Rodd

Thanks Doc. I am pleased with thd nebula, so the halos don’t ruin it for me. But they still annoy me

I don’t care for difraction spikes, but they are understandable. They are not a defect. They are a product of telescope design. Halos are a defect.

An otherwise decent image ruined by halos. I really need to get a new camera. h...and that is a huge expense. I guess, in the end, it is not sustainable one way or the other. But.....too soon. FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and asi 1600. About 27 hours LRGB

Thanks Olly. I wonder how different the image would look if the same data was taken from Bortle 1 with seeing < 1”, a guide rms of .25”, and live focus (like innovative foresight) with pe TV fee Ed ct focus at all times

I am frequently amazed at the details revealed with a 4” scope, which seem beyond the resolution of 2.46”/pix. I hypothesized that this is in part due to the general lack of very fine details in many nebula compared to galaxies, where big aperture and long focal length almost always reveals more and more as resolution increases. But, whole true in general, in this case, that is bunk reasoning….for there is allot of details in this nebula. A good example is a portion of the Soul Nebula I shot with the FSQ and the same area with the C11Edge. Not much difference. Maybe if seeing had been good the C11 image would have trounced the FSQ, if more details are to be found. That’s was 2.46”/pix vs .4”/pix (binned to .8”/pix). Hard to say. If seeing is limiting my C11, it makes it a poor choice for me as the FOV is most unsatisfying. This image was taken with FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and asi 1600. About 20 hours of 300sec subs.

Thanks potat….tomato. You know, I wish I could improve my skills with PI to accomplish the same end, as I think there are some detriments to the use of the simpler tools. But in this case, I think #2 is better.

T you!

Thanks, Olly. Well, no telling what the tide will bring in during a sea change! Contrast this with 5 years ago, when PI was a veritable taboo in your playbook. I note you use blur xterminator. I find that tool to be magic. Have you tried noise exterminator? It may not be as important for you since your images tend not to be very noisy. But I find it to be magic as well. Much better than the PI noise suppression tools. All the Russel Croman tools are excellent.

I can accomplish it in PI, but it takes allot of care and multiple tools with multiple iterations before I find the change I like. With my phone I just slide the slider a big and it’s done. Most of the time, however, I don’t use it as it compresses the data or hurts the stars. Only sometimes, like with this image

There is allot going for this target IMO, if we’ll done like this one. The nebula appears to be floating “in” space, as opposed to stuck on it. The star field is nice, and the central blue star stands out like a jewel, it’s blue light accentuated by the blue in the nebula. Finally, the small extensions left and right gives the eye s road to travel. “B” list? Nothing is B list in the hands of a master. It speaks to an adage of mine: “all FOVs can be amazing.”

Thanks!

I usually don’t only because the tools available to me tend to compress the data, or for some reason turns a 5 mb image into a .5 mb image. Sometimes it doesn't happen, for minor tweaks. The tools are very basic. I guess I need to find another I tried GIMP, but it being more similar to PS, It was not intuitive. Then again I tried it when I was just starting out, so I had trouble with everything

It amazes me that what I can't accomplish using AP dedicated imaging processing software, I can accomplish with a few small tweaks using Windows based generic processing tools. I think the windows-based software--like what came on my laptop, which is similar to what is available on my iphone, is similar to rudimentary PS tools--but I am only guessing. It certainly is not in the vein of PI. Often, editing images using these tools results in a monstrous size reduction, which I do not like. That alone is reason to stay clear. But sometimes, a slight tweak can result in definite improvement without reducing the file. Anyway--here is the image. The first one is the original processed solely on PI. The following image is after slight adjustments on my laptop. One of the tweaks was a slight crop because I prefer a slanted orientation. That is not really part of what I am talking about. That didn't change the image--just its dimensions. Original PI only New, PI and Windows tools.

Thanks, Peter.

Thanks, Sunshine! The trick was keeping them from popping too much!

I thought it worthwhile to post this. I have been trying to get this data into a decent state. This is my clearest, sharpest version. The Ha is for the most part on, and the dark structures in the galactic disc prominent. The trickiest aspect of this project was the palette. I can only imagine what the data would look like collected from a dark site with good seeing! C11Edge with .7x reducer and ASI 1600. 28 hours 48’

Thanks, Peter. The saturation is giving me angst. Maybe becuase my lap top is using HDR. But it looks really pale on my Iphone. I changed images--a bit more collor

Here's another combo imagfe. Ha collected with C11 Edge and OIII collected with TOA 130. I intend to collect OIII with the C11, but I get inopatient and wanted to see how it would look. Not bad. The Ha was collected during a full Super Moon, and there is only about 3 hours of it, so it will improve as signal is built (hopefully in good seeing). Data was registered to the C11 Ha, then binned 2x2. I removed about 1/2 the green. C11Edge and .7x reducer with ASI 1600 - Ha: 36 300 sec; TOA 130 native with STT-8300 - OIII: 15 1800 sec. Total integration about 10.5 hours.

Fooling around on my phone. Not a bad suite of processing tools for basic tweaks. Not much left in this one, I’m afraid without much more data

Rgb palettes rule. I love them. Unrequited love, I’m afraid (a couple of dalliances, but overall I am a male spinster). Interesting the you have succeeded in faking a Hubble palette from HaRGB. The other way I am familiar with (mostly with bicolor). Your HaRGB is sweet. I have incorporated the 3 RC tools into my work flow in a semi- religious fashion. I find them incredible. Your acquisition skills and processing expertise came together for this one

Yes, in narrowband images the Ha as a luminance takes it to another level. I have found this is not the case for bicolor images, like the veil or thor’s helmet. But for SHO images it cleans up the image and excentuates the detail.

Another happy accident from a frustrating issue. Poer issues remain regarding my mount. Periodic stops due to electrical issues continue to plaugue me. This time I tightened up the connection and truned the mount off and on, and it seemed to work. There is an indication that it happens at higher declination. As before my target was out of position and I had to reorient the mount after the failyre. I chose Gamma Cas as it was in a good position for looking down the tube in efforts to get it in the FOV. Once I did, I decided to image the druid. The Super Moon was full and seeing was terrible. I aklmost packed it in. But I had to make sure the mount was working, so I recalibrated the guider and collected 24 subs. Only 11 ended up iseable as poor seeing cuased terrible guiding. I deleated everything in frustration and am glad I came to my senses and retreived the files. With only 11 subs (55 minutres), I think it would be worth completing this one as an HaRGB image. My goal is to collect several more hours of Ha then RGB when the Moon receedes. C11Edge with .7x reducer and ASI 1600, Bin 2. 11 300 sec Ha subs

There was a lot of pre processing for this dud to the wildly different focal lengths and quality. The RC tools came in handy. I r Ed moved the stars from the OIII and SII prior to combination and used the Ha stars. After this, it was a straight forward HaSHO image (I used the Ha as luminance). I used the histogram to equalize the palette and scnr green ( a pixinsight tool) to remove green to get the blue you like. I think C11 OIII snd SII will improve the depth and help with softness.

Couldn t resist. I registered FSQ 106 and .6x reducer data to this data and created a HaSHO image. Not too bad for 318mm data and 1960 mm data. Of course, it helps immensely that the Ha is the C11 data!

Maybe for the pac man and galaxies. But for most extended targets, it is quite limiting.