Imaging collaboration

[Mike Hawtin]

In yet another idle moment today I began to wonder why we don't see more collaborative images than we do.  I know of Greg Parker and Noel Carboni's work, Olly Penrice also posts images which are often the work of more than one person and I think there are a couple of groups producing images on Astrobin but other than that the majority of imagers seem content to work alone.  Is it because most wouldn't want to share credit for an image, or that their feelings of accomplishment would be compromised by being part of a team, albeit in all probability a team of two?  For myself I think it would be a good thing to see more images produced by groups, I reckon it would certainly raise the bar if more good image processers had access to more and better data.  What do you think though, is it likely to become more common or will most imagers continue to work in isolation?

Mike

[ollypenrice]

Obviously since I have guests using the kit I do lots of collaborations that way and I use gear left here by Tom O'D and Yves, so I regard those as collaborations as well. But I've shared data with quite a few SGLers and think it's a great idea. I regard capture as a fairly mechanical process and feel that the real objective is a great image, so the more data the better. I'm all for it.

I'll be interested to see how people feel. Those who come to my place have varied attitudes. Either way's fine by me but personally I like sharing. You can't beat good data by the bucketload!

Registar makes it so easy.

Olly

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I've often wondered the same thing. How deep could a team of a dozen imagers go on a target? People on SGL are often generous when it comes to sharing their time and expertise, so I'm surprised there aren't more collaborative projects.

[ChrisLX200]

I think sharing is a good idea, some people might think you lose the 'I did This' feeling but you don't - you have your own image AND your data goes into the pot for a larger/deeper picture. We just did that on another forum using data collected by 4 or 5 imagers (I forget how many) for ngc6992 and the result is impressive. However, the data needs to be of good quality from all participants, and the project needs someone with the know-how to assemble it all into a final image (that lets me out!). It is no trivial task to process such a big chunk of data of different image scale and possibly with different distortions across the field. It is also going to be a bit harsh to someone's ego to have to say sorry, but your data isn't good enough (not focused, not tracked well enough etc).

ChrisH

[Mike Hawtin]

I think your point about managing the projects is probably the kiss of death Chris.  I for one would be happy to have others use my data but certainly don't have the time to manage and collate all the elements required for a large team.   A small group of two or three could probably work on an informal basis but anything more would be a substantial commitment in terms of time and effort.  Still, even a small group would be interesting to work with so If anyone fancies giving it a bash I would certainly be up for it. 

Mike

[PhotoGav]

All the images on here prove time and time again that more data is only a good thing, so it's a great idea to do some 'huge data pool' projects.

As for the logistics of it... Trying to make an image with just one set of variables is nigh on impossible, so the thought of multiplying that up by the number of different astrophotographers involved is almost madness...

I'm in for the challenge!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ollypenrice]

All the images on here prove time and time again that more data is only a good thing, so it's a great idea to do some 'huge data pool' projects.

As for the logistics of it... Trying to make an image with just one set of variables is nigh on impossible, so the thought of multiplying that up by the number of different astrophotographers involved is almost madness...

I'm in for the challenge!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But do you multiply the problems up or do you divide them out?

Curvature, pixel scale, etc etc is dealt with in a click by Registar.

Olly

[Mike Hawtin]

Why divide them out of course (ah the power of positive thinking).  As for the nuts and bolts of using Registar Olly how do you normally go about it, I've never used it so I've no idea how to drive it.

Mike

[PhotoGav]

But do you multiply the problems up or do you divide them out?

Curvature, pixel scale, etc etc is dealt with in a click by Registar.

No doubt the problems are X to the n, where X = problems and n = no. of APers! Easily factored out by using just one set of subs...

You often mention Registar - good to hear that it is a great solution yet again and I will no doubt end up adding it to the tools arsenal at some point.

[ollypenrice]

Combining subs from diffrent cameras is a great noise and artefact reducer. Sure, they all have to be decent, though.

Registar is child's play. I think there's a free demo. Worth a look. Still you do need to do some manual work though.

Olly

[steppenwolf]

Another positive vote for RegiStar - it is 'clunky' but it only has to do a single task and it does that task supremely well! Ideal for a project such as that being proposed here.

[Mike Hawtin]

Hhmm, quite a few views of the thread but only a couple of takers.  Nobody else interested in having a go?   There's no charge, honest!

