Hi guys, Being tired of my spotchy Oiii and Sii layers full of stars imperfectly removed, I gave the trial of StarXterminator a try. The outcome is rather clear.   You find here a comparison of the StarX generated starless (left) and Starnet2 generated starles (right). These are two different areas of my Oiii layer of IC410, collecter over 1h40' with a Touptek 2600m. The processing is exactly the same (I did process starnet version, get back, made a clone and reapplied the same steps using the history). I would not have believed that the difference to be that huge. CS! Patrice
|
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.
Yeah… not even close anymore.
|
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.
This is a particularly bad case but, yes, SN++ leaves more leftover than SXT but not always to your disadvantage and SXT removes more than I'm happy with in some circumstances.
|
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 have been a few occasion when Starnet 2 has produced better results on Lanczos-3 interpolated images, but StarXTerminator is otherwise unbeatable. I'm glad I spent the money on it a couple of years back.
|
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:
This is a particularly bad case but, yes, SN++ leaves more leftover than SXT but not always to your disadvantage and SXT removes more than I'm happy with in some circumstances. The StarX is really good, but indeed, it removes a lot of tiny nebulosity which it takes as stars. I experienced it while processing Ha of M33 (Continuum Subtraction) and now I see it during imaging Virgo, in both cases the tiny detail is highly important. I reported it to the StarX author and was informed that he works on a new version fixing this problem. Let's wait, I believe it will be awesome like every his product at the time and like the NoiseX v3 is now.
|
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.
What I've found is that what you're seeing as blemishes is part of the glow around stars, not the stars themselves. Those glows and even diffraction spikes should be left behind IMO. I've not found that they are detrimental to the final image even though it can look pretty awful in a starless image. I certainly wouldn't want the diffraction spikes removed. It's sort of like peeking at flat frames and getting worried because they look awful.
|
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 would choose SXT anyday as well. I find that especially when working on galaxies it is miles ahead of Starnet. I posted my own analysis not that long ago in this thread: https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astrophotography/deep-sky-processing-techniques/sxt-vs-sn-2/?fbclid=IwY2xjawIl155leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTVkRnHNpT5Xk9tp4bvP-bJQgPyVZXwSR5FEXw4ut1SaIgtuIPsUlF8pTw_aem_ernkPzc9h9J6vHdDhTDvFgThough I agree with those who advocate for Starnet that it's decent as a free tool, for certain objects the difference even isn't that big. I also agree that OP's example might be an extreme one. What did it look like prior to star removal?
|
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:
This is a particularly bad case but, yes, SN++ leaves more leftover than SXT but not always to your disadvantage and SXT removes more than I'm happy with in some circumstances.
The StarX is really good, but indeed, it removes a lot of tiny nebulosity which it takes as stars. I experienced it while processing Ha of M33 (Continuum Subtraction) and now I see it during imaging Virgo, in both cases the tiny detail is highly important. I reported it to the StarX author and was informed that he works on a new version fixing this problem. Let's wait, I believe it will be awesome like every his product at the time and like the Noise v3 is now.
So does Starnet too. Because of this, I process my HARGB galaxies with the stars up to the point I integrate the Ha. At this point, I use a color mask capturing the exact color range of nebulosities, to protect the Ha pockets. Star can then be removed safely. See my M33, especially the crop in the decription. https://www.astrobin.com/xf9m9t/ |
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.
Tony Gondola:
What I've found is that what you're seeing as blemishes is part of the glow around stars, not the stars themselves. Those glows and even diffraction spikes should be left behind IMO. I've not found that they are detrimental to the final image even though it can look pretty awful in a starless image. I certainly wouldn't want the diffraction spikes removed. It's sort of like peeking at flat frames and getting worried because they look awful. I tend to agree on paper with your argument, especially about spikes. However, spotchy layers are, at least for me, hard to process. It makes it difficutl to assess how much you can stretch your data, especially in the darker areas.
|
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 would like to point out one more thing that makes StarXTerminator irreplaceable: recognizing galaxies. Especially when it comes to displaying small galaxies in the background, these usually only become visible through the use of StarXTerminator, which makes it possible to edit them more finely.
|
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.
