Hi everyone! My latest image is M101: https://www.astrobin.com/na7n09/ I am quite satisfied with the final result, but this is why I need to know what else is needed to create an even better image. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you could help me improve in the aspects you believe are within the reach of my equipment: I have used a Vixen R200SS at F5.6, the antlia V-Pro filters and an ASI2600MM Pro. Regarding this camera, I don't take dark frames because at -10 degrees Celsius, the dark current is so low that I don't see them as necessary. I haven't found any difference between calibrating with and without dark frames for my images. I don't know if you have any opinion on this matter. So I understand that with more exposure hours, my SNR would improve, but I don't know if this would help create a more appealing image, it would maybe be more detailed (if my Bortle 4.5 sky allows it!). I am also aware that I need to add Ha signal to highlight the galaxy's nebulae. Are there other things to consider? I am convinced that I still have a long way to go in terms of my processing technique. For now, I only use PixInsight. Maybe I could improve my results by using Photoshop at some point in my workflow? Is the composition aesthetically striking? How do you see the stars? What do you think of the image's color palette? And its intensity? And what about the background color? My workflow has been based on a stretch using the MaskedStretch process for both the Luminance and the RGB image. I did this to achieve an image with low contrast, making it easier to apply color to the entire image without encountering overly saturated areas. I also applied the HDRMT and LHE processes to add some contrast to the galaxy in general. Additionally, I used MMT to highlight star-forming regions and other small features. Regarding noise, I applied NXT, and for the deconvolution process, I used BXT. As for the rest, I used the typical processes of Curves, Saturation, etc. And that's all. I thank you in advance for your help and advice. Clear skyes!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Let's start with the easier things: the palette is too blue, verging on the purple. The image scale is too high for the amount of time spent on it (so you might as well halve it and preserve some details), color balance is a bit off and stars both fuzzy and lacking colors (the brightest ones at least). Too much noise reduction, which you wouldn't need if you balanced the exposure to image scale, also applied where you don't need it the most. Think about adding 3 times as much exposure and possibly even more. I do hope you added the RGB data to the luminance data to boost SNR and if not then do it. And collimation doesn't look too good either.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
andrea tasselli:
Let's start with the easier things: the palette is too blue, verging on the purple. The image scale is too high for the amount of time spent on it (so you might as well halve it and preserve some details), color balance is a bit off and stars both fuzzy and lacking colors (the brightest ones at least). Too much noise reduction, which you wouldn't need if you balanced the exposure to image scale, also applied where you don't need it the most. Think about adding 3 times as much exposure and possibly even more. I do hope you added the RGB data to the luminance data to boost SNR and if not then do it. And collimation doesn't look too good either. I'm a noob so apologies, but I wonder what you mean by "image scale is too high for the amount of time spent on it"?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
More time and maybe resample to somewhere between 1-1.5" per pixel resolution. The more integration time you have the more you can get away with a higher resolution sampling rate, and at 6 hours youre not quite there yet. I can count ne number of nights in one hand where 1"/px is a sensible resolution with my 8" newtonian imaged from typical sea level conditions, its really quite demanding for your kit and sky.
I echo the 'fuzziness' of the stars, which indicates some issue with either the kit or the conditions. Could have been high cloud, or scope issues such as poor thermal control (lack of fan, dont know if your scope has one, if not then mount one behind the primary).
What sort of fwhm in arc seconds did this night produce? It can give a hint if there is something wrong. With my 8" a good night can be around 2.3", a decent night maybe 2.8" and bad ones can be more than 3.5" (these nights are not useful for high resolution imaging at all).
