked.  Now the stack is linear.

 

Either out of focus (most likely) or the RC collimation is out.  Full width at half maximum is 8 pixels.

Stack shouldn't be stretched at all.  Its strait stack from Siril, nothing changed at all.  If you want I may still have the Fits..
Ewww at out of focus, Collimation.  I'm gonna have to go with focus since my vision is shot.  But I will check collimation tomorrow.

Let me check the stack again, It's easy enough to restack.. How weird, even when I look at the Exif data it shows Sirl with NO ADJUSTMENTS.

Hmmm....

Clear Skies !!

[Mike in Rancho]

I thought it was decently fun stuff, thanks for posting!  Not quite the Star Trek-like colors of your Trifid, but cool nonetheless.  I didn't notice any of those colormetric hiccups or whatever from some prior data, but admittedly I didn't look real closely.  Just quickly converted it to a fits and started working on it.

 

I did notice some multi-colored stars, i.e. red white and blue Pepsi symbols.  Actually I've been seeing a ton of that lately, including in my own data.  In fact on my M5 I checked off the RGB align to run after the stack, which helps some.  I still need to run a test to see if it's my lenses or atmospheric.

 

Anyway, my fairly routine quick ST processing.  I may look to see if I can pull off some color tricks here later; not sure, as it's full RGB not duoband or anything.  I did set up a star shrink and flipped back and forth between the two - and seriously couldn't decide.  A mild shrink does display the nebula better, but I like me the pop of brighter stars strewn about.  So I kept it as it was for this time.

 

[galacticinsomnia]

Here is a DSS Stack.  I took random measurements, didn't get a calculation on an average, but should be between 3 and 4 FWHM.   Not sure what happened with that last stack, except it is the Siril Beta version 99.4 

There is definitely somthing going on with my sharpness but I think it has been that way from the start..
Something we are all chasing I believe.

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

 

Clear Skies !!

[galacticinsomnia]

I thought it was decently fun stuff, thanks for posting!  Not quite the Star Trek-like colors of your Trifid, but cool nonetheless.  I didn't notice any of those colormetric hiccups or whatever from some prior data, but admittedly I didn't look real closely.  Just quickly converted it to a fits and started working on it.

 

I did notice some multi-colored stars, i.e. red white and blue Pepsi symbols.  Actually I've been seeing a ton of that lately, including in my own data.  In fact on my M5 I checked off the RGB align to run after the stack, which helps some.  I still need to run a test to see if it's my lenses or atmospheric.

 

Anyway, my fairly routine quick ST processing.  I may look to see if I can pull off some color tricks here later; not sure, as it's full RGB not duoband or anything.  I did set up a star shrink and flipped back and forth between the two - and seriously couldn't decide.  A mild shrink does display the nebula better, but I like me the pop of brighter stars strewn about.  So I kept it as it was for this time.

 

Man I love that..  I really should learn how to use the Deconvolute.  I never apply it, and I think it is really hampering the output.

Yes, Red on One Side, Blue on the side of stars, not sure what the deal is.  I has to be focus ?? 

Time to get all fancy and start using the focus tools with big boy pants lol

Thank you for the effort.  Love what ya did !

Clear Skies !!

[BQ Octantis]

I'll start with my standard admonishment:

 

Would it hurt you to take a bloody flat?!

 

With that elephant in the room acknowledged, the only thing your data is missing is better contrast in the details. At the end of the day, it is a problem of acutance—the first derivative of luminosity across the histogram. This is not just a technical problem—its is also a problem of the human psyche.

 

Lynkeos has a very nice workflow for planetary processing that serves as a good model for understanding the problem at hand. Image contrast starts with the target, followed by the Airy disk from the aperture ("resolution"), followed by the atmosphere's munging of the wavefront. Stacking more exposures actually makes the atmospheric distortions dominate the apparent lack of detail. But deconvolution and wavelets serve to find the inverse point spread function of both the atmosphere and the aperture concurrently.

 

After that, it's the Curves function (Photoshop, Gimp) that allows you to tweak luminosity and its first derivative across the luminosity histogram. Point increases and decreases change the luminosity; but the slope change at those points determines the change in perceived contrast (acutance) at that luminosity level. An increase in the local slope increases contrast; a decrease decreases contrast.

