geeklee

Wow @Stuart1971 That's not subtle, that's superb. 👍

I think this is the question I've been wondering to - is BlurX giving me what my telescope might resolve in perfect conditions and limited/no atmospheric effects... or something slightly less / more? I'd guess these scopes would get the benefit of this tool as well, perhaps not to the same degree but as the images are already (usually) very good, this tool would elevate them again. Fantastic. Serious improvement on an already very good image. What setting did you use for "Sharpen Nonstellar" ? Did you use the "Nonstellar then Stellar" option?

@david_taurus83 Is this to help with quick release of an ASIAIR? I'd like to switch my RedCat back to the Black-CAT mounting for EAF but want to get the ASIAIR on and off quickly. By default the screwed in connection means you can't access (easily?) when it's all together. Apologies - slightly off topic. I'll make up for it with an image of my AM5 ready to go a few evenings back.

Colour & noise aside. The BlurX one on the bottom has barely had anything done to it. The one on the top took me many hours last year. BlurX resampled to match original finished image. Just cropped and AutoSTF for comparison. Hmmm.... EDIT: Ran BlurX with reduced settings so it wasn't so glaringly different. With BlurX settings quite high:

It's going to be an interesting tool to experiment with. I've found using deconvolution in PI previously at longer focal lengths has gotten me a subtle but noticeable benefit. I've tested on some recent data at medium FL - 675mm - and found again a noticeable benefit for sure, certainly not in any concerning way (i.e. anything made up). My data was average it it managed to make it slightly less average . I have seen some images going about where the "after" result is quite staggering in the difference. Like a lot of processes (all?) good data in should mean good data out! It's the star size reduction and sharpening that was much more obvious and probably welcome in some cases. Here are a couple of my short FL examples at full resolution (they are crops). RedCat + 294MM + 3.5nm Ha. Left original, right BlurX. These are a touch too strong perhaps, but for IC443, the original looked good anyway... for 250mm (3.8"PP)!

That's not very fair. You had made some quite harsh statements about the ASIAIR that went beyond general observations and personal experience. Some of these were called out. 🙂 Your contribution on experience of a mini-PC and the benefits it provides is very welcome and as valuable as anything else in this topic 👍

Well said Stu. I think there can be an undercurrent of snobbery towards the ASIAIR (which of course everyone will deny 😅). Ecosystems have their place for some - there are clear advantages (and disadvantages depending on your point of view) For the record - I use a mini-PC (I use Voyager or NINA) and an ASIAIR. I'm a "techie" and I miss not being able to look under the hood on the ASIAIR but it's the one that - at the moment - I enjoy using the most (despite its limitations). This is a pretty weak statement - how many other imaging types are there? It's not like ASIAIR users are missing 67 other key types. It's primarily a DSO imaging imaging platform with support for planetary imaging too I believe. EDIT: I think it's amazing the options we have available to us - especially the software features that make DSO imaging easier, on all platforms!

Thanks for posting these examples @ONIKKINEN As enjoyable to view as many "big versions" I've seen. You still get a sense of the detail.

Where is this mythical place with so much green?! 🤣

@tomato @Tomatobro What does the engagement look like on that? I have to admit I didn't think it seemed very good on mine so designed and printed a pully like a lot of the 3rd party solutions. Its belt engagement is perfect with the 2GT. My Samyang ring (Canon fit) doesn't seem like it would be the same.

Great result @alexd Holmberg IX just, just coming through too 👍 I have a couple of hours of 7nm Ha from a year or two back. It's around the same image scale - you'd be welcome to it. It would just need registered with your master and then you can play with adding it (various methods available). If it's no good, you can throw it out! Preview, but I can supply the FITS file.

Super set of images Lucas and well worth opening the big mosaic at full size to appreciate the detail captured at this FL.

For longer integration deep sky imaging, I'm not sure I'd agree with some of this thread. When you increase gain you reduce the full well, couple this with increasing exposure and you will also clip more pixels. This is evident in all images above. Modern CMOS cameras have exceptionally low read noise at unity gain - the 533MC especially is already only ~1.5e at Gain 100 (unity). Typically I'd see higher gain for EAA where really short exposures are being used to live stack. Alternatively perhaps with an OSC narrowband filter. The full well at gain 300 is under 2000, 360 maybe 800, unity gain 100 is ~18,000. Saying all that, for single shots to show off or test, then anything works if it works for you 😊 To be fair, if you're happy then that's also all that matters.

Thanks Olly. I had spotted some clipped nebulosity when I went to look at the data again wondering if I'd been too hasty resampling it (I hadn't). In trying to balance the faint stuff so much I made a classic mistake of forgetting another key element of the image. If there are other points clipped, do call them out so I can review 👍 It was the eastern Veil I was thinking - it has some tricky ranges.

Fantastic job - it is very difficult to balance the squid against the Ha in a natural way.

I'm surprised how this is related as the structures I highlighted look about the same strength & size as those that do appear. Yes, ultra narrow band filters are brilliant. I wish had more than one set!

No, I agree. I wouldn't want to publish the above with the "super stretch" at any "size" beyond that - the data can't back it up. Resampling data in software obviously provides us with more width to push an image. You can see from a small snippet above showing an AutoSTF of my master stack that StarX played a very positive role in letting me deal with the nebulosity and stars separately (and really peg back the stars).

Thanks @ollypenrice I spent some time on Astrobin reviewing other wide and very wide field images to guage how accurate this - hopefully - is. Dismissing a lot of images along the way. Super stretching a resampled version of the above hopefully still shows a true - or close to true - picture.

@gorann Is it just a trait of these dual NB filters that all images come out red so it looks like the background Ha is so strong? I m pondering on this based on the below structure(s). How would this structure be clear in my Ha image, but I'm missing all that other "faint Ha"? Your image has this structure and the one to the left (I think) missing or behind the background Ha? Here's my raw stack, Auto-STF in PI

I've given up thinking I'll get the OIII to give this the extra data it deserves. Hopefully next year 🙂. This is ~5h (108x180s) of Ha across a couple of nights in November. Conditions weren't great, with another 30-40 subs in the bin. Samyang 135 (@~F2.6) + ASI 533MM and 6nm Astronomik MaxFR Ha filter. Thanks for looking.

Lovely Adam. Any little noise grain is fairly "clean" so it's barely noticeable to my eye.

As @scotty38 says, this is a great place to start. Getting to know the way PI looks, feels and works is key to remove some of the FUD that is associated with the application at times. The "Introduction" series is a good start I'm sure.

Excellent final (?) version @tomato An image packed with stuff to enjoy.

Excellent @wimvb I always look out for HH 555 in images of the Pelican, more so on longer focal length ones.

Fantastic images Adrian and I wouldn't have guessed the integration time being that challenging. Clean, crisp, bags of detail, well balanced and some lovely palette options for just the Ha and OIII being available. A stand out image....images.