On the dark thing i will say that it is true that your camera has very low dark current but you still have to subtract offset somehow. You can do it with most stacking software but not doing it will result in failed flat frames (flats also nees this). By far the easiest and most sensible approach is to just take the dark and darkflat frames.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
TiffsAndAstro:
I'm a noob so apologies, but I wonder what you mean by "image scale is too high for the amount of time spent on it"? See @Oskari Nikkinen replay above. That sort of image scale isn't conductive to good SNR with such a low integration even in B4-5 skies, you'd need good steady night in B1-2 skies to get away with it and then maybe not enough anyway. To give you prospective I can get away with 2 hours of LRGB or RGB imaging in B1 skies in Chile's Atacama but with 1"/px sampling using a 0.5m fast reflector.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi Jordi, just to summarise and expand on some points already mentioned and add a couple more:
I recommend taking dark frames and producing a master dark. One master dark for each exposure time that you are likely to use. Save the master darks into a library and then simply pick up the correct one to use when calibrating the subs. Master calibration frames can be kept for at least three months before taking a new set.
I see that the acquisition details for M101 say that the sensor temperature was -5 not -10 as in your post.
Are you using the Weighted Batch Preprocessing Script (WBPP) to calibrate and integrate your data? If not, please do as it is a great time saver that does all the work for you. Simply feed I all the light frames and calibration frames and press the go button.
There is no mention of flat frames in your post. Flat frames are important to correct vignetting and remove dust bunnies and can produce a cleaner master output that makes post processing easier. Flat frames should be calibrated with flat darks (of the same exposure time) for your cmos sensor. Once a library of master flats is created then simply pick up the mast flat for each new calibration run.
There is definitely a blue cast to the M101 image and your Rosette image as well. There is no mention of colour calibration in your post. Do you use the SPCC process for colour calibration? I recommend reviewing your workflow with colour calibration in mind.
Collecting more data will help with noise management by improving the SNR. This allows for a lighter touch when applying noise reduction in post processing. Don’t forget as well that we don’t want a too smooth background as it will look false.
On the data quality issue, it might be worth while running the data through the sub frame selector process to see what the typical FWHM is for the sub frames. If you are in a B4-5 locations I assume that this is not a pristine mountain top with sub arc second seeing so an FWHM in the order of 2.5” to 3.5” would be achievable. Check the data to see if there are any quality issues that could be due to local seeing or maybe a focuser issue.
And further on the data quality, are you using auto focus? The stars in the image of M101 are a little soft so this could be due to crappy seeing or maybe a technical issue with focusing.
Clear skies,
Rodney
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I like it. But agree with the "too blue" point. Easily fixed in something like Photoshop.
And perhaps it is too smooth due to excessive noise reduction. Be sure to give the new AI-based GraXpert 3 noise reduction a try. If you use NX, try it at various percentages on a preview area… then use the minimum.
The star color looks OK to me. I see you did use BlurXterminator to sharpen up the stars. The stars might be overly bright. Did you create a star and starless image and process them separately? I now use a simple method to stretch the star-only image (STF + HT). Move the linear star image name over the STF and then the STF triangle to HT and execute. It seems to give the stars a perfect stretch.
Did you create a super-luminance by integrating all of your subs? Easy to do (integrate without pixel rejection), and in my experience, it can really improve an RGB image. Be careful using LHE… often it does not improve things, at least in my hands. The AdvSharpening script sometimes helps bring out the detail.
Have you tried the Generalized Hyperbolic Stretch in PI? I find it very useful for galaxy stretching.
You will always get the "more exposure time" suggestion. The solution to all problems! I think 6 hours of integration is plenty for this target and field of view. Sometimes, you need to make do with what you have.
George
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hello everyone,
Thank you very much for your comments! Indeed, I find them all very accurate, although the topic of the relationship between image scale, resample, and SNR is still not intuitive to me and I find it difficult to grasp. I will study it in more depth. Do you say that that having a resolution of 0.7" means I need more exposure time to compensate for the lower signal capture due to my system being configured with too small pixel size? So is it true that the amount of signal I capture with tiny pixels is too low compared to the read noise and dark current of my camera, along with the noise of the sky background itself? So, would the ideal resolution be between 1 and 2" per pixel?
