42 replies to this topic

[Robert7980]

I do have a few quick questions. First this is roughly a little over 6 hours of data. Would it benefit any to go to 10 hours? Secondly and this probably won’t be easy to explain to a newbie lol. How are yall getting the data to come out looking sharper and cleaner than I’m doing? I’ve been playing with PI and couldn’t get color and had to go back into photoshop to get color, but I can’t seem to get the final product to come out as sharp looking.

Sharpness is BlurExterminator and Local Histogram Equalization, it also has a stretch component to allow LHE to happen without crushing the dynamic range. Color is SPCC, SCNR and Curves/Saturation. 
 

Adding more data is always better, there’s diminishing returns though and after some point it takes A LOT more time to improve things much. 6 hours is not that point, 10 is better and after 16 it starts to get really hard to keep gaining… 

 

You’re getting better, the 2nd attempt was a pretty big leap, it just takes time playing with things and knowing the tools. After some time with it it’ll be more intuitive to control the workflow towards the idea you have… 

Edited by Robert7980, 14 April 2024 - 11:52 PM.

[Kerry D. Green]

So I tried best I could to follow a quick step by step I found on using PI. I've be able to make a pretty good effort I think at reprocessing the data.

 

 

I do have a few quick questions. First this is roughly a little over 6 hours of data. Would it benefit any to go to 10 hours? Secondly and this probably won’t be easy to explain to a newbie lol. How are yall getting the data to come out looking sharper and cleaner than I’m doing? I’ve been playing with PI and couldn’t get color and had to go back into photoshop to get color, but I can’t seem to get the final product to come out as sharp looking.

 

Your second effort is really great!  The only thing additional I might suggest is SCNR as it looks a little bit green to me.  Keep practicing.  One thing I've found helpful is to leave the image for a day, then come back and see how you like it.  I'm almost never done processing and I still have data from a year ago I go back and re-process.  It's quite amazing what a difference a year of experience will do for you.

 

I think the hardest part of learning processing for me was getting over the fact that there is no formula.  You won't always run SCNR at 100%, or you're not trying to target a stretch value of "5.3," for example.  Each image will be different.  The noise characteristics may take a different tool, HDR composition will not always work well, sometimes masking doesn't really help.  What really helped me when I started this so many years ago was understanding what the transformations are doing to the underlying data.  I think that's why Pixinsight is more natural for me.  It's really all just mathematical transformations and manipulations, you just have to apply it to the right part of the data, so knowing that helps build a picture of where you want to go.  In your picture, there was some background noise I wanted to suppress and this required a funky curve application to prevent losing the tidal tails.  Once you know right where a certain part of the data lives in the image, you can bend it to your will.

 

As for sharpening, I'd echo the above.  BlurXterminator and LocalHistogramEqualization help with this as well as careful Unsharp Mask application.  There are a couple of image blend scripts now, so I can over sharpen one image and over stretch a clone then combine to get a good blend of detail in the shadows and midtones.  I also think that some of what you perceive as sharpness may actually be contrast.  When you define the line between different regions, it tends to make them "pop" and the definition of the regions is more appealing.

 

Keep it up! You've already come a long way.  Set a general workflow, then play with the settings within that workflow.

 

Have you downloaded any process icons?  That made things a bit easier for me.  Pixinsight contains a lot of bloat anymore with obsolete or rarely used tools.  It can be hard to navigate and know what is best to use.

Edited by Kerry D. Green, 15 April 2024 - 08:19 AM.

[Sheremy01]

Did you take the images on different nights?  Or rotate the camera at some point during the session?  The dark edges look like field rotation - like some of the subs were not lined up with the rest.  

 

Brian

Yes I rotated the camera. I have it set up now where I can leave the hyperstar and camera in place each night. I simply put a dust cap over my dew shield. I origally was going to try the whole OAG and F10 imaging setp up. But after using hyperstar for a few weeks now, I have found its a really easy to use. I'm sure there is maybe some tweaks I could do, but I'm able to get good data really quick. I usualy put the exposure at 2-3 sec and push the gain to 600. This allows me to put a bahtinov mask on and get focus just right, then I adjust the setting to what ever I want to image with. So far this process is working really well for me. 

[Sheridan]

I took a quick stab at it with Affinity Photo 2.

Not as good as some of the folks with PI but much more affordable.

