Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_2019_sp_banner.thumb.jpg.a0ff260c05b90dead5c594e9b4ee9fd0.jpg

Rodd

Members
  • Content Count

    5,278
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Rodd last won the day on October 13

Rodd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,922 Excellent

2 Followers

About Rodd

  • Rank
    Main Sequence

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Astrophotography, music, the wilderness
  • Location
    CT

Contact Methods

  • Yahoo
    rodddryfoos@yahoo.com
  1. Thanks Alex--I remember seeing this but did not really give it much thought. I guess I should attempt to use it......PI does not play well with my computers at times. Scripts do not lode, and I get memory freeze errors when using some of the dynamic processes (DBE, DC, etc.) even though I have plenty of memory. Often, rebooting the computer fixes it (but you can see how that would be a frustrating step in anyone's workflow!--especially since I do not have the memory capacity to work in projects very often. Sin Juan Carcenejo can't duplicate my problems, the PI team can be of no help. Anyway, I see the warning about freezing. I hope it works
  2. I don't know enough about the process to say. I do see the utility of being able to stretch the nebula and stars separately. Will star tools work with PI directly or is it totally separate
  3. Ahhh--you didn't put all the stars back in. But that shouldn't impact the background. It has definitely been reduced, or something as there is much less variation in the dynamic range.
  4. Now I got it--sometimes it takes 10 clicks. What did you do to the background....it looks much better
  5. Interesting. Must get Star tools
  6. Depends on the FL really--matching pixel size with scope. I must stress--anything untoward in the above images is teh result of bad processing (except the microlensing effect)
  7. No--as in terrible background, you have to look at full resolution.
  8. You did something else--I can't go to full resolution vieiwing.
  9. How did you do that? It looks marvelous! I use of bit of morpological transformation, or a good star mask and cures--but never get such a perfect look in the stras. Is it me or has the background been disturbed? Maybe the stars hid the defects in the background Rodd
  10. But the background is poor in kaf image
  11. I think the only thing better about the kaf image is that star. The asi image is better in almost every way. But as I said, this is probably a processing cause Rodd
  12. Great work Alan. That looks very nice. I really like the palette. This one is low for me too. I have a short window that is usually commandeered by cumulonimbus. I have trouble with flats too, because my filter wheel doesn’t line up accurately. I have no choice but to take flats before any filter change. A lot of extra work I use a flat man from optec It works great. Very reproducible results for all filters ( I wish it could be brighter for Ha though. I need to take 40 sec Ha flats. But it was definitely worth the money Rodd
  13. Folks have asked about these two sensors and I thought as long as I have the same target taken with the same scope (TOA 30) with the same amount of total expoure time (about 6 hours) I would post them. A bit of irony is I used a reducer for the STT-8300 (KAF 8300) image, and I binned the ASI 1600 image 2x2 in software. For this reason the images are the same resolution (1.59 arcsec/pix) but the FOVs are different. I think the brightness difference between the images is do to me stretching the STT-8300 more aggressively--which resulted in a very inferior background and struggling stars. I also oversharpened the KAF data, and pretty much over processedthe image as a whole. I like all but one star better in teh ASI 1600 image--the only one tht really counts! Its interesting to note that the FWHM for the STT-8300 image is around 5"/pix and for the ASI 1600 its about 3.5"/pix (not to bad for a resolution of 1.59, at least not for me--processing usually increases my FWHM) ASI 1600 KAF-8300
  14. Very dramatic. I was going to comment of putting stars back i PI--but Richard said it better than I ever could Rodd
  15. I think it is darned good. I would bring the brightness of the ring way down. Bightness steals dynamic range and color. I bet if you bring the brightness down you will start to see more details and structure. Rodd
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.