 

All that basic theory aside, the more practical reco is to first try Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. From what I can assess from planetary processing, its engine appears to use a deconvolution model. Its major strenth is that it also provides for luminosity scaling (with the Fade function for both shadows and highlights), which makes it more valuable to me than the basic deconvolution in Lynkeos:

 

(Click for full size.)

Click for animated toggle.

 

There are other tools that improved the image acutance without touching the point spread. Unsharp mask is the easiest, followed by Enhance Dust Lanes (Annie's Astro Actions v7.0) and Local Contrast Enhancement (Astronomy Tools v1.6). The only caution is that they very often clip the highlights. I typically split the result into a Darken and a Lighten layer; I can then control the application of each with layer opacity. I find I often have to lower the peak (with the output max in Levels) to about 235 to accomodate the increase in the brights. And I'm not above using masks to control the application. But for the ducks nuts, I generally remove the stars with Starnet++ so I can manipulate the nebulosity separate from the stars, followed by a luminosity mask.

 

Apologies for the dissertation…this stuff just rolls off the fingertips.

 

BQ

[F.Meiresonne]

This is my go on the first stack.

 

Messed up the stars, too much blue halo's came in.

Center is to bright for my liking

 

But i love the string like content the less bright part.

 

i did not use any HDR, no setting seem to work well enouhg.

 

Tried to get out visual ha, wich showed the string nebulae structure and satured it to get it a bit more to  the red...

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[galacticinsomnia]

I'll start with my standard admonishment:

 

Would it hurt you to take a bloody flat?!

 

With that elephant in the room acknowledged, the only thing your data is missing is better contrast in the details. At the end of the day, it is a problem of acutance—the first derivative of luminosity across the histogram. This is not just a technical problem—its is also a problem of the human psyche.

 

Lynkeos has a very nice workflow for planetary processing that serves as a good model for understanding the problem at hand. Image contrast starts with the target, followed by the Airy disk from the aperture ("resolution"), followed by the atmosphere's munging of the wavefront. Stacking more exposures actually makes the atmospheric distortions dominate the apparent lack of detail. But deconvolution and wavelets serve to find the inverse point spread function of both the atmosphere and the aperture concurrently.

 

After that, it's the Curves function (Photoshop, Gimp) that allows you to tweak luminosity and its first derivative across the luminosity histogram. Point increases and decreases change the luminosity; but the slope change at those points determines the change in perceived contrast (acutance) at that luminosity level. An increase in the local slope increases contrast; a decrease decreases contrast.

 

All that basic theory aside, the more practical reco is to first try Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. From what I can assess from planetary processing, its engine appears to use a deconvolution model. Its major strenth is that it also provides for luminosity scaling (with the Fade function for both shadows and highlights), which makes it more valuable to me than the basic deconvolution in Lynkeos:

 

(Click for full size.)

Click for animated toggle.

 

There are other tools that improved the image acutance without touching the point spread. Unsharp mask is the easiest, followed by Enhance Dust Lanes (Annie's Astro Actions v7.0) and Local Contrast Enhancement (Astronomy Tools v1.6). The only caution is that they very often clip the highlights. I typically split the result into a Darken and a Lighten layer; I can then control the application of each with layer opacity. I find I often have to lower the peak (with the output max in Levels) to about 235 to accomodate the increase in the brights. And I'm not above using masks to control the application. But for the ducks nuts, I generally remove the stars with Starnet++ so I can manipulate the nebulosity separate from the stars, followed by a luminosity mask.

 

Apologies for the dissertation…this stuff just rolls off the fingertips.

 

BQ

Thank you for going into that.. I'm clipping and saving.  The problem with dementia is having to learn things over and over, and I truly appreciate the thoroughness, even if some of the topical info is hard for me to wrap my head around these days.  Conceptually I get it, application, is a whole can of worms.

 

 

This is my go on the first stack.

 

Messed up the stars, too much blue halo's came in.

Center is to bright for my liking

 

But i love the string like content the less bright part.

 

i did not use any HDR, no setting seem to work well enouhg.

 

Tried to get out visual ha, wich showed the string nebulae structure and satured it to get it a bit more to  the red...

I like it..  Is that with Startools ?  I think besides the enjoyment of shooting and aquisition, I find myself drawn to the variances of the post work of how we all see things just a bit differently. 
Thank you for sharing some of the beauty in the chaos.

Clear Skies !!
 

[F.Meiresonne]

yes done with Startools..