Distant Luminosity:
I would like to point out one more thing that makes StarXTerminator irreplaceable: recognizing galaxies. Especially when it comes to displaying small galaxies in the background, these usually only become visible through the use of StarXTerminator, which makes it possible to edit them more finely. True, as shown in the link I provided, but only if used with the right settings and even better if you upscale your image first which is pretty much mandatory. SXT removes a lot of galaxies too, without upscaling far to many still get picked.
|
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.
which might be an argument not to remove that stars at all from such images.
|
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.
Distant Luminosity:
I would like to point out one more thing that makes StarXTerminator irreplaceable: recognizing galaxies. Especially when it comes to displaying small galaxies in the background, these usually only become visible through the use of StarXTerminator, which makes it possible to edit them more finely.
True, as shown in the link I provided, but only if used with the right settings and even better if you upscale your image first which is pretty much mandatory. SXT removes a lot of galaxies too, without upscaling far to many still get picked.
Most concerning is the removal of nebulosity, as I also noticed for M33. I have developed ways to repair such damage, post SXT, that is completely faithful to the data. For nebulosity repair, typically it is not that time consuming. On the other hand, to faithfully return the thousands of tiny (and even not-so-tiny) galaxies to my ExtraGalactic Traveler's view series takes me a great amount of time! 
An ExtraGalactic Traveler's™ View of M31 - The Andromeda Galaxy - Including a View From EarthTook me weeks, if not months of effort. If R. Croman improved SXT, I will be grateful, however the small size of some makes that unlikely. Most people don't worry about these small galaxies. That is a shame. But when they are the main subject of the image, it gets frustrating.
|
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.
Tony Gondola:
which might be an argument not to remove that stars at all from such images. Perhaps, but "removed" is a strong word I propably shouldn't use, temporarily separated might be better. I'm unsure about whether one would be able to filter out all the smaller galaxies in any efficient way with a star mask anyway, if you were to keep them in the image throughout the process that is. As far as I'm concerned it only matters if you want/need to process the image separately, very faint details may be a reason why. Using resampling as part of the process will maximise the results for galaxies at least (with slight issues towards big and bright stars). It's all possible to work around though. The faint galaxies and nebulosity picked up by SXT will be screened back into the image unless you choose to stretch the stars way less than the rest of the image. Alan Brunelle:
Distant Luminosity:
I would like to point out one more thing that makes StarXTerminator irreplaceable: recognizing galaxies. Especially when it comes to displaying small galaxies in the background, these usually only become visible through the use of StarXTerminator, which makes it possible to edit them more finely.
True, as shown in the link I provided, but only if used with the right settings and even better if you upscale your image first which is pretty much mandatory. SXT removes a lot of galaxies too, without upscaling far to many still get picked.
Most concerning is the removal of nebulosity, as I also noticed for M33. I have developed ways to repair such damage, post SXT, that is completely faithful to the data. For nebulosity repair, typically it is not that time consuming.
On the other hand, to faithfully return the thousands of tiny (and even not-so-tiny) galaxies to my ExtraGalactic Traveler's view series takes me a great amount of time!
An ExtraGalactic Traveler's™ View of M31 - The Andromeda Galaxy - Including a View From Earth
Took me weeks, if not months of effort. If R. Croman improved SXT, I will be grateful, however the small size of some makes that unlikely. Most people don't worry about these small galaxies. That is a shame. But when they are the main subject of the image, it gets frustrating. Protection of nebulosity, in case upsampling doesn't help with those, can easily be done with a mask before running sxt at all. Another method is to stretch the stars image as you would the background and just screen in those bits of nebula that are missing using layers in Photoshop. Upsampling would greatly improve your results regarding galaxies, it will take more time to run the process, but well worth it in the end. SXT will be updated pretty soon I reckon. My latest example using upsampling vs no upsampling, I don't think it could get a whole lot better than this. Except for the slight bright star issue that has to be resolved using the not upscaled result.  I haven't bothered to do more than a 2x upscale as any smaller galaxies than those already kept intact here would not matter. We are talking small specks and pixels like this one viewed in 15:1 as compared to the standard 1:5 view in PI:   And that's not even the smallest one. What it'll be like in the final image I don't know yet but I'm guessing a barely visible dot if anything. Smaller stuff would not add anything of meaning/value to the image as it most likely would be completely invisible. Results may differ and the amount of re-sampling needed may vary. I'd suggest you give it a go and save yourself those weeks or months of effort  |
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 wish SIRIL would integrate starx instead of starnet. Save some work in the early stages of processing between SIRIL and PS.
|
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.
