x6gas

Thanks for all the comments and likes. I managed to capture a few more subs last week and I've done two complete reprocesses. In total I captured around 80 subs for each channel but the SNR was low in many of them as the sky was getting quite light. The first reprocess used the best 50 frames of each channel (so a total integration time of 12.5 hours) and I've done a couple of versions: I was still a bit bothered about the star shapes (the Esprit 150 is getting near the limit for my CEM60) so for the second reprocess I selected the best 35 frames for each channel (total integration time 8.75 hours) specifically refining the eccentricity value of each frame... For some reason this data set was quite hard to process as - oddly enough - I had trouble stretching the RGB file: a good stretch on the galaxy was leaving the background sky very, very dark. I've never had this before... Anyway, another couple of renditions. As ever there are things I like about all four versions and I'm having a tough time deciding on my favourite. I have enjoyed processing this object - and I've learnt a lot about PixInsight (even more on the reprocesses and I adopted new processes, different stacking parameters, normalisation, subframe weighting etc., etc - and it's nice to see small galaxies captured all over the frame.... but I'm done now! I've been staring at it too long and I've got other targets to process so I'm calling these final. Thanks for looking, take care, and clear skies.

Topics for future talks: stretching images This was the thing that got me most confused when I started (trying to stretch images in DSS) but how I stretch my stacks is the thing that most influences my final images; it's an obvious thing to say but small changes in my stretch have a big impact on the final image including colour balance etc.

Yeeeep, that's it James. I think it's not a problem if you only have one webcam, audio device etc but it can cause problems if your computer thinks you have more than one (including, I think, hardware that reports a "no hardware" option). That said, Carole can get an RPi running astro software so she's not easily curve-balled!

Zoom has its own settings for webcams, microphones and speakers Carole so maybe your Zoom settings were off. I really enjoyed and you will too (though as a seasoned imager I expect you won't learn much!)

This is a brilliant idea and I can't wait. Thanks for arranging. Ian

Welcome to the forum. Very sensible choices by the way!

Yes I'd have thought you'd want to be registering the calibrated frames. It's one of the reasons I don't use RegiStar in my regular workflow as I can't be bothered to do the calibration in PixInsight (which prefers it's own file type), then do the registration in RegiStar and go back to PI for stacking etc. However, I am curious to see what the outcome would be and I've never tried it so I'll give it a go when I have a minute...

Really sorry to read this... what scumbags... but an odd thing to try to steal so I wonder if they were actually just trying to get inside to try to nick what they thought might have been inside? As Olly and others have said, fibreglass is very repairable. I have a couple of Lotus cars and the bodies are all made of GRP and Olly has described accurately how they are repaired and it looks seamless and if done properly is no less strong than when the fibreglass was originally laid. Halfords used to stock a patch kit with matting and resin that was good for small repairs... Really hope the damage is not too bad...

Almost missed this one - glad I didn't! 😉 Lovely images and great to see the improvement over your previous version.

Ah OK - that's interesting. I wonder if there would be a further improvement if you used RegiStar for all of the subs alignment? Be interesting to see if there was a perceptible difference...

That's very kind of you to say Mark - especially since the Whale has been a popular target with some excellent images posted on here. I know what you mean about following other people's workflow for PI and the problems that can cause. It's why it's so important for me to know what fiddling with the mind-boggling array of parameters actually does as opposed to random experimentation (which would take forever). I find the UI/UX to be quite poor - it feels like it has been written by coders with little regard to ease of use (for example not allowing spaces in naming conventions, lack of separate easy and advanced selection panels etc., etc. and as I say very patchy official documentation). All that said, I don't underestimate how hard it is to create something as complex as PI; it is extremely capable and the creators have to be given great credit - not least for the care they have taken to preserve data integrity. I am enjoying getting to grips with it...

Thanks Ciarán, much appreciated. So you've tempted me into it. Here is the full beans version. Well I say that, but actually it doesn't look too garish to my eyes this morning and of course it's always possible to keep pushing the saturation... perhaps I'm just too conservative!

Great to see this progress Chris - well done! Keep going and never give up! There is a lot to learn (one of the things I love about this hobby is that there is always more to know) but I think astrophotography is enormously rewarding.

Lovely captures and processing. I must confess that I bit the bullet and bought RegiStar ages ago because at that point it was the only software I could find that allowed me to register images of different scales captured on different kit. It is eyewateringly expensive for a one trick pony but as has been pointed out time and again - and proven in this thread - it does that trick really well. Now all that said I do tend only to use it in special cases but your results will spur me to do some comparisons of alignment using RegiStar, AstroArt and PixInsight to see what the difference is. Interesting thread, thanks.

Very nice Mark. I like your sympathetic processing... admittedly Miguel has shown that the core of the galaxy could live with a bit more sharpening but overall I think your original process stands up very well.

You should be pleased with that - nicely processed.

Very nice.

That's lovely and very impressive with relatively modest total integration time.

Lovely image - and I think you've judged the noise perfectly. Congrats!

Thanks Adam. I think I do too, but I generally like to try to process things to look au naturale. Actually I was going to post an even racier (for me!) version but I decided I was getting addicted to increasing saturation and vibrancy so dialled it back a bit (sometimes less is more...!) Clear skies mate!

Thanks Josh. Needs patience at this time of year doesn't it - clear skies but no astronomical darkness. I suspect that when I reprocess this and am a bit more picky with the subs I use I'll be down to 2/3rds or even half the total data...

Hi all, Here's a couple of renditions of NGC 4361 / Caldwell 32 the Whale Galaxy in the constellation of Canes Venatici. Kit: Esprit 150; Atik OAG; Atik EFW2.2; Astrodon filters; Atik 460ex; iOptron CEM60EC Data: 300s subs (R 61; G 57; B 55) for a total integration time of 14.4 hours. This has taken a good while to process mostly because I'm still learning and experimenting with PixInsight; as we all know it's a powerful program but I want to try to understand what I am doing rather than just follow recipes blindly and it's hard work because the documentation is frankly terrible (some of it is ridiculously detailed and complex and other basic things aren't covered at all... as a result some of the online tutorials are misleading or just plain wrong so it's difficult to know what is trustworthy - sorry, rant over!) In this image I bunged all of the subs into the stacks just to see what would happen compared to being more selective. The data was pretty patchy too with quite a few subs taken in lightening skies and a couple that had tracking errors. I did finally get some positive results using deconvolution following the excellent tips on Jon Rista's blog (never had any success with deconvolution in AstroArt no matter how hard I tried). I am going to reprocess the data with tightly selected subs to provide a comparison and I'll post that when done. This one is a little more gentle in all respects: Thanks for looking. Ian

69 Francis? Don't believe it!

Yeah well I've long wished for a visit to Les Granges so when this pandemic is over I should make it happen a bag a few of those targets that are too low for me...

It's just maybe a little turquoise so can you isolate the sky and tweak it with selective colour in PS? What was this taken with?