Arun H:
This debate has been done to death. In other threads, I and many others have made this case, that the playing field when it comes to awards is not level. The “haves” - those who benefit from the current system - will fight to the death to preserve it. They will see any change it as diluting their accomplishments and (often rather large) investments. You will get nowhere. I suspect you are right and the other factor is complexity. The present system is maybe complex enough and the powers at be would not want to make that any worse. Of course at the end of the day an award is just ego. As the military says about most awards "with that and $5 you can buy a latte". And I have done well with awards overall so am not complaining for myself, rather it is just something that has become apparent, especially with IOTD. Maybe it just offends my sense of fair play.  |
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.
Bray Falls:
Charles Hagen:
Bray Falls:
Perhaps you should try shooting these nebulae for yourself to let us know what's real ;)
but I think you wouldn't want to even try to deal with the noisy mess you know you will get for all your effort.
Bray Falls:
If someone wanted to get a ground-truth image of that object with the same SNR as the final image without noise reduction, it would probably take 3000+hrs of exposure time with this setup I used. There is no way I'm doing that.
Most people understand that faint targets are hard - the problem is giving people unrealistic expectations about the results they can expect with a given amount of time or effort put in. There are a select fewwho seem to take this to the extreme. Being closed and opaque about your 'trade secret' processing methods only exacerbates the problem. I know many people who have imaged some very faint targets and put a ton of time in just to realize they don't look like what they expected because of exactly this trend. Its certainly not their fault they were lead to believe something was how it isn't. We should expect better, especially from those in positions of authority in the community.
I showed the raw data so I think it is pretty transparent regarding expectations I think the problem is that when comparing the data you provided, both raw and processed, to Marcels data release it's easy to see that there are structural differences. So, when we see two images with two different sets of structures we are left to ask, which one is closest to reality. Again, this isn't about saturating differently or color balance. There is a notable difference in structure so without going into detail about the capture and processing it leaves open the question about expectations when imaging these targets. What should someone who images the Goblet of Fire expect to see...structurally that is. I mean even in the "raw" data you provided and your finished result there is some structure loss. So, what happened to the missing structure? Is that a result of Noise Reduction? Alot of astrobin users use the software for planning, so the images released do play into some expectations of time on target, sky conditions, and gear. So it makes sense to discuss this stuff. Just so you know, I'm not trying to accuse you of wrongdoing, just wondering about the differences in your own released data, and @Marcel Drechsler data release. Maybe we can even see Marcel weigh in...? Best Regards, Joe
|
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.
Bray Falls:
I showed the raw data so I think it is pretty transparent regarding expectations I am not just referring to this one particular image. In fact, evaluating your gallery as a whole, only in the vast minority of your images do you share even screenshots of the raw data. To my knowledge you have never shared the data itself. I think it's important to mention as well that this screenshot in question has been heavily down sampled and is not even a good representation of what the data would look like straight out of the stack (post StarX) with 90+ hours of dark sky Oiii. I'll be honest here, the way you process and present your data puts it well in the category of astro-art in my books. The core structural differences between your images and other known good sources of data tell of a very heavy handed processing routine. If that's the way you choose to process your images, that's fine. The issue is that you have a large following and you do nothing in the way of transparency surrounding your process or results. I know that you know what myself and others are talking about. Even in this thread you have taken steps to hide what you really do, diverting questions, making very vague "be creative" statements, and ultimately I believe, misleading people into thinking that it's just something special about your data or processing. I dont think that's fair to your followers.
|
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.
Joseph Biscoe IV:
Bray Falls:
Charles Hagen:
Bray Falls:
Perhaps you should try shooting these nebulae for yourself to let us know what's real ;)
but I think you wouldn't want to even try to deal with the noisy mess you know you will get for all your effort.
Bray Falls:
If someone wanted to get a ground-truth image of that object with the same SNR as the final image without noise reduction, it would probably take 3000+hrs of exposure time with this setup I used. There is no way I'm doing that.
Most people understand that faint targets are hard - the problem is giving people unrealistic expectations about the results they can expect with a given amount of time or effort put in. There are a select fewwho seem to take this to the extreme. Being closed and opaque about your 'trade secret' processing methods only exacerbates the problem. I know many people who have imaged some very faint targets and put a ton of time in just to realize they don't look like what they expected because of exactly this trend. Its certainly not their fault they were lead to believe something was how it isn't. We should expect better, especially from those in positions of authority in the community.