Jan Erik Vallestad:
Upsampling would greatly improve your results regarding galaxies, it will take more time to run the process, but well worth it in the end. SXT will be updated pretty soon I reckon.
My latest example using upsampling vs no upsampling, I don't think it could get a whole lot better than this. Except for the slight bright star issue that has to be resolved using the not upscaled result. Thanks for that, I'll try this method. I found another, more manual way, or even ways, which you can experiment with. I extracted the stars and ran the StarX on the image with extracted stars. You would be surprised how much nebulosity can remain after this operation. I used it while processing the Spaghetti Nebula and just combined the result with the main starless image. Also, in the case of the Virgo or another galaxy cluster with hundreds of tiny objects, I do a copy of the stars' image, investigate it and manually remove (CloneStamp) everything which seems to not be a star. Finally, I subtract it from the original stars' image and combine the result with the main starless image. Of course, this method doesn't differ from the StarX with mask but it can be easier to remove the small objects without background. It's also worth considering that the StarX shouldn't be applied after the BlurX. I found this advice somewhere and it makes sense but it's hard to manage the data this way. CS, Martha
|
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.
Running StarXterminator after BlurXterminator works just fine and is the most common way of doing it. It's been the way Russell himself have told us to do it for years. I've never seen an issue with it. I'd say if your data is blurry then running BXT correct + deconvolution afterwards would be the best way to distinguish stars from nebulosity as best as possible for StarXterminator.
The method you describe seem a lot like an old method for creating synthetic flats, but I don't personally think it's necessary to go to such lengths. I have not personally had issues with nebulosity being extracted, nor galaxies, since I usually drizzle and resample for this very reason. Nor have I seen issues with it on nebula without upsampling/drizzling either really. However you don't have to drizzle, IntegerResample should work just fine for this process.
Not saying there aren't issues, I just haven't noticed them in any meaningful way. Perhaps it is worse when using extremely widefield lenses and telescopes.
|
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.
Jan Erik Vallestad:
Not saying there aren't issues, I just haven't noticed them in any meaningful way. Perhaps it is worse when using extremely widefield lenses and telescopes. In case of both the Spaghetti and Virgo an Askar FMA230 was/is used, it's somewhere in middle between long FL scopes and wide field lenses. Regarding the BlurX, it's obvious that the tiny blob turns into a brighter nucleus and blurry rest which in my case may be recognised as the star and halo. It happens that the nucleus is removed by the StarX while the 'halo' remains. I compared results of applying the StarX on the Virgo image, it's 2x upscaled copy and 2x drizzled image. The two last results are better (than the first one) while they differ slightly. I hope Russell Croman will release the new version of the StarX before I finish my mosaic. 🙂
|
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.
Tony Gondola:
which might be an argument not to remove that stars at all from such images.
Perhaps, but "removed" is a strong word I propably shouldn't use, temporarily separated might be better. I'm unsure about whether one would be able to filter out all the smaller galaxies in any efficient way with a star mask anyway, if you were to keep them in the image throughout the process that is.
As far as I'm concerned it only matters if you want/need to process the image separately, very faint details may be a reason why. Using resampling as part of the process will maximise the results for galaxies at least (with slight issues towards big and bright stars). It's all possible to work around though. The faint galaxies and nebulosity picked up by SXT will be screened back into the image unless you choose to stretch the stars way less than the rest of the image.
Alan Brunelle:
Distant Luminosity:
I would like to point out one more thing that makes StarXTerminator irreplaceable: recognizing galaxies. Especially when it comes to displaying small galaxies in the background, these usually only become visible through the use of StarXTerminator, which makes it possible to edit them more finely.
True, as shown in the link I provided, but only if used with the right settings and even better if you upscale your image first which is pretty much mandatory. SXT removes a lot of galaxies too, without upscaling far to many still get picked.
Most concerning is the removal of nebulosity, as I also noticed for M33. I have developed ways to repair such damage, post SXT, that is completely faithful to the data. For nebulosity repair, typically it is not that time consuming.