What does it mean that I need to "resample to somewhere between 1-1.5" per pixel resolution"? How do I do the resampling? In my optical train? Can I change the pixels of my camera, maybe by binning? It seems that with CMOS cameras this has no effect, is that right? Could it be that the only option is to reduce the focal length of my telescope? The Vixen R200SS can work at 1120 or 800 focal length. At 800 mm my resolution is 0.97" per pixel. I can't improve further. What do you advise?
Regarding the fuzziness of the stars, could it be due to the processing I've done? Considering that I used MaskedStretch, which leaves the stars in a bad shape, maybe having to touch them up caused them to appear fuzzy? I'll redo the processing (and stretch with GHS) and see if they turn out better.
Regarding color balance, I don't fully understand the concept: does it mean that the three RGB channels should be more balanced? What does this imply? Does it have to do with the histogram curves of the channels being misaligned? How do I balance them? What could be the cause of this imbalance? For color calibration, I always use SPCC, although only with broadband images, not with narrowband (NB). Of course, I use Luminance, although I have never created a SuperLuminance, which I find very interesting and will try in a reprocessing of my image to see what benefits I can obtain.
If we talk about the lack of color in the stars, what can I do to have colorful stars? Should I perhaps take very short exposures (10 seconds?) to capture stars with color and then add them to my image? Is there another option to get colorful stars?
Regarding calibration with dark frames, I will try taking some and recalibrating my exposures to see if I can achieve a slight overall improvement. For calibrating my images, I indeed use the WBPP script, which I feed with the corresponding flats and bias frames. To extract the dark current, I use the master bias. I have read that with this camera model, there is no difference between using darks or bias for the dark current. Nevertheless, I will try calibrating with darks to see if I notice any difference. It's true that I've been using my camera at -5 degrees instead of -10, but even so, the dark current is ridiculously low.
Well, that's all for now. Let me tell all of you that I am very grateful for your patience and for dedicating your time to helping people like me who want to improve our skills in astrophotography. If someday I am able to give advice to someone, rest assured that I will do it, because it is very liberating to get answers to the questions and difficulties that arise along the fascinating path of astrophotography.
Clear skies for all!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Jordi:
Do you say that that having a resolution of 0.7" means I need more exposure time to compensate for the lower signal capture due to my system being configured with too small pixel size? So is it true that the amount of signal I capture with tiny pixels is too low compared to the read noise and dark current of my camera, along with the noise of the sky background itself? So, would the ideal resolution be between 1 and 2" per pixel?
What does it mean that I need to "resample to somewhere between 1-1.5" per pixel resolution"? How do I do the resampling? In my optical train? Can I change the pixels of my camera, maybe by binning? It seems that with CMOS cameras this has no effect, is that right? Could it be that the only option is to reduce the focal length of my telescope? The Vixen R200SS can work at 1120 or 800 focal length. At 800 mm my resolution is 0.97" per pixel. I can't improve further. What do you advise? The smaller the pixels the less light they gather, it can be boiled down to that. But you should not worry about having the wrong camera or focal length because we can change the pixel value to anything we want in post processing, you only need to worry about a single exposure being long enough to cover read noise by shot noise and other noise sources. Binning (integer resample) will increase signal to noise ratio by a factor equal to the bin factor, so binning x2 will double your signal to noise ratio, which is equal to spending 4 times longer imaging. Resampling to a lower resolution will also increase your SNR, but now we cant give a straight answer by how much because we are using interpolation to figure out the new pixels - but your SNR will still increase. What I'd do in your case is just resample the stack to something like 70%, using the Mitchell-Netravali or Lanczos-3 algorithms in PI. You could try resampling before or after running BXT and see what works better. BXT generally likes higher resolution, even oversampled, data but it also likes high SNR data so you just have to test whether you want to resample before or after. Jordi:
Regarding the fuzziness of the stars, could it be due to the processing I've done? Considering that I used MaskedStretch, which leaves the stars in a bad shape, maybe having to touch them up caused them to appear fuzzy? I'll redo the processing (and stretch with GHS) and see if they turn out better. It could, if you masked areas in a way that the halo's of stars are included in the stretched area. That would blow those out and create a fuzzier looking star. Do you use StarXterminator? Its significantly easier to work on the stars when they are separated from the starless parts of the image. You dont need to use fancy masks and methods to process them in that case so worth a try. Jordi:
To extract the dark current, I use the master bias. I have read that with this camera model, there is no difference between using darks or bias for the dark current. This works fine in most cases. Its not exactly the same and there is a measurable difference, but probably not a noticeable one. At -10 there is somewhere around 1e-/px / 33min of dark current, at -5 roughly double that. So the difference between your calibration and actual dark current in the lights will be something like 0.1e- or less. I would still take the darks because while that difference is small, it is there. By the way its not going to visually improve any image you take, its just one of those things that you might as well do properly since taking darks is something you only have to do once.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
With your RS200 your best bet is trying to achieve around 1"/px and use the extender only when the seeing is really good and with bright NB targets. This will improve your SNR by a factor of 2. You can resample any given image in PI by using Geometry>Resample. The dafult settings work very well in most cases.
