teoria_del_big_bang

14 minutes ago, david_taurus83 said:

I thought the same with my M45 I processed yesterday but that's quite coarse pixel scale at over 3" per pixel. I tried with same Ha data I had already processed on the Tulip Nebula and yet to process Tadpoles. Its subtle but it does work. It even sharpens the dark dust so I don't think it's to do with SNR but more so on high contrast areas. These gifs probably aren't the best quality to showcase the changes, it looks better in PI but you get the idea. It's a very good deconvolution tool, much better than the PI deconvolution process. I've never gotten anything as good out of that. These gifs are BlurX applied directly to the native stacks of Ha data on each nebula.

Thanks for taking time to post these, they are great demonstrations and I don't think they are so subtle, After all the ide is sharpening what is actually on our images and not to add any significant artefacts so in most images the results will be very much like you have demonstrated here.
As I said before I always struggled with deconvolution processes in PI before this, it always seemed so difficult and what would work on one image would not work directly on another image so I always spent ages twiddling to get a half decent result.

Steve

I too missed this first time posted, but I agree with Carole, it is a great image.

I thought this image would have done well with the BlurXT but assume from the other thread that is not the way you went so whatever method you did use seems to have worked anyway with dome great detail showing.

Steve

2 hours ago, powerlord said:

I've been trying it on more images and yes, galaxies it seems to understand and do a good job. Better than other methods I'd been using ? Difficult to say without taking each through a new processing cycle. I mean, yeh it clearly 'understands M51' and you get lots of lovely detail. But I seem to have managed to extract most of that detail in other ways when I look at the final image I arrived at. So - it works.

So showing before and afters from raw to after blurX is interesting, but not a fair comparison really - It needs more 'doing whatever you did before blurx to get to a final image vs now with blurX in you processing workflow' really.

Just a pity it's PI only.

Nebulas - not a sausage though 😞

So seems pretty clear cut to me it's ony useful for galaxies  - star shapes aside. I won't be buying it until its available as an affinity plugin. come on Russell - there's more to Life than Pi (sic)

I just have not had enough time to evaluate it enough yet to give a firm opinion, but what I have tried so far and from what I have seen on Adams video is that as much as anything it is the ease of use that is what is so desirable. 
To get great images some form of convolution is usually necessary, if only in the Luminance, and for me at least in PI this is one process I have found extremely tedious and time consuming, to get good results without noticeable artefacts, whereas in BlurXT it is do easy and so fast to perform, even if you need to undo and try different slider options a few times it still does not take long, or require any major effort.
And at the same time the stars get tightened (quite dramatically if you set the sliders to do so) and halos can be reduced.
Even if the plan is to go starless and process the stars separately, which seems to be a fairly common processing method these days,  I think reducing them and reducing halos can give better starless images and so maybe worth doing this before StarXT, or whatever you use.

And yes it does seem to work really well on Galaxies but again from what I have seen so far, rather than what I have produced, it does also seem to work well on nebulas with lots of filamentary detail, but I think you could be right that on some less filamentary nebulas the results are not so spectacular and maybe even marginal.

Unfortunately, for non PI owners, or those who do not take to it, unless it does come out as a stand alone or plug in then maybe that does not make it a viable option as purchasing both PI and BlurXT is expensive to basically just use one process.

Steve

What a shame it couldn't have been re-homed and used for its intended purpose again.

Steve

3 minutes ago, geeklee said:

EDIT: There's no doubting the excellent detail in both images

Absolutely and apologies to @peonic for jumping in your thread with off topic comments without commenting on your great images beforehand.
They are both excellent images, I especially like the framing of the bubble and looks so much better than having it directly centred in the frame.

Steve 

1 hour ago, geeklee said:

I notice the images at full size look almost double the resolution of the 533MM (I have one too).  If you're drizzling the data thinking it'll give you more detail, I personally don't think it's adding anything here.

The below snippet looks like a mask outline? If you're using masks be careful on the edges - feather them / blur them.  I might not have seen this if the data wasn't twice the size  

I was pondering whether drizzling the data, or at least up-sampling  would help if using the new BlurXTerminator process especially if you want to either do a big crop of a small target or if you intend to get the images printed a decent size, more for obtaining nice round stars than expecting any more detail. ?

Steve

16 minutes ago, DaveS said:

Damn. I've been a PI refusenik but I may have to bite the bullet.

9 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

I'm in a similar place Dave. I think what BlurX has done might be a tipping point for me too....🙄🤔

Although I love PI I do understand why it tends to be the Marmite of processing software.
However, unless strapped for cash, the WBPP script for me almost makes it worth it on its own for the pre-processing and now with this BlurXTerminator and maybe NoiseXTerminator (although available without PI) means that you can at east get an integrated, sharp and pretty noiseless image very easily and quickly, and then if its your preference revert back to your usual preferred software for the finer details.

Steve
 

You can try using DBE in Pixinsight to at least improve vignetting and maybe some dust bunnies but probably nowhere near as effective as a good master flat.