On the other hand, to faithfully return the thousands of tiny (and even not-so-tiny) galaxies to my ExtraGalactic Traveler's view series takes me a great amount of time!
An ExtraGalactic Traveler's™ View of M31 - The Andromeda Galaxy - Including a View From Earth
Took me weeks, if not months of effort. If R. Croman improved SXT, I will be grateful, however the small size of some makes that unlikely. Most people don't worry about these small galaxies. That is a shame. But when they are the main subject of the image, it gets frustrating.
Protection of nebulosity, in case upsampling doesn't help with those, can easily be done with a mask before running sxt at all. Another method is to stretch the stars image as you would the background and just screen in those bits of nebula that are missing using layers in Photoshop.
Upsampling would greatly improve your results regarding galaxies, it will take more time to run the process, but well worth it in the end. SXT will be updated pretty soon I reckon.
My latest example using upsampling vs no upsampling, I don't think it could get a whole lot better than this. Except for the slight bright star issue that has to be resolved using the not upscaled result.
I haven't bothered to do more than a 2x upscale as any smaller galaxies than those already kept intact here would not matter. We are talking small specks and pixels like this one viewed in 15:1 as compared to the standard 1:5 view in PI:
And that's not even the smallest one. What it'll be like in the final image I don't know yet but I'm guessing a barely visible dot if anything. Smaller stuff would not add anything of meaning/value to the image as it most likely would be completely invisible.
Results may differ and the amount of re-sampling needed may vary. I'd suggest you give it a go and save yourself those weeks or months of effort
*I'll be traveling during the next week, so will be unable to support my response with data. Upsampling at 2x is precisely what the image of M31 was because this was drizzled 2X. If you look at the .PNG version at full res (Rev D), you will see how smooth and detailed these small features are. Please understand that this image contains no stars (none other than ones affiliated with M31). 99.9% of these features in the non-M31 part of the field are NOT stars. Yet all were removed by SXT. Yes, and this after BXT, NXT, etc. So while I can concede that using those tools prior to SXT is a help, it's far from doing a perfect job. And for those like myself, for this sort of project, it's not even good. That said, this field is scattered with very small background galaxies and I concede for most of the work done by people here it is a great tool and could never be completely accurate without including too many stars in the actual result. As I said, my issue for deep field galaxy field, that contain NO foreground (I e. Milky Way) stars, it is a critical issue. Most would care less for the loss of many small smudges. I believe that is the loss to ignorance. Not trying to be insulting to those who don't know what they can actually see with their optics, but more and more often I see proof when I see posts of images and the originator is so proud that they picked up hundreds, if not thousands of distant galaxies in an image of one of the typical, famous NGC galaxies. Please see 
The NGC4725 Family in the Foreground of The Universe - An ExtraGalactic Traveler's™ Viewand the revisions as examples of this. While SXT cannot be faulted for extracting smallish smudges, it continues to trouble me when I see edge on galaxies completely removed, or their cores extracted, and often cores of larger galaxies extracted in full or partially. As for losses in emission nebulae, well what can you do?! Hopefully it gets better. In M33 so many parts of these features were affected in my image and so apparently for at least one other person here. Most who have done M33 or similar, probably use SXT as a one click solution, thinking or caring little about these losses. Indeed, probably never notice in the haste to complete what otherwise ends up still being a wonderful colorful final image. The solution is not in masking. That tends to be tedious because of the hit or miss nature of the artifacts. It ends up being unfaithful in the end, mostly, and invites just painting the data to look "kinda" like it should. I agree that if the Stars-only image is to be screened back into the starless image, with no difference in stretch or many other processes, then all will be good. But then why use SXT? Most use SXT as a means to do star reduction (using such as the Blanshan method), or else modify either the starless or Stars-only image making the accuracy impossible to recreate. There is a far better solution that I can't go into here tapping on my cell phone. I should conclude that SXT-caused artifacts are not inevitable, nor seen in every field. But they can and do occur often enough to never use SXT without doing a thorough job by inspecting the resulting image for problems. It is easy to do blinking between images treated and untreated by SXT (even more so now with the new PI updates). Or one can do a strongish screen stretch on the Stars-only image to look for nebulosity that "should not be there"! If you see it in the Stars-only, then it ain't in the starless image! Know that.
|
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.