I showed the raw data so I think it is pretty transparent regarding expectations
I think the problem is that when comparing the data you provided, both raw and processed, to Marcels data release it's easy to see that there are structural differences. So, when we see two images with two different sets of structures we are left to ask, which one is closest to reality. Again, this isn't about saturating differently or color balance. There is a notable difference in structure so without going into detail about the capture and processing it leaves open the question about expectations when imaging these targets. What should someone who images the Goblet of Fire expect to see...structurally that is. I mean even in the "raw" data you provided and your finished result there is some structure loss. So, what happened to the missing structure? Is that a result of Noise Reduction? Alot of astrobin users use the software for planning, so the images released do play into some expectations of time on target, sky conditions, and gear. So it makes sense to discuss this stuff. Just so you know, I'm not trying to accuse you of wrongdoing, just wondering about the differences in your own released data, and @Marcel Drechsler data release. Maybe we can even see Marcel weigh in...?
Best Regards,
Joe So far, my dataset is the deepest that has been done on this object, so anyone shooting it should expect to see the same thing as my raw data I shared. Marcel’s dataset comes from older equipment and with less exposure time, I haven’t seen it but given this information it would be the same as mine, just noisier. In any case we both did the most we could for the gear and exposure we had. Missing or changed structures between our images will just be our difference in deciding what is too noisy to keep or recover. Very hard to decide for each of us given the lack of references.
|
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.
The problem of setting realistic expectations dates back many years. I made a similar comment on an article Bray wrote for Lensrentals many years ago on the topic of beginning astrophotography - it is unfair to people reading it to not disclose what and how much effort went into generating those images: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/02/getting-started-in-deep-space-and-astrophotography/ |
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.
@Bray Falls That is a fair point, your is much longer. That is kinda where the question comes from. You would expect to see a confirmation of the structure to some degree. Based on this comparison, it seems like the differences are great enough to wonder about what's going on. Bray_Marcel_Gobletcomparison.mp4I guess to clearly state it, why isn't your data supporting the data that Marcel released? Best Regards, Joe
|
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.
Joseph Biscoe IV:
@Bray Falls That is a fair point, your is much longer. That is kinda where the question comes from. You would expect to see a confirmation of the structure to some degree. Based on this comparison, it seems like the differences are great enough to wonder about what's going on.
Bray_Marcel_Gobletcomparison.mp4
I guess to clearly state it, why isn't your data supporting the data that Marcel released?
Best Regards,
Joe My data doesn't necessarily need to match Marcel's, it is a deeper dataset. Roman Hujer's image is perhaps a better reference to compare with my image given the equipment used: https://app.astrobin.com/search?p=eJy7GVSSWlFiq2rupGpkVJaYU5oKpFWNHYFkcUlKkakZiGvkDCRzE0uSM0IqC6AK8kpzclTNXdQKEtNTbQ3BVHBmFZBpYAAAQ%2BMZeg%3D%3D&i=k2n5fiMarcel probably made different choices than me regarding structural editing. Whatever those differences are, I think it is also important to consider the context for editing especially from Marcel's viewpoint as the discoverer of the object. When you are the first person to find it, it would be amazing to spend 3000hrs imaging it, but then you risk losing the discovery. In these situations, you must balance acting as quickly as possible with delivering the best aesthetic result you can.
|
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.
Bray Falls:
When you are the first person to find it, it would be amazing to spend 3000hrs imaging it, but then you risk losing the discovery. In these situations, you must balance acting as quickly as possible with delivering the best aesthetic result you can. Acting in haste at the cost of an honest or accurate representation so you can slap your name on a target is inexcusable.
|
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.
Bray Falls:
So far, my dataset is the deepest that has been done on this object, so anyone shooting it should expect to see the same thing as my raw data I shared. Marcel’s dataset comes from older equipment and with less exposure time, I haven’t seen it but given this information it would be the same as mine, just noisier. In any case we both did the most we could for the gear and exposure we had.
Missing or changed structures between our images will just be our difference in deciding what is too noisy to keep or recover. Very hard to decide for each of us given the lack of references. Despite the discrepency in exposure time, Marcel's dataset is superior in terms of detail and structure definition, the linear SNR is likely higher aswell, as it doesnt look to have much noise reduction at all. Not to mention, age of the equipment doesnt matter at all. That line of thinking is like saying a 1200 horsepower Cuda 426 will lose to a stock 2024 Honda Civic on the quarter mile because the Honda is newer. Cuda runs 8.1 and the honda runs 15.2. This whole thread reminds me of the drama over an image of C2020 F3/Neowise from a few years ago. This might be a science-oriented hobby but unless science is being done with data that has been manipulated artistically, no real harm can be done with a more artistic approach to it, despite it being of questionable taste to diehard realism focused imagers like myself.
|
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.