 

 

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[JF1960]

I got similar results than everyone else did.  The core steps in PI were:
 
1: Dynamic Crop the bad framing
2: Gradient Correction
3: ImageSolver
4: SPCC
5: Blur Exterminator
6: Noise Exterminator
7:  Stretched Starless image with a single GHS stretch
8:  Stretched the Stars image with a simple Histogram stretch
9:  Added more yellow and blue using Color Saturation tool
10:  Combined Stars and Starless using pixel math
11:  Done
 
The only things I noticed was your stars looked a little bloated.  Do you use an UV/IR cut filter?  Also, if you dither and then apply a 2x drizzle during stacking could get you a more detailed image.  But it will increase SNR so it's a trade-off.  But worth trying.  Here is mine after a quick 5 minute processing using the steps above.

[Sheremy01]

I had read on here in the forums to not use any filters when imaging galaxies. I don’t own a uv/ir filter, but I done a quick search and I see they run about $50 which is isn’t bad. Would it be ok to use with a galaxy?

[Kerry D. Green]

I had read on here in the forums to not use any filters when imaging galaxies. I don’t own a uv/ir filter, but I done a quick search and I see they run about $50 which is isn’t bad. Would it be ok to use with a galaxy?

Yes! You definitely want to use a UV/IR cut filter if that is not included already with your camera. It will prevent star bloat. If it is already part of the camera, then it won’t help. 

[BQ Octantis]

I might have gone a little overboard…

 

 

But the stars are little horse hoof prints that trot downward toward the lower right…

 

BQ

[Sheremy01]

It’s really cool to see what everyone has done with the data. Here I thought it was a little blurry and not much color. I’ve decided after seeing everyone’s results to go ahead and keep collecting data on whirlpool for a few more nights once I get clear skies again. I would like to push it to about 20 hours. Partly just to get more data to increase the picture quality and if 6 hours looks this good then 20hours should look great.

[WhitenerJ]

My attempt with your data.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Sheremy01]

My attempt with your data.

I like how you made the dust lanes pop.

[Sheremy01]

So between these two which would be better? https://www.highpoin...SRoCJYMQAvD_BwE

https://agenaastro.c...cut-filter.html

[Kerry D. Green]

So between these two which would be better? https://www.highpoin...SRoCJYMQAvD_BwE

https://agenaastro.c...cut-filter.html

I use the ZWO.  Before that, I used a cheaper ICE UV/IR cut filter that was about $20.  

 

Of the two you shared, the Optolong looks like it might have better transmissivity in the visible range, but that may be splitting hairs at that point.  I don't think you would be wrong with either.

[Sheremy01]

Just ordered the zwo iv/ir filter.

[KTAZ]

I've used PI since the start, and it does have a long learning curve, but the time invested will make your images better and better.

 

There are several statements above that say what a good AP'r needs to have, but they all missed the most important one; patience. This is not a hobby that will ever provide anything close to instant gratification.

 

I also was in a rush to post my first images, but take my advice and slow down. There is much to learn and experience in AP and most of us take years to hone a good set of skills. Enjoy the trip.

[JF1960]

I had read on here in the forums to not use any filters when imaging galaxies. I don’t own a uv/ir filter, but I done a quick search and I see they run about $50 which is isn’t bad. Would it be ok to use with a galaxy?

You don’t want to use a light pollution filter because those are designed to block all light except for frequencies  common for emission nebulas.  UV/IR are frequencies are not visible to the naked eye.  Most higher end cameras have a UV/IR filter built in.  You can use them on any target.  I keep mine in all the time as my ASI533MC doesn’t come with one.

Edited by JF1960, 18 April 2024 - 12:58 AM.

[Robert7980]

It’s really cool to see what everyone has done with the data. Here I thought it was a little blurry and not much color. I’ve decided after seeing everyone’s results to go ahead and keep collecting data on whirlpool for a few more nights once I get clear skies again. I would like to push it to about 20 hours. Partly just to get more data to increase the picture quality and if 6 hours looks this good then 20hours should look great.

 

It’s always neat to see what everyone comes up with and it’s always an array of different styles and artistic design choices. Just goes to show how much is in the processing stage… Love it! 

 

 

Just ordered the zwo iv/ir filter.

It’ll be a good one, IR is pretty standard they are easy to make so you don’t benefit from throwing tons of cash at one… I’ve owned many over the years and never seen any of the expensive ones perform any better than the less expensive ones… Probably have 20 of them for my camera lenses from $15 to $175… Now I buy the cheap ones when I need another… From known brands at least but still the cheapest I can find… 

[Sheridan]

I use the SVBony uv/ir cut filter. So far it works ok for me.