Since you didn't use the RGB data for additional Luminance, and if its quality is good albeit of lower SNR, then adding it to the (using LinearFit beforehand) existing L data (averaging them together in PixelMath) will give you a nice SNR boost.
As for stars color, unless you are blowing them when capturing then you don't need to resort to that gimmick. Just separate the stars at the linear stage (after color calibration and BXT, if the case) and process them differently to bring out colors more. I use a combination of ArcsinhStretch and HT (and possibly curves afterward) but other methods are possible too.
Darks aren't that important for the additional dark signal nowadays, which might be quite low for an IMX571 sensor, but rather for dealing with thermal noise so I'd encourage you to take darks to suit your imaging exposures lengths (with same offset and gain) at the preferred temperatures and both remove the dark signal and the noise associated with it using both ImageCalibration and CosmeticCorrection (there must be equivalent settings in WBPP but I am none the wiser).
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
andrea tasselli:
TiffsAndAstro:
I'm a noob so apologies, but I wonder what you mean by "image scale is too high for the amount of time spent on it"?
See @Oskari Nikkinen replay above. That sort of image scale isn't conductive to good SNR with such a low integration even in B4-5 skies, you'd need good steady night in B1-2 skies to get away with it and then maybe not enough anyway. To give you prospective I can get away with 2 hours of LRGB or RGB imaging in B1 skies in Chile's Atacama but with 1"/px sampling using a 0.5m fast reflector. Ty both for this explanation, makes sense.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
andrea tasselli:
With your RS200 your best bet is trying to achieve around 1"/px and use the extender only when the seeing is really good and with bright NB targets. This will improve your SNR by a factor of 2. You can resample any given image in PI by using Geometry>Resample. The dafult settings work very well in most cases. Can you help me understand this (sorry, I'm very new to all this); I do understand that if your image has a "storage" resolution of, say, .2"/px you are really not getting that level of details, because there is no way you can get that clean of a signal from where we all may live. But my *visual* impression is that a zoomed in image with .2"/px resolution *looks* (not *is*) better than the same image resampled at 1"/px. What is the actual visually perceived drawback of leaving the image at .2"/px resolution vs. resampling it to 1"/px? Thanks, and sorry in advance for the likely silly question.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi, This is the jpeg of my Luminance.xisf file. May anyone tell me if there's a problem with my stars? Can you see if they are fuzzy, please? I am not experienced enough to tell so. Is fuzziness related with oversampling? Or maybe bad guiding (my guiding was 0.4" all night)? The FWHM that the SubframeSelector process informs for my Luminance is around 4". Can anyone have some example of good looking stars with a similar configuration as mine (reflector and B4 or B5 sky)? Thank you very much for your help (and sorry for make too many questions!) Jordi  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Yep. There is flaring on one side, clue to issue with collimation in the main. So, soft & fuzzy stars. I don't shoot mono now so hard to give an example in that regard. But otherwise examples of "proper" stars albeit RGB there are aplenty in my gallery (those taken with a standard newt).