 

I think you did quite some capture though...nice data. Really quite some data in it..imho

[bobzeq25]

Here is a DSS Stack.  I took random measurements, didn't get a calculation on an average, but should be between 3 and 4 FWHM.   Not sure what happened with that last stack, except it is the Siril Beta version 99.4 

There is definitely somthing going on with my sharpness but I think it has been that way from the start..
Something we are all chasing I believe.

https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing

 

 

Clear Skies !!

Stretched.  _Very_ stretched.  I see that from beginner stacks _all_ the time.

 

Look at the ADU and the image below.  Those ADUs are many thousands, they should be approximately 1000.  The background should be black, the nebula invisible.

 

_Do not_ use the autosave, save the stack yourself.  Check "settings embedded but not applied".  That fixes the problem.

 

BTDTGTTS.   Actually, a _pile_ of t-shirts.  <grin>

 

Next.  The second image below.  Have to convert to grayscale to run the FWHM analysis.   FWHM is 8 pixels which is enormous,  2nd suggestion.  Bahtinov mask for focus.  It should be done as close to starting the image run as possible.

 

These are very common beginner issues.

 

 

Edited by bobzeq25, 18 June 2021 - 02:38 PM.

[galacticinsomnia]

Stretched.  _Very_ stretched.  I see that from beginner stacks _all_ the time.

 

Look at the ADU and the image below.  Those ADUs are many thousands, they should be approximately 1000.  The background should be black, the nebula invisible.

 

_Do not_ use the autosave, save the stack yourself.  Check "settings embedded but not applied".  That fixes the problem.

 

BTDTGTTS.   Actually, a _pile_ of t-shirts.  <grin>

 

Next.  The second image below.  Have to convert to grayscale to run the FWHM analysis.   FWHM is 8 pixels which is enormous,  2nd suggestion.  Bahtinov mask for focus.  It should be done as close to starting the image run as possible.

 

These are very common beginner issues.

 

a stretched stack.jpg

 

a stretched srack V2.jpg

This was taken with a Full Spectrum Camera.  The Autosave002 is the file I saved from the Save Image Dialog box with the Save Settings but not applied checked. 

The FWHM that comes up is different in each channel in Siril ranging from 5 to 8.  Agreed this is too high, oddly, I have the Bahtinov mask in a few flavors and do that before each session. 

Guess it is on to scope and other checks.

I appreciate the help.  In the scope of space, we are all beginners

Clear Skies !!

[bobzeq25]

This was taken with a Full Spectrum Camera.  The Autosave002 is the file I saved from the Save Image Dialog box with the Save Settings but not applied checked. 

The FWHM that comes up is different in each channel in Siril ranging from 5 to 8.  Agreed this is too high, oddly, I have the Bahtinov mask in a few flavors and do that before each session. 

Guess it is on to scope and other checks.

I appreciate the help.  In the scope of space, we are all beginners

Clear Skies !!

My problem is this.  Here's a stack of mine, opened the same way as what I showed for your stack in #11.   Click for readability.

 

Note the appearance.  Black, a few stars.  Note the histogram, a thin peak to the far left.  Note the ADUs, a few hundred.

 

This is what things are supposed to look like.  Full spectrum cameras, also.

 

Edited by bobzeq25, 18 June 2021 - 03:09 PM.

[Mike in Rancho]

Man I love that..  I really should learn how to use the Deconvolute.  I never apply it, and I think it is really hampering the output.

Yes, Red on One Side, Blue on the side of stars, not sure what the deal is.  I has to be focus ?? 

Time to get all fancy and start using the focus tools with big boy pants lol

Thank you for the effort.  Love what ya did !

Clear Skies !!

Wow, Professor BQ was on quite a roll there!  I'll have to try the wikipedia link to find out just what acutance is.

 

I did in fact have to use a synthetic flat (or bloody synthetic flat?) and then a bit of moderately strong gradient wipe.  And granted each software will do things in a different way and order (with ST often being backwards from others), but I only used a mild deconvolution here.  Really just helped to reveal and pinpoint a few little stars, and some minor detail clarity.

 

Most of the detail revealed itself using contrast, sharpen, and HDR.  I didn't use big amounts, but probably still could have cooked this less and been more subtle.  Same with color.  I star sampled and then left the balance as ST determined, only changing some saturation levels, while also looking at some internet photos of M17 to make sure I was in the right ballpark for things.

