Kinch

Thanks for that......the all important colour is that blue dot in the middle 😏

This time I used the scope at native f/5 but the previous time I did this target it was with an extender @ f/8 ( See https://www.kinchastro.com/jones-emberson-1.html) . That earlier one quite possibly may be a 'prettier' picture....but it now looks overdone to me. I like this later one better BUT as I said....it probably could do with more exposure time to improve SNR.

Thanks Martin. I put a lot of processing time into this.....hopefully it does not look over-processed. I have two monitors here (one being 4k high resolution) and it is hard to find a spot where it looks OK on both.

Hi Nicolas. I used the FSQ130ED with 5nm filters. It may be that after my last target wich was the most dim one I have ever imaged - I found the signal on JE1 to be reasonably strong. I too had done this target before and (unlike yours) I think perhaps this second one is not as nice looking as my 1st........so if I have time, I might go look see if I can combine the data from the two sessions...🤔. If I get the chance to get more data though I will do that instead ..... this is only 14 hours and I stopped only because no prospect for good weather for quite some time as per forecast. The SNR is this one is not good - so it definitely needs more time.

Thanks for the comment - appreciated.

...I know exactly what you mean.....sometimes I have so many different versions of an image....I just give up and go back to one of the originals. 🤓

Both are great 👀 - no need to decide between them. 👍

Thanks Richard - all good here. (No point in me complaining about my weather problems here - nowhere near as bad what some are experiencing in the British Isles just now!)

This is a target that I have not 'looked at' in some years.....it was recently just in the right palce at the right time....other than having to fight very high humidity to get the Ha & OIII data. (6 hours each Ha & OIII with 2 hours RGB) Jones-Emberson 1 (PK 164+31.1) is a planetary nebula in the constellation Lynx at a distance of 1600 light years. It is a larger planetary with low surface brightness. The 16.8-magnitude central star is a very blue white dwarf.

Great job - well done.

Looks to me that the de-noise is doing all the critical work. As you said above....it is a fine line! Nothing more (of my point of view) that I can add for now....I will watch with interest as I am sure there will be many more opinions to come.

That is not exactly my thinking on what I am doing. In my processing I try to pull the detail out that my scope and camera have captured. I will never get the detail with a 5" refractor that someone with a 17" Planewave will get....so I know there are limits. Overall it is that challenge that keeps me going. If the software too easily removes/lessens the challenge that I have with my gear.....then I think I would lose interest. It is not a matter of just making pretty pictures - we can do that perhaps anytime - and indeed some people do it with pretty colours. We are all in this for different reasons - and that is precisely why some people will buy this software and others won't. Neither approach is right or wrong - but it would be nice to know (when we are looking at someone else's image) because it appears to make such a fundamental difference to the final image.

But that is what is changing.....you will find in time that if you are the only one not using such a tool, then yours will be the worst looking image regardless of the time & effort you put in getting the data and putting your years of processing back into the final image. For me....we cannot stop this ....but until is is more common and generally used, I would just love people to let me know that Topaz AI is in the equation somewhere.

Interesting.....is (for me anyway) doing more than de-noise and I think this explains how final images have that OOOOHH factor. In the end a personal choice.....

I was not involved in any discussions - so cannot point to them, sorry. I believe that this first raised its head when a guy named Wassam Ayub (I may have spelt his name wrong) got a NASA APOD for an image that was so detailed....with the help of the Topaz software. I myself thought that image was brilliant (like yours here) but I can't help wondering if I am ready to accept this tool just yet. Looking back on how astrophotography has delveloped and improved over the years one must look at this software as just another tool. Being a tool that (as far as I can see) has such a huge impact on the finished image and as we are in the early days of it being used, I would just like to know when it has impacted on the image that I am looking at. Eventually, most if not all astro photographers may use this or similar and we wont bat an eyelid......but I doubt that it will be acceptable to professional astronomers if it does actually fill in the gaps where the noise was taken out. Like you, I would love to see a good evaluation of what it actually does. For my small trial - I did not get too excited about it....but that does not mean that at some time in the future I will again decline to buy it and use it.

This has been talked about elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge, when it removes noise it replaces the data with what it "perceives" to be the correct missing colour. This is why it has "AI" in the name. There is little doubt in my mind that it makes astro images look very detailed but whether or not this detail is real or not is up for discussion. If we don't know it is real do we still use it? I think it is personal choice. I downloaded the software and tried it a couple of times - not on anything subsequently put on line......I was just trying it out for myself. I did not buy it in the end. There will be arguments for & against it but for me - I don't want to use it. I have no objection to other people using it but what I would like to see though - is the fact that it is in use mentioned alongside all other data for the image. That way we know what to expect and judge the images accordingly. Some will love the images because of its use, others may detest them......I personally will look at each one on its own merit......just like the colour in NB images.....some I like....some I hate. Brendan.

A fantastic image that invites one in to browse - well done.

If imaging - you always use the metal back distance......simply because that is the one you can measure. It reality, it is only a guide because you can move the focuser in/out.....but it helps you decide what extension tubes (if any) you need.

Not sure - but perhaps the Backfocus length (higher number) is the distance from the back lense. The one to work with is the Metal back focus otherwise known as metal back distance.

Thanks very much Jeremy. I hope you had a chance to look at larger versions (with the details) via the thumbnails @ https://www.kinchastro.com/2020-images.html Kinch.

......thanks so much Mick 👍

Nicolas - you are a star..... I have downloaded it and will install tomorrow. As on the previous occassion - my scope & computer are at work (never mind the moon or new years eve.....there are important photons to capture 🙂 )

We all have our favourites :-). I said it elsewhere (different forum) that I would find it hard to choose. Not always the final best images are the ones I like best...it is the ones I fought hardest to produce that will do it for me.....assuming they are OK in the end that is. More likely than not they are also the less imaged areas....just because they are not too easy.....above....I might be inclined to pick the Flying Dragon......but - yes - deep down, I like them all 🤣

I actaully never stop complaining abiout the weather here also....but you are right, I have been lucky. Some clear nights though are a pain for me - I live by the sea and the relative humidity is always a battle that I won't win....but at least I can limit the damage (....years of experience 🙂 )

Hi Carole...... imaging the night sky has now taken over my life (almost)....glad I have something positive coming out of 2020 🙂