teoria_del_big_bang

I love the WBPP script I think it works brilliantly.
You can even click on the  +Directory and just point to one directory with all data and it loads everything up in the correct places.

Also can  use Cosmetic Calibration and set everything up for the Image Integration process automatically, saves a lot of messing about for exactly same results.
 

Feel free to PM me if any issue or questions, this is one aspect of PI I have pretty much mastered (albeit for mono imaging but not really any different for OSC), some oof the other stuff I am still a novice but getting there 🙂 

Steve

Well its done the platesolving still running through the colour calibration.
I forgot to also say tick the  "Ignore Existing Metadata" if you input the image parameters manually and not just click on aquire from image.

Are the raw data files the same as you added to the google drive earlier this week in another thread ?

Steve

send me the image you are trying to use PCC on and I will give it a go, there is usually a simple reason why it fails but not always obvious

steve

You may need to tick the "Force plate Solving" check box otherwise it will read the focal length from the fits header not the figures you just ut in to account for the 0.8 reducer

Steve

9 minutes ago, Clarkey said:

And you can carry disco balls!!! What more can you ask for🤣🤣

maybe I can use it for a star test 🙂 

Steve

Still doing a few trials with NoiseXT and comparing it to MureDenoise.
On the images I have just trialed it on using a Denoise parameter of around 0.6 to 0.7 seems to be pretty identical to using MureDenoise with a Variance of 1 and Spin 8 and if you don't go too mad with the Detail it seems to do a good job of sharpening the stars (I used 0.6 but seemed okay up to 0.75 then you can start to see dark rings around the stars).

I guess these figures may not repeat from image to image but certainly on the image of the Bubble Nebula I think I could replace Muredenoise with this script. Now depending on how much in the linear stage you want to deNoise then these figures may be too aggressive but just wanted to do enough for my eyes to see the change and compare both methods.

Steve

3 hours ago, david_taurus83 said:

 

 

Why is that usually colour is significantly cheaper than monochrome ?
I thought with the CFA that colour would cost more to produce (although probably not much more).
I wondered this when I got the QHY268M and is was dearer than its colour version.

Steve, 

36 minutes ago, Ian McCallum said:

A match "Meade" in heaven?🤔🤣

Unfortunately there is no "Cringe" emoji and the like repertoire so had to laugh instead 🤣

Steve

I don't have one but I think Explore Scientific are from US so could well be imperial, if near to M4 could be 8-32 UNC or 8-36 UNF so would need to count the threads in 1 inch.

Do you have an M4 screw to try carefully in the thread to check if it is metric, do not force and if it doesn't go easily then is imperial of some form.

Hopefully somebody who has one may know the exact thread 🙂 

Steve

FLO sorted me out with a repair on my mini but if they cannot fix it they ship back to China so can be a long turnaround.

Steve

Totally agree with @alan potts that is a superb rendition.

Steve

Welcome to SGL. we are a friendly bunch so feel easy about asking any questions you may have 🙂 

Steve

1 minute ago, DaveS said:

Can we persuade another Icelandic volcano to go Bang! and shut our airspace for a while?

That may not help our view of the skies much though 🙂 

Steve

Oh by the way my rendition as just from your stacked Tiff, I have only just seen you added the path to your data.
I will have a better go with it hopefully tonight when I have done all my list of things the wife left me to do 🙂 , although probably will not be any different, I will see.

Steve

10 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

I did use photometric calibration. Down side was stacking in DSS didn't bring any position data over in the header, I seem to remember the last time I tried a year ago I might have stacked in pi and it auto filled the position data. 

As for luminance it's just 3 hours with a skytech l pro max filter. How did you add luminance? 

For PCC I had to use search coordinates and put in IC1396 and then manually work out the focal length with the reducer.
To be honest it did something but not loads which is understandable if you had already done so.

For Luminance I extracted the Luminance from the RGB image, then removed the stars.
It tells you how to do it in that website, This Part
You basically apply this to your RGB image

to extract Luminance, then I remove stars using Starnet2 and do a bit of brightening up and sharpening, but nowhere near like all the stuff that website suggests.

Steve

Regarding workflow in PI I think THIS WEBSITE is a good free one for getting to grips with what to do when.
In my opinion though there are a lot of steps if you do everything and I am not sure good data requires all these steps, certainly I would not do that many, but it will give you an idea of the workflow.