@Bray Falls Of course you're right, your data doesn't have to match Marcel's. But because it is an astronomical object, your data should support Marcel's. That is, the structure details should be similar enough to know that you are looking at the same object. Plenty of Illustrations abound of what I am referring to here. Someone takes an ~85hr HaLRGB image of M101 from B7 ( This is something I've done) and then someone takes 600+ hours on M101 (think the new DSC2 image). The deeper image often reveal fainter details, but both images will have the same structure detail where the do overlap. The deeper integration supports the not-so-deep image in that sense. Your image of the Goblet of Fire does not seem to follow this rationale. Here is the comparison you mention that I do to Mr. Hujer's data release of the object: Hujer_Falls_GobletofFire_comparison.mp4I don't think this is a fair comparison but I made it because you mentioned the data. As you can see there is still discrepancies with your data release and Mr. Hujer's data. I think I have clearly made the point, Your image does not support the two preceding images as it should to some reasonable degree. And that is where my curiosity is coming from. Best Regards, Joe P.S. I don't think Mr. Hujer's data should be compared with either your data or Marcels simply because it's clearly not deep enough.
|
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.
Look I have done all I can, you have seen the raw data, the final image. The exact specifics of my processing are my business, I have no moral obligation to give a step-by-step breakdown of everything.
The beauty of this discussion is that this object is on display in the sky for anyone to shoot as they like, and edit however they like.
If you are having any doubts beyond this, all I can say is go shoot the object for yourself. Shoot anything we have found for yourself. These objects will challenge your understanding of astrophotography in every aspect, and you are guaranteed to have fun and learn something.
If you find something morally objectionable in what you capture, I will be here for that discussion. Maybe we can even combine data sets to get something less noisy at the end stack lol
Until then, best of luck.
edit:
Technically speaking, Marcel's data should support my data, not the other way around. My data set is much much deeper.
|
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.
Technically speaking, Marcel's data should support my data, not the other way around. My data set is much much deeper. @Bray Falls If you would like to say that, that is fine. But it seems like you're missing the point. Your image, though deeper, doesn't match the structure detail of Marcel's image. By your logic, I think you're insinuating that Marcel has been a bit heavy handed with his structure? Is that what you are saying? Best Regards, Joe
|
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.
Bill McLaughlin:
Arun H:
This debate has been done to death. In other threads, I and many others have made this case, that the playing field when it comes to awards is not level. The “haves” - those who benefit from the current system - will fight to the death to preserve it. They will see any change it as diluting their accomplishments and (often rather large) investments. You will get nowhere.
I suspect you are right and the other factor is complexity. The present system is maybe complex enough and the powers at be would not want to make that any worse.
Of course at the end of the day an award is just ego. As the military says about most awards "with that and $5 you can buy a latte".
And I have done well with awards overall so am not complaining for myself, rather it is just something that has become apparent, especially with IOTD.
Maybe it just offends my sense of fair play. while awards hold no monetary value to people like you and me that do not derive an income from this, they do hold some value to those that do. So I think in the end it is about much more than fair play. I could not agree more with the point that Charles Hagen brings up that people with a large following have an obligation of transparency. Their followers are, after all, likely to be making significant decisions involving personal time and money based on images they see. I guess the question is - is the end goal to have a large following and wow people with images and do whatever it takes to achieve this? Or is the goal to educate the community and advance the field? Sometimes I myself wondering why the images that take hundreds of hours and often multiple imagers collaborating get so many bookmarks. Do that many people really think they have any hope of generating such an image? Back to the point of this debate - In the end, when we see something that we have a question about, the only way to raise it is in discussions like this. Often times, like here, nothing comes of it. Caveat emptor, I guess.
|
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.
Arun H:
while awards hold no monetary value to people like you and me that do not derive an income from this, they do hold some value to those that do. So I think in the end it is about much more than fair play.
I could not agree more with the point that Charles Hagen brings up that people with a large following have an obligation of transparency. Their followers are, after all, likely to be making significant decisions involving personal time and money based on images they see. I guess the question is - is the end goal to have a large following and wow people with images and do whatever it takes to achieve this? Or is the goal to educate the community and advance the field?
