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.



Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

400 Excellent

About Adreneline

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Mathematics, Music, Motorbikes
  • Location
  1. Adreneline

    Had enough

    Hi. I use SGP and it is not totally devoid of problems but on the whole it is reliable once setup. I tried APT but I just couldn't get on with it. I always meridian flip manully. I've found if my PA is good and I've gone through a 3-star alignment type process with CdC then when I flip I'm always very close to the target and a few jogs with EQMOD get me spot on. I compare with a pre-flip image (the 180 image flip button in SGP comes in very handy). WIn10 updates can be a pain but to be fair (in the grand scheme of things) they don't happen that often. For me the biggest frustration of all is clouds - where do they all come from?! When the gods are against you and it all seems not worth the effort I find a good sized glass of Rioja does the trick! HTH Adrian
  2. I have used both and I only tend to use Registar if PI is having problems - which is rare. PI contains two processes that I know of StarAlignment and DynamicAlignment. The first works consistently well when registering images from my CCDs - I've never had any problems. If I am combining images derived from different OTAs and/or different CCDs/dslr then DynamicAlignment works amazingly well nearly every time; only on rare occasions have I had to use Registar. I don't regret buying Registar but since buying PI it is rarely used. As for PI I would not be without the BackgroundExtraction, noise reduction and stretch facilities it offers. I still liket use PS to manipulate colour but that is probably because I have been too lazy to learn how to do it well in PI! Adrian
  3. Adreneline


    Amazing image Rodd - thanks for sharing and inspiring. Adrian
  4. Adreneline

    NGC 7000 reprocess

    Very interesting - thank you. I'll perhaps revisit some of my recent images and have a play. Thanks again. Adrian
  5. Adreneline

    NGC 7000 reprocess

    Looking good! Was that in PI? Adrian
  6. Adreneline

    Pacman : PixelMath vs. Annie's Astro Action

    Thank you for the explanation. Adrian
  7. Adreneline

    NGC 7000 reprocess

    I've recently bought one of these and I love it! I also have the 85mm but have had a lot of trouble getting the spacing right to use it with either of my Atik cameras. The 135mm alongside my ZS71 and ED90DS give me lots of flexibility in terms of imaging and FoV. I consider myself very fortunate that I managed to buy PS Extended CS6 on an education license several years ago at a massive saving compared with the list price at the time. I would be very reluctant to enter into the on-going deal they offer now. Good luck! Adrian
  8. Adreneline

    NGC 7000 reprocess

    Hello Richard, I'm afraid I don't although I am sure it must be possible and someone is bound to pop up and tell us both how do to it! And yes, I did it on the second image. I use both PI and PS and I'm in the camp that feels that when it come to manipulating colour PS is easier than PI. Certainly PI scores when it comes to pre-processing, background extraction, noise reduction and detail enhancement but I like manipulating colour in PS. Olly Penrice advised me on using 23:23:23 as a 'neutral background' and then it seems the only problem is determining which part in a sea of nebulosity should be set to background - if any! Having said that I don't always use 23:23:23 if I feel it detracts from the target I am trying to image. I certainly feel that if you like the look of it then that is what matters and the wealth of interpretation one sees on this forum is what makes the hobby interesting and educational. Good luck. Adrian P.S. Can I ask what equipment you used to obtain this image?
  9. Adreneline

    Pacman : PixelMath vs. Annie's Astro Action

    Haha. That makes sense now. I'll get it fixed! Thanks again. Adrian
  10. Adreneline

    NGC 7000 reprocess

    Hope you don't mind @Scooot but I took your image and set the background to R:G:B - 23:23:23 in the 'Baffin Bay' region of the image and produced a sort of go-between / ccompromise end result. I don't know whether it is right or wrong in terms of colours but it maintains the definition of NGC7000 whilst still leaving the surrounding star field and nebulosity intact. Really like the widefield view of this region. Adrian
  11. I cannot disagree more. The detail is very good with lots of structure clearly visible. The image has depth and there is a real sense of 3D to the bubble. I would be very happy if that was my image. As for the colours? Colours are very subjective - detail is very objective - it's there or it's not and in your case IMHO it's there in spades. Don't beat yourself up vlaiv - you should be well pleased with your first NB image. Adrian
  12. Adreneline

    Pacman : PixelMath vs. Annie's Astro Action

    Hi Rodd, Sorry - I'm a bit confused by this - I think one should be PM and the PS but I'm not sure which is which Adrian
  13. Adreneline

    Pacman : PixelMath vs. Annie's Astro Action

    Hi Olly, This is probably a naive question but recognising that I map Ha:OIII:OIII to R:G:B in equal measure (as in PixelMath) is it reasonable to assume that if I sample the image in PI or PS at a significant number of places around the image then I ought to find the average for R, G and B are all equal in value. I can understand that if I image in RGB and assign to RGB then there might be variations in each of them and the average values might differ. Now I am sure if I use mode, median or mean to represent my 'average' then I might get different results again! The beauty of Mathematics and the frustration of Statistics. I think I understand that if I use a dslr with R:G:B in the ratio 1:2:1 then there might be an 'imbalance' in the colour. I think I understand why cmos sensors in dslr's have RGB in the ratio 1:2:1; the eye is far more sensitive to green than red or blue and so an image with RGB in the ratio 1:1:1 would not look right to our eyes. We would immediately want to add green to make it look right - I think. Of course it may all be down to how raw data is converted to png, or jpg or tif - all of which I know nothing. I think I've said enough to unleash a can or worms - or two - or more! Or is it all a red herring? Or am I thinking too much? Thanks. Adrian
  14. Adreneline

    Pacman : PixelMath vs. Annie's Astro Action

    Thanks are due to @AngryDonkey for the PixelMath example. My approach was much less sophisticated and as presented on the LightVortexAstronomy website, namely: R : Ha ; G : OIII ; B : OIII R : Ha ; G : (0.4xHa)+(0.6xOIII) ; B : OIII [playing with the 0.4 and 0.6 produce different results) Good luck! Adrian
  15. Adreneline

    Pacman : PixelMath vs. Annie's Astro Action

    Thanks Mike. I will give it a go and see what result it produces on my Pacman. I understand there are no doubt limitless possibilities to exoeriment with colour combinations in PixelMath. Annie's Actions require you to make adjustment to Levels in PS as part of the Action and so again, limitless possibilities. Thanks for looking and for the advice on PI. Adrian

Important Information

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