 

I do like what I have been seeing with these RC's.  Even the diffraction spikes can be beautiful.  Look at those big orange stars!  I do read that they are some trouble to maintain (and I've never owned any reflector), but...might be hard to pass up getting one.  The 6 inch might be reasonable for my mount, 8 could be pushing it too far?  I'll have to research specs and focal lengths.  Are you using OAG or a guide scope?

[galacticinsomnia]

yes done with Startools..

 

I think you did quite some capture though...nice data. Really quite some data in it..imho

Thank you!.  Having some equipment issues that need to be resolved, and just happy to get enough to work with

  I'm sure you know how it goes.. 

 

Clear Skies !!

[galacticinsomnia]

My problem is this.  Here's a stack of mine, opened the same way as what I showed for your stack in #11.   Click for readability.

 

Note the appearance.  Black, a few stars.  Note the histogram, a thin peak to the far left.  Note the ADUs, a few hundred.

 

This is what things are supposed to look like.  Full spectrum cameras, also.

 

a linear stack.jpg

I get ya... 

I don't use PI, and my histogram in Siril is on the 1/4 from the far left, and so it the one in photoshop.  I get it though.  I have been exposing with Higher ISO and that is bringing my Histogram over a little bit from the far left.

It show up red in Photoshop, but a quick neutralizing levels adjustment makes it about 10 percent on the black.

Still, that aside, the FWHM is currently my main concern as I have checked my RC and seems to be about as close as I can get it, but will try on a live star when I shoot tonight.

Thank you again for your help

 

Clear Skies !!
 

[galacticinsomnia]

Wow, Professor BQ was on quite a roll there!  I'll have to try the wikipedia link to find out just what acutance is.

 

I did in fact have to use a synthetic flat (or bloody synthetic flat?) and then a bit of moderately strong gradient wipe.  And granted each software will do things in a different way and order (with ST often being backwards from others), but I only used a mild deconvolution here.  Really just helped to reveal and pinpoint a few little stars, and some minor detail clarity.

 

Most of the detail revealed itself using contrast, sharpen, and HDR.  I didn't use big amounts, but probably still could have cooked this less and been more subtle.  Same with color.  I star sampled and then left the balance as ST determined, only changing some saturation levels, while also looking at some internet photos of M17 to make sure I was in the right ballpark for things.

 

I do like what I have been seeing with these RC's.  Even the diffraction spikes can be beautiful.  Look at those big orange stars!  I do read that they are some trouble to maintain (and I've never owned any reflector), but...might be hard to pass up getting one.  The 6 inch might be reasonable for my mount, 8 could be pushing it too far?  I'll have to research specs and focal lengths.  Are you using OAG or a guide scope?

I shoot in crappy skies, clear skies, it doesn't matter, if I waited for each prestine clear night, I'd never shoot. 
Synthetic Flats and work pretty well.  My experience with calibration frames does more negatively to my images than positive. 

I love my RC, I really really do.  Honestly, I think I'm just breaking it in.
I do Guide with a SVbony 60mm 240mm Focal length at F4 with a svbony 305 pro camera using ascom drivers.

I do think I should have a 70mm or 400mm plus focal length guide scope to have it paired better.

 

It is pretty heavy, I use the CEM25P mount and with camera, guidescope and other accessories, I am sure it taxing the mount a bit, by I keep it quite balanced and level and has been doing well.  I will say, when I free up some weight and go back to my 80mm refractor and 50mm guide scope, things do run smother, but IMO the optics are not as good in some regards.

I had to stop using StarTools, just didn't do it for me.  It's like APP, and PI, from a user friendly point of view.  I know some folks use it and love it, but I just can't.  If APP, PI, and Startools, just went with a standard windows interface with pretty easy to use and understand icons and processes, I'd probobly drop the cash for APP/PI, or others.  Already purchased the Startools.

Clear Skies !!  Off to capture land. 

[Ivo Jager]

I know you have already stated that StarTools is not your cup of tea, nevertheless this is your dataset put through the StarTools 1.8 alpha version, without any subjective local detail enhancing trickery (this is solely a wipe, stretch/autodev, decon, color calibration, noise reduction).