Sometimes I myself wondering why the images that take hundreds of hours and often multiple imagers collaborating get so many bookmarks. Do that many people really think they have any hope of generating such an image? Back to the point of this debate - In the end, when we see something that we have a question about, the only way to raise it is in discussions like this. Often times, like here, nothing comes of it. Caveat emptor, I guess. lol maybe those images get bookmarked because some people find it inspiring when a group can come together to achieve an amazing result. and it is pretty funny to question my goals in a hobby. I literally live at an observatory to advance the field.
|
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.
How is advancing the field done? At least the way I see it it is developing methods or explaining techniques that people can replicate and use to advance their own images.
I appreciate the many, many contributions Charles Hagen has made. I very frequently use his narrowband combination method which allows me to preserve RGB color while adding narrowband. I appreciate also the many, many videos, write ups by John Hayes that have advanced my own understanding and enjoyment of this field.
|
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.
Arun H:
Sometimes I myself wondering why the images that take hundreds of hours and often multiple imagers collaborating get so many bookmarks. Do that many people really think they have any hope of generating such an image? Speaking for myself, I generally only bookmark some of the better examples of objects if I think I have some hope of doing as well or better with my systems and sites. Those bookmarks give me targets as well as a standard to shoot for. Occasionally I will bookmark a deep image for quality alone but not often, especially if they are massive collaborations from multiple fast systems. The short version is that I will have to leave the deep stuff (mostly) to those collaborations of fast systems - it is simply not possible to compete unless I want to spend half the year on one object - and I have no interest in collaboration since I prefer to be able to say "I did that".  The result is that mostly I tend to go for resolution instead of depth. That is well suited to my medium speed system with a moderately long F.L. that resides at a site that can frequently have sub-arcsec seeing. They have their niche and, thanks to the seeing at my remote site, I have mine. Not many IOTDs (if any) of course, since a slight increase in resolution is not as impressive as super deep and/or new discoveries. Still, many of my high res. images of small stuff have been fairly well received by viewers and reviewers alike so I am happy. Bottom line is that the bad news is that those fast collaborations have put many of us "out of the quality running" in terms of image depth. The good news is at my remote site I can sometimes be at the top of the list for that object in terms of detail. That is not to say that us single imagers with slower systems would not benefit from some of the processing tips and tricks from those doing the deep collaborations since much of that applies to any image.
|
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.
As to the original question, the secret to noise reduction you are looking for is more integration time. No program can save a poor integration time. Bray Falls:
and it is pretty funny to question my goals in a hobby. I literally live at an observatory to advance the field. I think I am going to say what everyone is thinking, which is that everyone knows this is no longer a hobby for you. Its okay to admit this is a for-profit endeavor for you! I mean, practically every page on your website is tying to sell me something. I just wouldn't keep trying to hide that for-profit motivation behind moral arguments. It's okay to say you don't want to share all your processing methods because it would screw up your business model. I think more people would respect you that way. Lord forbid if someone developed an open source method to process solar eclipses, for example. You and a few others would be out of a lot of money. So I understand wanting to keep that private. Just so I am not ragging on you 100%, I'll throw you a bone; I would agree that opening that remote observatory in Texas is 'advancing the field'. It made remote much more realistic to a whole new crowd of people, and hopefully it puts pressure on the other sites to have more competitive pricing.
|
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.
Its okay to admit this is a for-profit endeavor If I was doing this purely for profit, I would have a more profitable time for my hours at a minimum wage job Pretty funny how this thread which was just about noise reduction is somehow now about my personal character and what I do to sustain myself, you guys need to stop worrying about other peoples lives and focus on your own.
|
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.
Bray Falls:
When you are the first person to find it, it would be amazing to spend 3000hrs imaging it, but then you risk losing the discovery. In these situations, you must balance acting as quickly as possible with delivering the best aesthetic result you can. That is an absolutely awful take at a complete antithesis to the scientific method and ethics.
|
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.
Sean Makin:
Bray Falls:
When you are the first person to find it, it would be amazing to spend 3000hrs imaging it, but then you risk losing the discovery. In these situations, you must balance acting as quickly as possible with delivering the best aesthetic result you can.
That is an absolutely awful take at a complete antithesis to the scientific method and ethics. Good thing we're not scientists and just astrophotographers. When a paper is written, then more imaging time can be spent on an object
|
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.
Bray Falls:
Good thing we're not scientists and just astrophotographers. When a paper is written, then more imaging time can be spent on an object What a perfect segue to bring up the paper that you are Co-Authored in... The one where heavily manipulated images are presented as scientifically accurate instead of simply presenting the raw data... This one has always perplexed me. "Good thing we're not scientists" isn't a good look when you're publishing scientific papers as scientific fact. It's a good thing you're just astrophotographers with no obligation to the scientific method. Unfortunately, I dont believe "Software processing" meets the standard of repeatability that real scientists are looking for.  |
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.