Steve

PI can handle darks of different exposures and scale them, I still take dark flats when I can but it is possible to get by without.
From my first look I think the data looks really good and doesn't need much in the way of noise reduction.
I think it could do with some colour calibration , not sure if you did that but PhotometricColorCalibration in PI works wonders.
Also added a little Luminance, again not sure if you did this or not.
So not spent too much time on it due to other things unfortunately I had to do today but here is my quick rendition using PI.
It is a bit different but not necessarily any better, yours is really a good image to start with 🙂 

Mine along side yours, I think the same detail just different and that's how it will always be because of the way we all perceive the image.

Steve


 

I am not guru but will take a look, is it possible to let me have the raw files, or are they too many ?

Steve

9 minutes ago, powerlord said:

Justr trying it - one thing I don't like.. with starXterminator it's on or off so the fact there is no preview is fine.

But with noiseX, it's not.. you are twiddling in the dark so to speak. It'd be great if Russell could make it work with previews. Otherwise it's set settings, apply, close. undo, open, tweak setting, apply, close, undo.. again and again till yer happy.

One area where topaz has it much better - I can have 4 different AI models side by side, select my favourite and make a tweak, and see results, and repeat.

Yes that seems to be the way with PI's inbuilt noise reduction tools as well so you end up making a small preview to speed things up.
A preview of some sort would be great.

It is a difficult one though if you just want some subtle noise reduction or sharpening as a straight preview you probably struggle to see the difference so need to toggle between before and after, a bit like the way it as now done in NSG script. Only issue then is usually noise reduction and sharpening take quite a bit of computing power so unless you have a fact computer you end up waiting for the preview to be computed anyway.

Steve

1 hour ago, PeterCPC said:

Got me wondering now. Not sure - it's an age thing.😟

Tell me about it, 🙂 

Steve

1 hour ago, PeterCPC said:

Long time ago now but I just did not give me an acceptable result whereas AstroFlat Pro does.

Are you sure it was NoiseXTerminator ?
The Beta version was only released this year end of April and the production version 1st May 2022.

Steve

30 minutes ago, tomato said:

I agree dark skies and more data will work better every time, but alas they tend to be not so easy to come by as a new piece of noise reduction software.

I saw the reference to a discount if you already have another RCA product,  but can’t seem to find a mention on the website, any idea how much the discounted price is?
 

Thanks

Its $60 to buy but $40 to buy if you already have StarXTerminator or other product.
Click on Buy and then the platform required and its there.

Or follow THIS LINK

Steve

It certainly does seem to sharpen stars somewhat.
The image used is just a simple RGB image that has had calibrated Ha, SII and OIII images combined and nothing else done, it is still in its linear state.
Here it blinks between two images, both have had NoiseXTerminator applied with 0.5 Denoise parameter but one had 0 Detail Parameter and the other 1.0.

Now I think 1.0 is a tad too much though but just to see what the parameter did and it does seem to sharpen without adding too much in the way of artifacts.

Below is same but one image has not had NoiseXTerminator applied and the other as above has had NoiseXTerminator with 0.5 Denoise parameter and 1.0  Detail Parameter.

And finally this is flipping between an unchanged image and one with 0 Denoise parameter and 0.75  Detail Parameter. So with no denoise and just the detail slider seems to give a decent result.

Steve

6 hours ago, PeterCPC said:

Tried it and didn't like it. Went with AstroFlat Pro which is brilliant.

Anything particular that you didn't like ?
 

Steve

It certainly does remove the noise. Noise reduction is something that is very subjective and dependent very much on the data and what the person processing wants to do.
I think with any of the denoise and sharpening tools you can go mad and totally remove anything remotely looking like noise and the background ends up  almost one colour or shade but that is really not the objective and does not help the final image.
In fact, if I am honest this is probably one of the steps in processing I am not really confident with and got to grips with yet. Yes I can do it, it's not hard, and I can follow any tutorial on it but you can watch two tutorial with the same target and different people doing the processing and the amount of noise reduction varies massively.
I think I too used to denoise far too much and maybe then lost some detail and so recently I tend to go quite light on the denoising.

I guess all that just sort of emits an aura of I don;t know what I am doing here, which might well be true, but getting there I think 🙂 

Steve