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.

stargazine_ep24_banner.thumb.jpg.56e65b9c9549c15ed3f06e146fc5f5f1.jpg

Uranium235

Moderators
  • Content Count

    7,167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Posts posted by Uranium235


  1. Inspect your flats, a normal one (albeit my example is mono) should look something like this (vignetting amount will differ between optical/camera setups), but it should measure 1/3rd of the histogram - or/and have a healthy ADU reading, over 16bit that would be reading of about 21,000.

    But the previous suggestion of inspecting all your lights should also be done. If you have Ps, then you already have all the tools you need to process the image correctly (after calibratrion and stacking). Dont rely on software to correct vignetting, the only sure way is with proper calibration. If you have a gradient after applying flats, that is best dealt with using a Ps action/filter - or you can create your own gradient map in Ps (a poor mans version of the DBE found in Pixinsight).

    Also, if you want to simplfy your data for now - just convert it all to mono (including your flats), see if you can get anything out of it that way - I find mono is far easier to work with if youre trying to rescue some data.

    130pds.JPG.5518e268bccc6685f7151b69d6068e2b.JPG

    • Like 1

  2. 2 hours ago, LooseFur said:

    yes, same lens but I am on full frame so I am not sure how much of the lens area you are using with your camera ? Is it full frame?
    Though I am very new to all this so I have a lot to learn! 
    I opened a thread about this on CN actually (https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/734450-issue-with-asymmetry/). I can't seem to get both corners sharp (top right, bottom left)

    Im using the KAF8300 sensor - its just very slightly smaller than APS-C


  3. 3 hours ago, Davey-T said:

    Looks pretty darn good Rob, did a bit of pixel peeping and can't fault it.

    Have you tried any RGB with it yet ?

    Dave

    Havent tried RGB yet Dave, that will be my next box to tick being as M45 is now coming into view from my back garden (a bunch of very bright stars should be a good test).

    • Like 1

  4. Well, its been a couple of weeks before I was able to go out and grab some OIII for this one (always a challenge due to localised LP) - but its now in the bag and I've spent the morning processing it (still feeling pretty tired though.....lol).

    So, the million dollar question - can this lens make a pretty photo?  Yeah, I think so :)

    Had to crop a little bit out because of a medidian flip on the OIII, but I didnt lose that much. While I was there I also topped up the Ha luminance layer for a bit less noise in the outer regions.

    One other note though... being as the lens body is almost entirely made of metal (and can hence get quite cold) - you do need to go out and adjust the focus after about 45 min from the session start... nothing unusual or different from any other telescope or lens really.

     

    19x900 (Ha_L), 8x900 Ha_R, 8x900 OIII_G&B  - Modified cannistra biclour process

    Askar ACL200, QSI6783, NEQ6

    Thanks for looking! :)

     

    50444829427_5bbf400f0f_o.jpg

     

    Ha luminance layer:

    Ha_L_proc_85.thumb.jpg.887dbdd37015bd2d187557e855e6ee04.jpg

    • Like 32

  5. 11 hours ago, Backyard Space Dude said:

    Good spot! I’m very aware of the weird shaped squiggly stars, I can’t figure out a good way of reducing the stars either before or after adding them back in to the starless layer. I did use some fairly heavy noise reduction with Topaz labs and photoshop so maybe that’s where the pixelation is happening. I’m fairly sure I uploaded the tiff to Flickr and then shared from there to here, so perhaps that has something to do with it, too? Though the original doesn’t look great either haha

    For NR, I personally use the normal reduce noise filter in Ps set to 7 or 8 strength, with preserve detail at about 85-90%. Then on the final step, its noise ninja at a very low setting (Strength/Smoothness set to 3 or 4) - and sometimes selectively apply it (using a layer mask). That avoids processing artifacts or the "vaseline" look.

    If you want to reduce stars, you can do it in two steps. Firstly by using a layer mask about 3 curves into the stretching - ie: do three curves, then set that image aside as a copy, stretch the original more until the stars are getting too big for comfort (usually another 2-3 curves later), then paste in the one you set aside using a layer mask (so you are compositing the stars only, not the nebulosity). Then, as you are approaching the end of processing, use noels "make stars smaller" action... but only twice at most, otherwise you might get dark halos. Bit hard to explain in plain text...lol, it needs a practical demo.  But either way you need to keep a close eye on the details to avoid those dark halos.

    • Thanks 1

  6. 5 hours ago, Adreneline said:

    I'm afraid I used the "cheating method". I took the image into PixInsight, inverted the image and applied the SCNR process normally used to reduce green in an image. I then reinverted the image and the magenta halos have been removed. I am sure there are fancy methods involving PixelMaths and masks and all manner of things but the cheat method seems to work and I honestly can't see it has changed anything else.

    Adrian

    Seems a bit labour intensive for such a simple thing..lol..

    My method: load into photoshop, call up saturation, select magenta, move slider left to remove magenta.... done   :D

     

     

    • Like 1

  7. 1 minute ago, Davey-T said:

    Had similar problem with one of mine and think I traced it to the power connector, doesn't seem to be a very good fit, I presume its a standard 2.1 pin but only had to breath on mine and it disconnected, squirted some contact cleaner on it and now use it with power cable wrapped around USB cable to keep some sideways tension on it, hasn't disconnected since then but may just be a coincidence, lost a couple of hours subs one night when it first did it.

    Dave

    Yep, if I velcro all the cables up and dont look at it or breathe on it - its usually ok :D  Maybe some nice right-angle connectors would help there (looks better too!).

    • Like 2

  8. 10 minutes ago, SyedT said:

    Thanks for the feedback! I was aiming for 600 second subs as a minimum since that's what I tend to go for in NB, but a combination of poor seeing and therefore bad guiding meant I couldn't do that and had to settle for 300 seconds. I guess the next step would be to take a bunch of longer subs and add them on. 

    Ahhh yes, guiding can also limit your sub length. As well as having one of those nights where the sky can be very on/off. Next time its a perfect sky, just get out there and hammer it with Ha as that will carry most of your luminance and contrast  :)


  9. At first glance, its pretty good! Especially the crescent.

    However :)  (lol) being the pixel peeper I am, ive had a real close look at it and maybe there is something up with the way the image has been saved off because there is quite a lot of pixelisation going on in the surrounding neubulosity:

    Capture4.JPG.08b486d72dfc2fc27ddd8727e6c3870e.JPG

    Probably an easy fix, just have a fiddle with the export settings or try a .png file to see if that makes any difference. If its present in the .tiff file, it may be caused by a noise reduction routine somewhere along the processing workflow.


  10. 4 hours ago, peter shah said:

    wow thats stunning Rob

    Thanks Peter, I reckon I could push it up another notch if I add three more hours in Ha, then a bit of OIII for some cannistra colour. Ive not used an OIII filter with the Askar yet, so it will be interesting to see how it turns out.


  11. Looks good, but to kill that noise - I would personally opt for subs which are much longer than 300s.

    You are using a CCD, so your exposure time is only limited by the brightess of your target, or the local LP - neither of which should come into play in narrowband. So ramp it up to 900s and replace some of the data captured under "less than ideal" conditions, if you keep bad data in the mix it can sometimes bring down the end result... a case of quality over quantity perhaps, but ideally its quality and quantity.  It will take a while since you may need to manually inspect all of your subs and toss "bad" ones into a separate folder.

    If you can push it further than 900s, do it. Higher risks yes, but the rewards are worth it :)  (but 900s is a good benchmark to start off with).

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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