Mike

[PhotoGav]

Name the target and scale details!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Hawtin]

Ok, I'll put up.  The Cocoon nebula, I have some quite nice Luminance data 2700 x 1880 pixels at 3.2 arcsec/pixel.

[Mike Hawtin]

And yere bist, 2 panel mosaic 50 x 360 sec each through a C6 HyperStar.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/81737885/Cocoon%20Nebula%20Lum%2050%20stack%20mosaic%20ABE.fit

[Sp@ce_d]

I'll add to the thumbs up for RegiStar, a great tool. I've used it for combining output from my "multishooter" set up. Although I have noticed Pixinsight is getting better at this too.

I'm all for collaboration but I guess it also could be down to competitiveness for some people. Some are so focused they don't make good team players & some do. In a past life as an aspiring musician I've played solo & played in bands. Whilst I'm comfortable with just myself I always missed the spark & buzz you can get when it just works as a team.. What's the saying.. The sum is greater than the parts.. or something like that.

Mind you, you'd have to be a patient bunch. My contribution might take some time to deliver under my skies..

[swag72]

I'm all for collaboration but I guess it also could be down to competitiveness for some people. Some are so focused they don't make good team players & some do. In a past life as an aspiring musician I've played solo & played in bands. Whilst I'm comfortable with just myself I always missed the spark & buzz you can get when it just works as a team.. What's the saying.. The sum is greater than the parts.. or something like that.

I understand the benefits of collaboration, especially for when imaging opportunities are few and far between. On a personal level, I wouldn't particularly want to get involved, but it has nothing to do with competitiveness or not making a good team player as suggested above, In fact I think that to suggest that just because you don't want to be involved in such makes you a bad team player or competitive is rather narrow minded and assumptious. I'm sad to see that this suggestion has come up.

I like to produce a complete image on my own. It gives me a great deal of personal satisfaction to have gone from nothing to a finished image (whatever the quality) having completed each stage with my own work. That is the long and short of it really.

I hope that no one feels I am competitive or not a team player, as I will freely allow people to use my data if they so wish and will offer help and advise where ever I can or when asked.

[Sp@ce_d]

I understand the benefits of collaboration, especially for when imaging opportunities are few and far between. On a personal level, I wouldn't particularly want to get involved, but it has nothing to do with competitiveness or not making a good team player as suggested above, In fact I think that to suggest that just because you don't want to be involved in such makes you a bad team player or competitive is rather narrow minded and assumptious. I'm sad to see that this suggestion has come up.

I like to produce a complete image on my own. It gives me a great deal of personal satisfaction to have gone from nothing to a finished image (whatever the quality) having completed each stage with my own work. That is the long and short of it really.

I hope that no one feels I am competitive or not a team player, as I will freely allow people to use my data if they so wish and will offer help and advise where ever I can or when asked.

Hmm that part didn't quite come over as I had it in my mind then! It's not supposed to be an offensive comment. I'm quite taken aback as that reaction never entered my head, I'm sorry you've taken it that way Sara

I was thinking about a sporting analogy but after being distracted several times while composing seemed to move onto confusing it with trying to equate my experiences working alone or with a group in a creative environment. So maybe competitiveness isn't the right word, whatever the right word is it's the driving force & motivation for doing what we do. Whether you prefer or are best at working in a group or on your own, for whatever reason each to their own. There's no condemnation here of choosing or being better at either.

Anyway, for me I've always enjoyed team stuff more than solo, I seem to focus better and enjoy sharing the satisfaction, whether its in sport or being creative. I admire others that can work better the other way round because if I did I wouldn't have so many unfinished projects waiting for ... "just one more sub"

[swag72]

Hmm that part didn't quite come over as I had it in my mind then! It's not supposed to be an offensive comment. I'm quite taken aback as that reaction never entered my head, I'm sorry you've taken it that way Sara

No problem - Perhaps I just took it the wrong way at silly o'clock in the morning when I went out and the cloud had ruined my subs ........ again

Just as an aside and another thought while I am struggling to collect my last 4 OIII subs on my target - If someone offered them to me now, I'd say 'no thanks' as I'd feel that it was cheating! That's probably one of my biggest things about collaborations, I personally feel like it would be cheating

Anyway you guys - Ignore Grumpy in the corner of Spain - Get on an collaborate I want to see the results

[wuthton]

If you'd want to pool the subs/stacks in one place Google Drive works well. Create a folder then share it between collaborators then each sub that is uploaded counts against each collaborator's drive space rather than one individual account. If you run out of space, just create another gmail account.