Bray Falls:
If I was doing this purely for profit, I would have a more profitable time for my hours at a minimum wage job I am sorry, there is no way you are going to convince me or others that you would be more well off working for seven dollars an hour. Something tells me a fry cook is not getting approved for a loan to create a whole remote astrophotography business. Bray Falls:
Pretty funny how this thread which was just about noise reduction is somehow now about my personal character and what I do to sustain myself, you guys need to stop worrying about other peoples lives and focus on your own. You wonder why people debate your personal character while quipping off statements like the one about minimum wage. So there is that. I think more than that however, is you need to stop wading into debates about you or your work. If there is someone who should stop caring about what people think, its probably you. Marcel's work is probably questioned as much as yours by its very nature of being novel, but for some reason his name does not spark as much controversy as yours. Eventually you're gonna have to figure out why that is. Like, lets be real here for a minute. Astrophotography is your life and you are one of the biggest names in it. You have lord knows how much time, money, and passion invested into it; and you are beefing with some welder whose astrophotography gets viewed by maybe 20 people on a good day in the comment section.
|
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.
Interesting topic, IMO the noise in an image is like play in mechanics. It is its soul. Removing it entirely destroys all interpretation, sometimes creating imaginary things. The noise is what allows each person’s imagination to guess what lies in the depths. It should not be completely removed or destroyed, but tamed. This is my personal approach  |
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.
Bray Falls:
Joseph Biscoe IV:
@Bray Falls That is a fair point, your is much longer. That is kinda where the question comes from. You would expect to see a confirmation of the structure to some degree. Based on this comparison, it seems like the differences are great enough to wonder about what's going on.
Bray_Marcel_Gobletcomparison.mp4
I guess to clearly state it, why isn't your data supporting the data that Marcel released?
Best Regards,
Joe
My data doesn't necessarily need to match Marcel's, it is a deeper dataset. Roman Hujer's image is perhaps a better reference to compare with my image given the equipment used: https://app.astrobin.com/search?p=eJy7GVSSWlFiq2rupGpkVJaYU5oKpFWNHYFkcUlKkakZiGvkDCRzE0uSM0IqC6AK8kpzclTNXdQKEtNTbQ3BVHBmFZBpYAAAQ%2BMZeg%3D%3D&i=k2n5fi
Marcel probably made different choices than me regarding structural editing. Whatever those differences are, I think it is also important to consider the context for editing especially from Marcel's viewpoint as the discoverer of the object. When you are the first person to find it, it would be amazing to spend 3000hrs imaging it, but then you risk losing the discovery. In these situations, you must balance acting as quickly as possible with delivering the best aesthetic result you can. Bray, I am deeply disappointed by this approach. I understand I am an outsider here so pardon the bluntness, but I would much rather have a truly representative image of the object, than a rushed and 'creatively' denoised image. If someone hasn't found this object in the 150 years of astrophotography's history then the odds that someone else has discovered and is creating a final image of an object you discovered are, pardon the pun, astronomical! This approach seems to be born out of a rush to produce more discoveries, at the cost of accuracy. Astronomy is an art of precision, not social media posts. Losing a discovery is part of being on the leading edge, and ought to be a risk you accept if you are going to claim these discoveries as novel. You could for example, post saying that you have found a possible new SNR, and then in COLLABORATION with these competitors, image it together to produce a final, scientifically accurate image. Everyone would benefit, and your images would not be so limited in data.
|
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.
Guys, can we get back to the topic of noise? There are a few very good posts here. As @Jeffbax Velocicaptor said, noise means uncertainty and it does, both in an artistic and strictly technical sense. Removing it entirely or mostly is a very, very serious, photo-destroying mistake. Leaving some amount of high-frequency noise on the scale of a few pixels that looks like fine grains is obligatory. This kind of noise is, functionally, dithering (no relation to slight frame shift during acquisition!). 30 s explainer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcbVDqPKhmIWhen we stretch an image, especially when we stretch it hard and remove to much noise, we get distinct, discrete color or brightness bands and blotches. Astrophotos usually contain a lot of very subtle brightness transitions that easily turn into banding. Even people with zero knowledge of photography will think that's ugly and broken- because it is. Having some amount of high-frequency noise smooths out those discrete transitions. It also tends to mask low and ultra low frequency noise (noise in larger image scales) that looks like little worms, orange peel and other such textures.
|
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.