 

The only thing "special" that was applied was a new deconvolution module as that adapts to your optics (and atmosphere) by looking at how the star shapes change across the image. It is able to tease out some very intricate detail from deep data such as this. As an aside, deconvolution is a restorative process not an enhancing or beautification process - the goal is to find a ground truth/state of the data before it was corrupted/compromised by one or more point spread functions ("blur" functions). When it comes to deconvolution, aesthetics or personal preference do not come into play, and the goal is not to increase acutance, but instead to improve spatial resolution.

 

And that's the thing about AP-specific software like ST, PI, APP, etc.; these packages are different for a reason. They (often) do things that you just cannot do with Photoshop (and vice versa). The considerations are completely different. What seems perfectly reasonable for terrestrial photographical purposes can be incredibly destructive or inadequate for AP. If you spend 5h under the night skies acquiring data, you owe it to yourself to give AP-specific software a chance, or at least familiarise yourself with what you are missing out on (the algorithms, considerations, best practices, etc.). This way you can make an informed decision based on what you need and not what you want.

 

I hope this helps or, at the very least, might offer some food for thought.

 

Clear skies!

[Mike in Rancho]

I shoot in crappy skies, clear skies, it doesn't matter, if I waited for each prestine clear night, I'd never shoot. 
Synthetic Flats and work pretty well.  My experience with calibration frames does more negatively to my images than positive. 

I love my RC, I really really do.  Honestly, I think I'm just breaking it in.
I do Guide with a SVbony 60mm 240mm Focal length at F4 with a svbony 305 pro camera using ascom drivers.

I do think I should have a 70mm or 400mm plus focal length guide scope to have it paired better.

 

It is pretty heavy, I use the CEM25P mount and with camera, guidescope and other accessories, I am sure it taxing the mount a bit, by I keep it quite balanced and level and has been doing well.  I will say, when I free up some weight and go back to my 80mm refractor and 50mm guide scope, things do run smother, but IMO the optics are not as good in some regards.

I had to stop using StarTools, just didn't do it for me.  It's like APP, and PI, from a user friendly point of view.  I know some folks use it and love it, but I just can't.  If APP, PI, and Startools, just went with a standard windows interface with pretty easy to use and understand icons and processes, I'd probobly drop the cash for APP/PI, or others.  Already purchased the Startools.

Clear Skies !!  Off to capture land. 

Good to know, thanks.  I looked some up (none are available it seems anyway) and like the FL of the 8 inch, but it's also getting rather bulky.  The price of the 6 inchers though, gosh.   Yeah I'm guiding at about 1:3.7 now when I don't use my reducer.  I know that's under 5, but I still wouldn't mind it lower.  That's a 50/190 guide scope.  I have another that's about 70/260, but it's homemade and the optics aren't as good as the 50.

 

I suppose like telescopes, the best software is the one you use, or like to use.  But a little acclimating helps too.  When I first downloaded Gimp, having never used any graphics program outside of MS Paint or Office Picture Manager, I was utterly lost for the longest time - even though it used fairly conventional menu structures.  It takes time.  And sometimes things just change anyway, like when MS Office went from standard menus to that ribbon menu deal.  Ugh.  Gotta roll with it though.

[Mike in Rancho]

I know you have already stated that StarTools is not your cup of tea, nevertheless this is your dataset put through the StarTools 1.8 alpha version, without any subjective local detail enhancing trickery (this is solely a wipe, stretch/autodev, decon, color calibration, noise reduction).

 

The only thing "special" that was applied was a new deconvolution module as that adapts to your optics (and atmosphere) by looking at how the star shapes change across the image. It is able to tease out some very intricate detail from deep data such as this. As an aside, deconvolution is a restorative process not an enhancing or beautification process - the goal is to find a ground truth/state of the data before it was corrupted/compromised by one or more point spread functions ("blur" functions). When it comes to deconvolution, aesthetics or personal preference do not come into play, and the goal is not to increase acutance, but instead to improve spatial resolution.

 

And that's the thing about AP-specific software like ST, PI, APP, etc.; these packages are different for a reason. They (often) do things that you just cannot do with Photoshop (and vice versa). The considerations are completely different. What seems perfectly reasonable for terrestrial photographical purposes can be incredibly destructive or inadequate for AP. If you spend 5h under the night skies acquiring data, you owe it to yourself to give AP-specific software a chance, or at least familiarise yourself with what you are missing out on (the algorithms, considerations, best practices, etc.). This way you can make an informed decision based on what you need and not what you want.

 

I hope this helps or, at the very least, might offer some food for thought.