[Sp@ce_d]

I fear this subject is just as emotive as using a remote telescope. Whilst I understand & have tried it  personally I feel the same way as Sara about it because I get the most kick out of the capture. I love the techy bit of putting it all together, trying to overcome all that's thrown in the way to achieve that perfect sub. Once I move on to processing if it doesn't go my way I get frustrated & if I don't understand & cant find the answer fairly quickly I'm in danger of leaving it. That's the point where I find collaboration apealling. I also see it as an opportunity to learn and pass on anything I have learnt to somebody else.

[johnrt]

Personally I'm not sure I could bring anything to the table, my subs captured in a a semi urban large village aren't going to do anything for someone living and capturing under dark skies. I capture at under 1 arc sec per pixel which also isn't going to fit in with the vast majority of imagers here in the UK.

For me it's a lot to do triumph over adversity, if it takes me 3 months to beat the weather then so be it, but beat it I will. If someone plops a load of missing subs in my inbox to complete an image I would feel like I had cheated, like Sara. I would not be adverse to adding to my already captured data with some subs from a second party, that's very different, but I doubt that's how anyone else wants to work.

[ChrisLX200]

Personally I'm not sure I could bring anything to the table, my subs captured in a a semi urban large village aren't going to do anything for someone living and capturing under dark skies. I capture at under 1 arc sec per pixel which also isn't going to fit in with the vast majority of imagers here in the UK.

For me it's a lot to do triumph over adversity, if it takes me 3 months to beat the weather then so be it, but beat it I will. If someone plops a load of missing subs in my inbox to complete an image I would feel like I had cheated, like Sara. I would not be adverse to adding to my already captured data with some subs from a second party, that's very different, but I doubt that's how anyone else wants to work.

That's pretty much how the last group project worked out, contributers already had the data to hand - I did not take any additional subs for me to contribute to the group effort and I already had my finished image.

It might work better if the project was confined to a certain instrument, or class of instrument. For e.g., there must be many owners of Tak FSQ106's out there and data from all those would combine well (for luminance anyway). Adding chrominance data from other types of scope might also work I suppose for LRGB, but not NB data. It would be no good one person collecting sharp hi-res data with tight stars via a quality refractor for it then to get swamped with fat stars (with diffraction spikes) from a reflector, even though it may go deeper.

Also, it would be necessary to 'choose' a target where such a group effort might be beneficial, probably something very faint which makes for long exposures. What does more data get you? It reduces background noise to a minimum and above that threshold you can tease out the faint stuff - given enough high quality data. You would also need to bias the data so longer subs are collected to get the most benefit (30mins for example).

ChrisH

[Mike Hawtin]

Perhaps I was being simplistic but what I had in mind was that some of us have better skies and  more clear nights, others not so fortunate might have better processing skills.  It seemed to me that bringing those two elements together would produce far better images than either individual working in isolation could achieve.  I think the best example of this two person approach is the work done by Greg Parker and Noel Carboni, I very much doubt either of them considers themselves to be the junior partner in the arrangement and quite rightly so.  I think larger groups using a range of scopes and cameras and all having different demands on their time would be unwieldy and frustrating to bring together, and inevitably some poor soul would wind up being the muggins trying to keep things moving along.

Mike

[ollypenrice]

Regarding different pixel scales, it's an advantage. In this way I often collaborate with myself. (Sounds mildly perverse!) I'll often add high res from the TEC140 to widefields from the Tak and I'm thinking of using an Atik 320E with tiny pixels to boost key areas shot in the large pixel full frame cameras. You have to do this with restraint or it looks very obvious but I think it can be seamless. For example a little bit of this...

went into this...

It isn't compulsory to want to collaborate and it isn't cheating to do so if  the declared intention is to produce a team effort. It would be cheating to steal data, as we'd all agree. I'm playing a supporting role in a couple of Tom's current head banging projects. Since I'm in my sixties already my only worry is never seeing them finished. 

The guys with the robotic scopes at my place and I have been talking about an annual one-image collaboration as well. Could be fun. Going insanely deep, for instance, on some faint little devil or other.

Olly