Steve

1 hour ago, Ivor said:

The attached image was created with the following Pixinsight working flow:

• Image Calibration with Master Dark and Superbias (21 light Subs @ 300s)
• Cosmetic correction 
• Sub frame selection
• Debayer
• Star Alignment
• Local Normalization
• Image Integration

It has been about 5 years since I last tried to produce an image so I'm confident I've missed something.

 

If you have Pixinsight then you can do all of the above using the WBPP script.
Search for tutorials on WBPP, Adam Bock has some great ones, I think some are free to watch.

Steve

14 minutes ago, AMcD said:

does BlurXTerminator negate the need for NoiseXTerminator?  

No, in fact if you watch the Adam Block video it should be used on an image before the noise reduction.
But after using BlurXTerminator you can then use NoiseXTerminator.
I am no expert but I guess the fact that the noise is not really affected shows how good the process is at sharpening what is there rather than adding stuff that isn't in the data (so long as you do not push it too far) as it works on small scale stuff and this is supposed to sharpen the image whereas essentially noise reduction is actually blurring the background to achieve the noise reduction.

If you haven't watched Adams video then I suggest you have a look, it is very good.

Steve
 

What a great thread and discussion, I am off to at least get the trial version and give it a go 🙂 

Steve

I hadn't noticed this new script but sounds interesting.
Does BlurXTerminator basically use deconvolution then but it does all the hard work for you ?
Deconvolution is one process that I really struggle with and it tales me ages to get good results that don't look odd.

Steve
 

Wow Ciarán, that's an incredible difference.
Do you think this is down merely just to new tools or has the operator improved considerably too ??? 😁

Steve

9 hours ago, Navvar said:

Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

Do you think you'd be able to take darks with it in the daytime in a low-light environment? In other words, not in complete darkness like in a fridge or whatever.

No,  definitely not. It does not seal fully and there will be some amount of light leak.

TBH I wouldn't even take darks with it on a night time,
Light leak will probably be small but there will be some even at night.
In a dark room it "Probably" would be okay but as you only take darks once every few months (a year for me) I just remove the flat panel and fit the scope end cap and then at night in a dark room (garage in my case) take a whole library of darks at different exposure lengths I am likely to use, including some 3 and 4 second ones I will use for the master flats, and then thats it for another year. It may take a whole night, even two, but not a big hassle as they are done with a NINA schedule so can be just left to do its thing.

Steve

That's not a good homecoming.
I certainly am not knowledgeable enough to give any advice  on the scope but there is the option of taking it to somewhere they can test / clean (if needed). For me I would take it to RVO which is not too far away for me but maybe somewhere similar closer to yourself.

Steve

Read THIS it should give you some idea about mobile phone adapters to take images through the eyepiece.
I have not used them myself so cannot comment any further.

My first astro images were of the moon through an eyepiece but just held phone in my hand, not the best and certainly not the easiest way but I did get some reasonable images.

Steve

You are very self-critical there Rodd, looks a great image to me 🙂 

Steve

Ha ha , should have done a search before I replied.

I was going to add maybe worth going on the ZWO forum and searching or asking about it and when I looked THIS came up straight away.

From a quick scan through this thread looks like normal behaviour.

Also seen THIS which does sound like a semi conductor switching at a high frequency.

Steve

Without knowing what's inside (electrically or electronically) and without hearing the noise its very difficult to say but it's not something I would not normally expect from this sort of device,, but then it may well be normal.
A power supply then yes maybe it's normal at certain power draws but I would have thought the ASIair just uses electronics to distribute, control and measure power supplied by a separate power supply (but I do not own one so forgive my presumption if that is not the case). 

Like I say I do not know what is in the unit but suspect the only things that could cause a buzzing would be transistors or FETs switching on and off very quickly to control power, normally they are pretty quiet ands you struggle to hear them but at certain frequencies they can get reasonably loud .

So although I would not expect the noise it could well be normal.

Steve

An interest in the Moon is a great start as it is out most nights, easy to find and even the simplest of scopes can give some great close up views (or even binoculars) .
So if he is interested in lunar stuff he has plenty to look at and you could even get an adapter to enable him to take simple images with his mobile which adds so much more to what he can do.
And he will not be limited to the moon, even if he cannot get great vies of other objects it is still a great thrill to seek out and find the planets and star clusters or galaxies.
Still try to get the best scope you can for your budget as further down the line that enables you / him to buy better eye pieces which may help with the views he can get , also he may well want to attach a better camera (either a DSLR which can be bought for very modest prices 2nd hand) or even a dedicated planetary camera.

And, you never know you may well find that you also find all this stuff fascinating 🙂 

Steve

53 minutes ago, cajen2 said:

The Skywatcher Heritage 100p. Don't be fooled by its small size - this is a proper telescope with a parabolic mirror. I bought one for my daughter (who's much older than your son) and I was very impressed with the sharpness of the views it gave. Its price also allows you to upgrade its 10mm eyepiece (nearly all giveaway eyepieces are of low quality, especially the 10mm ones). A good choice is a BST Starguider 8mm.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-100p-tabletop-dobsonian.html

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-starguider-eyepieces/bst-starguider-60-8mm-ed-eyepiece.html

The bigger brother of this scope is the Heritage 130p - also excellent optics.