It can be an issue with BXT as well. You won't notice it looking at the full frame but when I look carefully can see tight nots of nebulosity that it turned into stars and faint stars that are just erased or turned into nebulosity. It's probably a product of correction mode where the AI has to decide what it's looking at.
|
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.
Tony Gondola:
It can be an issue with BXT as well. You won't notice it looking at the full frame but when I look carefully can see tight nots of nebulosity that it turned into stars and faint stars that are just erased or turned into nebulosity. It's probably a product of correction mode where the AI has to decide what it's looking at. *No doubt. I think for any tool one needs to take care when using it. Its kind of the MO within PI. If the tool has a slider or can be adjusted in some way, it's really the only way to apply these tools. What I see sometimes with BXT is I can get what I want across some of the field, but then somewhere else, it acts too aggressively. That's when the real work commences!
|
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.
Jan Erik Vallestad:
Not saying there aren't issues, I just haven't noticed them in any meaningful way. Perhaps it is worse when using extremely widefield lenses and telescopes.
In case of both the Spaghetti and Virgo an Askar FMA230 was/is used, it's somewhere in middle between long FL scopes and wide field lenses.
Regarding the BlurX, it's obvious that the tiny blob turns into a brighter nucleus and blurry rest which in my case may be recognised as the star and halo. It happens that the nucleus is removed by the StarX while the 'halo' remains.
I compared results of applying the StarX on the Virgo image, it's 2x upscaled copy and 2x drizzled image. The two last results are better (than the first one) while they differ slightly. I hope Russell Croman will release the new version of the StarX before I finish my mosaic. 🙂
I think at 230mm that's considered very widefield, so it fits the bill though! My examples are shot at 550mm which I would only consdider to be medium sized as focal lengths go. I'm quite certain he will |
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.
Jan Erik Vallestad:
Not saying there aren't issues, I just haven't noticed them in any meaningful way. Perhaps it is worse when using extremely widefield lenses and telescopes.
In case of both the Spaghetti and Virgo an Askar FMA230 was/is used, it's somewhere in middle between long FL scopes and wide field lenses.
Regarding the BlurX, it's obvious that the tiny blob turns into a brighter nucleus and blurry rest which in my case may be recognised as the star and halo. It happens that the nucleus is removed by the StarX while the 'halo' remains.
I compared results of applying the StarX on the Virgo image, it's 2x upscaled copy and 2x drizzled image. The two last results are better (than the first one) while they differ slightly. I hope Russell Croman will release the new version of the StarX before I finish my mosaic. 🙂
I think at 230mm that's considered very widefield, so it fits the bill though! My examples are shot at 550mm which I would only consdider to be medium sized as focal lengths go.
I'm quite certain he will
My hope also! It has been mentioned in the past, can't remember by whom, that it might be nice to have two different AI's for SXT. One trained on deep sky galaxy and galactic cluster images and one for deep sky emission, IFN, etc images. These two different types of fields would seem to demand very different types of information to work best. I can only expect that training a galaxy AI would be more work than most would want to do. But the information is now currently available via the deep sky surveys from space based telescopes to be able to identify what is, and what is not a galaxy. Perhaps R. Croman might enlist a team to assist in such an endeavor? I would volunteer for such an effort. I certainly agree with your statement regarding that which is meaningful. And my case examples certainly fall into an outlier and even extreme situation for what one might want from SXT. But as designed, the point of those images are to see those objects as they might be viewed from a unique perspective. Most will not care. Either way, even lacking perfection, I love SXT and could not do that work without it. For BXT, I think most of these functions work differently depending on local data properties. Locales where stronger and steeper brightness differences (I e. Contrast) get "chewed" on more strongly by the engines, so show stronger effect in those locations. But compared to the older non-AI driven functions of PI, like deconvolution, this issue is less of a problem for BXT.
|
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.
Something I’ve found works well, especially when processing galaxies, is to leave the stars in and stretch the image to about where you want their intensity to be. Then remove the stars, checking the screen option. You’ll find that small bright structures within the galaxy stay intact which STX sometimes mistakes for stars when extracting in a linear state. Then stretch the starless image to where you want it and put the stars back in.
|
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.