 

Clear skies!

There's a 1.8a?   No can find.  I must have 10 of the 1.7 alphas and betas I went through trying them out...

 

That is pretty nice for just deconv.  Not used to it clarifying larger scale detail like that, though of course it generally follows both HDR and Sharpen.  Will the workflow order change?

 

Despite how long I left my version in the oven here, I do like the way the large orange stars resolved tighter.  Freddy's shows that some too.  Does that come from the other modules?  (and I hope those aren't enhancement trickery! )

[F.Meiresonne]

Can't find it either. On the download page it is still 1.7.461 i believe not 1.8

[BQ Octantis]

That's a beautiful image, Ivo!

[Ivo Jager]

Thank you all (it's a closed alpha for now due to the extreme complexity of the new features; feel free to request an invite and I'll sort you out!). I don't want to hijack this thread with ST related stuff. I just wanted to stress that, if you decide that this or that software is not for you, you should try to figure out what you are missing out on and try to find it in other software (or find some workarounds). Not knowing what you are missing out on, while wondering why your post-processing skills/results are stagnant, will otherwise be the result.

[galacticinsomnia]

I know you have already stated that StarTools is not your cup of tea, nevertheless this is your dataset put through the StarTools 1.8 alpha version, without any subjective local detail enhancing trickery (this is solely a wipe, stretch/autodev, decon, color calibration, noise reduction).

Autosave002.jpg

 

The only thing "special" that was applied was a new deconvolution module as that adapts to your optics (and atmosphere) by looking at how the star shapes change across the image. It is able to tease out some very intricate detail from deep data such as this. As an aside, deconvolution is a restorative process not an enhancing or beautification process - the goal is to find a ground truth/state of the data before it was corrupted/compromised by one or more point spread functions ("blur" functions). When it comes to deconvolution, aesthetics or personal preference do not come into play, and the goal is not to increase acutance, but instead to improve spatial resolution.

 

And that's the thing about AP-specific software like ST, PI, APP, etc.; these packages are different for a reason. They (often) do things that you just cannot do with Photoshop (and vice versa). The considerations are completely different. What seems perfectly reasonable for terrestrial photographical purposes can be incredibly destructive or inadequate for AP. If you spend 5h under the night skies acquiring data, you owe it to yourself to give AP-specific software a chance, or at least familiarise yourself with what you are missing out on (the algorithms, considerations, best practices, etc.). This way you can make an informed decision based on what you need and not what you want.

 

I hope this helps or, at the very least, might offer some food for thought.

 

Clear skies!

Thank you for taking the time to show me some of what can be done.  I miss the standard windows interfaces for tools that I am used to.  I do understand and am appreciative of your unique way of getting tasks and adjustment done, and as a past dev I understand the challenges.  Even Affinity loses some favor with me because of the outside the standards methods for applying and previewing, though they are getting much better improved with live filters and 32bit flow.

I'd almost rather see the Tools offered by ST, PI, or APP as either addins, or plug ins utilizing the SDK's already available for working within the raster community or sticking with UX standards in development..
I do applaud the use of the Fits file system, and the adjustments that are implemented, but the whole press save preview, commit, etc etc really needs to be a seamless process. It is too slow, and cumbersome for me. 

For some reason, the new interface for Siril works pretty easily, and has some unique UX, but operates in a live manner and quite quickly, and is so effecient that it takes me minimal steps does a pretty respectable job. 

Thank you as always for your discussion and your committment to the astro community.

Clear Skies !!

[galacticinsomnia]

No bruised feelings for honest feedback?

 

The stack is stretched, so it's not worth the time to try and process.  DSS?

 

Stack.  Click save to file on the left.  In the save box, be sure "settings embedded but not applied" is checked.  Now the stack is linear.

 

Either out of focus (most likely) or the RC collimation is out.  Full width at half maximum is 8 pixels.

 While I'd love the best in the FWHM, it isn't feasible to collect data with just that, but anyway it's good to take note and how to differentiate outcomes by some intrinsic value on observation, and the numbers. 

I do believe there is a balance, and to be looking at FWHM needs to be more of a process so I have an idea what to expect.

The most obvious thing I have notices is how FWHM increases substantially depending on enviromental conditions, the seeing, but I gotta shoot anyways

Again thanks for the tip.

Here are my checks from last night on M4.

 

Clear Skies !!