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Diffraction spikes of medium brightness stars seem weak, poorly defined and a bit soft. I would actually wager on you being out of focus a little bit. It could be collimation too, but it could also be both which will work together to worsen the issue. 4" fwhm is on the worse end for 8" reflectors, focus issues would explain that easily. How do you focus the scope, and keep focus for the whole night?
I see that most stars have an extended fuzzy halo around them, and also that shadows of the mirror clips can be seen. This indicates that your primary mirror may suffer from 'turned down edge' where the outer few millimeters are not properly ground to the same shape as the rest of the mirror. Very common in cheap reflectors, but not a deal breaker. It can be cheaply solved by fitting a primary mirror mask that reduces the usable aperture to somewhere between 190-195mm which will make most of that halo go away. These are sold to fit many newtonians such as skywatcher and GSO, but not sure about yours. You might be able to just jury rig one in place somehow, or get one 3D printed.
*Edit: Just looked at some images of the R200SS mirror, and it seems like it does not have the usual mirror clips that most other newtonians have, so the second paragraph here might be a shot in the dark. Still looks like turned down edge based on the halo though so might need the aperture mask anyway.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Well, thanks a lot for all your help. I'll try to fix this issue :-(
Thank you very much,
Jordi
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi Jordi,
All things considered, I think you've got one hell of a pretty picture there ! The only real questions are : Did you enjoy producing it ? Did you have fun during the process ? If you did, it really does not get any better than that !
CS
Bob
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dear Bob, Thank you so much for your words! Certainly, sometimes we can lose perspective, as in the end, it's all about having fun. Indeed, I've had a lot of fun throughout the entire process, from going out with my telescope and spending the whole night out, to all the subsequent processing. The final result makes me feel proud, as it is quite cool by my standards. Even so, I believe it's always good to want to do more and better, even if it occasionally brings some frustration. With all that said, it's also important to see what your expectations are and what the reality is, because if you don't, you certainly won't have a good time. Therefore, you need to know how far you can and want to go. Hey, but nobody said it was easy, right?  Thanks a lot and clear skies! Jordi
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Nice image - love the point above made by NighttimeskyGuy. It's really all about having fun of course.
For colouring galaxies, SPCC is a great tool, using data from the Gaia database - worth looking into and, as ever, lots of great tutorials for they on YouTube making it very simple to use.
Clear skies,
Jeremy
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi Jeremy,
You are right, SPCC is a great tool. I use it with all my broadband images. I've never used with a NB image. I don't know why I would apply a color callibration for a false color image!
CS
Jordi
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
There is a technique that allows one to create RGB-like stars from Ha, OIII, and SII data for use in narrowband images. It uses SPCC, but it is used to color correct the stars and not the rest of the image. The method is described in this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvgfmPkn-g&t=860s. George
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Thanks for the hint George, I'll get a try! Until now, I've used the Foraxx Script to create beautiful RGB looking stars fron NB images and I'm happy with the results.
CS
Jordi
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Regarding the color, I have to ask if your monitor is calibrated? That is something one should always do. Either with a calibration device like Spyder or by buying a pre-calibrated monitor like the Asus Pro-art line.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Yes Bill, I have the Spyder X2 calibrator. The colors of the image are all the result of my personal taste. I like the blue hue of the galaxy, but I realize that maybe is too much blue there. Now I'm reprocessing with another hue… so let's see what the final result is!
Thanks and CS
Jordi
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi everyone! I've just finished the final rendition of my image, with some suggested changes from this forum. Resampled image, smaller and less bright stars, less overall noise reduction and another hue for M101... It's not perfect, but it's mine  I'm now in process to collimate my telescope. It seems that an f4 is hard to collimate, but I will try. And I've just bought an aperture mask for my primary mirror. Let's see if I can get rid of this flares! Thank you all for your observations and help. All of you make a great community!! My new version is here : https://www.astrobin.com/na7n09/CS Jordi PS. if there are more suggestions, feel free to tell me what do you think. I will appreciate it very much!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