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/beginner-telescopes/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

Always best if you can get advice from somebody who has experience of the actual scope, so good advice here and if you do decide on a different scope to ones already mentioned then I would add to this thread and just ask again advice on the scope you are intending to buy.

And as advised above if you can get him to a local astronomy club that is probably the best thing you could do to help him. He can then see for real what various types of scopes will be like to use and also you can judge if he really is enthusiastic about it and decide where to go. Maybe even visiting the club will be enough to keep him going for a while till you get the best scope you can for him.

Steve

Unfortunately this is not an easy question to answer without knowing what your Sons expectations are.
Like everything Astro kit has suffered with huge price hikes in the past couple of years, mostly (I think) due to lack of availability caused by the disruption to shipping during Covid and also general cost of living increases,, so whilst you can get a starter scope for £150 I am afraid it will not buy you much in the way of sophistication. A lot of the cheaper end scopes offered on some websites are really not much more than toys. Looking on a reputable site such as FLO is a good start as you can contact them and ask questions and will tell you the truth, about what you are attempting to purchase.

So I guess a lot depends on how interested your Son really is in astronomy and how much you can spend in these cash strapped days. If this ends up being a passing interest obviously you do not want to waste hundreds of pounds on something that ends up in the cupboard after a few weeks, but on the other hand if he does get the bug then you do not want to be buying a toy scope that will put him off the hobby because it does nothing to sustain his interest.

Also for many starters their expectations are just way beyond what the reality actually is in amateur astronomy and  become underwhelmed at what they see though their first scope, quite often they are expecting to see almost Hubble style images and all they see are stars (but many more stars than with the eye alone).
I am approaching retirement and only bought my first scope around 5 years ago but found looking at the moon just so exciting and although very small the planets also were a fascination for me, but again with a cheap scope you are not going to see the planets in much detail, but for me just seeing some of the moons around Jupiter, albeit really just 5 bright dots , Jupiter being much bigger than the others, was great to behold, and although Saturn was so tiny in the scope just to see the unusual shape it was with its rings just kept my enthusiasm going. This then encouraged me further to look for star clusters or some galaxies, even though again these were not the great images produced by many imagers they were just a small fuzzy thing.

All this may not be helping you much but just to warn you that you may not be getting what you think is available at the lower end of the budget.
If you think he really is interested then if you can stretch your budget to say £250 then there is a lot more options available that may keep his interest a lot longer.

The other thought maybe to wait a little and maybe get him some good books on the subject first ?

Have a look on FLO and see what is available and maybe come back with some more questions and tell us what you think your Son is expecting to see through is first scope, really it is not an easy question for anybody regardless of age 🙂 
And be aware, a mistake many make is just looking at the maximum magnification of a scope and going for the highest value; this is not the best way to judge a scope. In most cases unless you are in a very dark sky area and the seeing is very good you will never manage to see anything at the advertised maximum magnification anyway, something the less than reputable on line sellers of cheaper scopes will not tell you.

Steve

Hi,

In short I really haven't had an issue with dew apart from very early on.
I would agree that whilst I love the flat panel and it has made taking flats a dream the heater is a waste of time and you are better saving your money not getting one.
Things I have done to stop the initial dew problem I had whereby the dew collected on the face of the open flat panel and when I then closed it to take flats it dumped all the water on my lens are as follows:-

1. When ready to take flats first turn on the light at maximum intensity to warm up the panel a bit.
2. Move scope to a set position where you know any water on the panel will drop off as the light faces down.
3. Wait a descent length of time for water to naturally fall off and any remaining to evaporate with heat generated by the full intensity leds.
4. Then close adjust intensity as needed and start the flats.

If you can do this then I am sure there will be no issue with dumping the dew on your telescope lens.
You can probably do this with many  sequencing programs out there but I now use NINA and wit the advance sequencer this is a doddle and one created can just be added to the end of any other imaging sequence very easily.

Steve

Nice, that is a very clear image.

Lucky to get some good viewing I don't think I have seen any sky, night or day for over a week 😞 

Steve

Steve

I agree with @cbrunfranc, in general the focus position should not change much throughout the night as it is really only changing due to thermals (as far as I am aware). 
If you look at the actual focus position then it may look to have changed a lot because the figures are so much different but these are so fine adjustments in reality the focus tube should have moved very little so one set of flats will suffice for all frames.
For what it is worth I would normally take flats at the very end of a session (automatically programmed into NINA) so the last focus position used for images should be as good a focus as you can get for Flats but again whether that matter I really doubt it, most of the things you are calibrating out of the final frames are so fae out of focus anyway.

Yes, ideally  you need different sets of flats for each filter used in a session (although many argue not and indeed seem to produce great images using same flat for all filter so I cannot argue although separate flats for all filters is my preference as they do not take long to take) but I think the only time you then need to take a further set (for each filter) is if you have rotated the camera between two different targets, for instance, so often as I have an automatic rotator I may have to do this.

Steve