Magnum

Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) passing IC405 the Flaming Star Nebula.

Starless version and also the unprocessed Star stack

100 x 60 sec subs

Samyang 135mm lens @ f2.8

ZWO533MC + UV/IR filter

Processed in MaximDL, SIRIL, Photoshop, Startnett++.

Great image Olly, so wish I had a darker sky comets and broadband targets.

Lee

15 minutes ago, Kon said:

Amazing framing! I would love to see this one in colour.

Thanks, wont be able to make colour version of this one as I had to use my larger mono camera and decided to just take Lum. 

Though I did it again tonight with my smaller OSC ZWO533 as the comet was closer tonight so was able to fit it in frame with just the flaming star nebula.

Lee 

I took this wider image of Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) last night.
just realised ive only stacked 30 of the 100 subs as some reason they didn't all get transferred to the memory stick when I left the observatory think I turned off the PC before it had finished 😛 , now will have to stack again to bring the tail out more.
30 x 60 sec subs
Atik 383L+ & Idals Lp2 filter
Samyang 135 mm lens @ f2.8

Great , I will have to check my subs now

Lee

Thanks, tracked on stars, 60 second subs

Just processed this image of Comet 2022-E3 I took on Jan 31st, unfortunately by the time I got a clear night the very bright moon and light pollution made it really hard to pull much tail out of it. Probably be faded by the time to moon is out of the way, so probably the best I will get on this one.

60 x 60 sec subs

Samyang 135mm lens @f2.8

ZWO 533MC + Baader UV/IR filter

UK, Bortle 5.5

M33 Pinwheel Galaxy H2 regions only, taken on Jan 19th. I have been wanting to do this in Ha only for ages to isolate just the H2 star forming regions but every year forget until now.

Scope: Meade series 5000 127mm F7.5 Triplet refractor.

33 x 10 min subs in Ha.

Camera: Atik 460 Mono

Filter: Baader 7nm Ha

Mount: EQ8.

Guided, Captured, Stacked & DDP in MaximDL, Quick Process in Photoshop.

On 20/01/2023 at 13:24, Stuart1971 said:

Here is an example from your first image, see the flat sides to the star shape….I tried to point out the flat sides with the yellow lines…but not very well ☹️

 

I had this issue on my Meade series 5000 127 F7.5 triplet for over a year and it wasn't the reducer /flattener as I don't use one on this scope. I eventually fixed after 3 attempts at removing the lens cell, loosening the front element, rotating the front element, slightly backing off the collimation grub screws so they are only just touching the elements. Was only on the 3rd time messing around with it that the stars eventually went nice and round, so not sure which of those things fixed it but I think the last thing that I did was remove the front element and put it back again, while watching the a live view of the stars.

I dont want to  hijac the thread, so if Peter is interested he can PM me about it.

Lee

Quick Widefield M45 with some  Integrated Flux Nebula (IFN), I always struggle getting IFN from my Bortle 5.5 location though others seem to manage better than I do, and what I do get doesnt have the golden colours I see in other images of this area 😞, only managed 110 mins before the sky hazed over so Maybe extra data on another night will help.

Exposure: 110 x 60 sec subs

Optic: Samyang 135mm f2 lens @ f2.4.

Camera: ZWO 533MC, Gain 100, Offset 20.

Filter: Idas LP2

Mount: EQ8

Bortle: 5.5, Tricky for IFN

Guided, Captured, Stacked, Flatten Background, & DDP stretch in MaximDL, final processing in Photoshop. No Calibration frames.

You have plenty of real dust but also the radial gradient ( reverse vignetting ) overlayed with it.

What Bortle location are you, Ive just shot this are myself and although I have the IFN / dust mine doesnt have the golden colour I was aiming for, maybe my light polluted Bortle 5.5 location.

Lee

Sharpstar sent me replacement improved lens cell to fix the CA, since then they have sent out loads of replacements to people that can prove they have CA and request them. and since then Cuiv the lazy geek did a video on this subject though he didn't compare on the same target, so I made a more direct comparison blink video between my original and replacement lens where I hot swapped the objective while imaging m44.  https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/784573131 make sure you view full screen in highest resolution. As you can see the original had blue fringing on the stars and the replacement has none.

And all new ones sold in the last year should come with the improved lens. 

Lee

They are both really nice and I myself have always strived to get tiny stars on most images, but with the exception of open clusters which kind of need to keep the main stars big and bright to keep their impact, I think I prefer the stars in the original version when viewed small but when zooming in then the halos spoil it a bit,  both the Seven Sisters and the brighter orange stars  seem rather dim in the new version so for me some  combination of the 2 would be ideal.

Cheers

Lee

15 minutes ago, Ratlet said:

Q:  What focal length are you imaging at?

A:  All of them.

hahahahah yes that the issue if I wanted to automate it all in NINA or SGP I would need to make huge amount of profiles to cover every combo, and would need 4 auto focusers that would also need profiles and then also different auto guider profiles. its making my Brin hurt , much easier just to do it all manually in MaximDL and the Sky6. Or maybe im too stubborn to learn a new workflow. 😛 

Hi Olly, looking good.

Here is couple of pics of how I have mounted mine, I have an Altair Hypercam - Canon adapter then a guide ring to support the front to prevent any flex.

I don't bother with autofocus as I have such a crazy mixture of 3 scopes ( SCT not in the pics) , 3 lenses ( 2 not in the pic ), 3 cameras, 2 filter wheels 2 OAGs, 2 lodestars and 2 filter wheels which im constantly swapping around each day depending on target, though having a permanent setup only takes me a few mins to get going even if I need to focus so never really considered going down that route. Amazingly Both  my samyang and 80mm triplet were still in perfect focus this week since the last time I used them in September.

Im sure you will agree its crazy setup all mounted on the EQ8 which guides perfect no matter how much stuff I through onto it 🙂

Lee

30 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

An option, but that's a very significant loss in light grasp even though 0.4 doesn't sound like a lot. 4 hours becomes 5.76 hours just in terms of photon count. Do you stop down with the diaphragm or with an aperture mask?

Olly

I use the built in diaphragm as I really like the super fine 18 point spikes this lens produces, was one of the reasons I bought it. I know I’m in the minority with liking spikes, I don’t like newt spikes or any other type, only 18 points. And it only produced them on the very brightest stars.

lee

9 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

 

I still can't get BlurX to improve my Samyang image.

Olly

I use mine stopped down to f2.4 then it’s almost perfect to start with. 

im at 50 mins into the video with M1 the Crab as the target. I think that is an excellent choice to of target to experiment on, as it's the Object that always shows sharpening artefacts the most.  Adam is right with his description, this type of sharpening usually tends to connect structures making them worm like or with M1 I most often see a honeycomb artefact introduced.

Since Topaz AI became popular I see these artefacts all the time on on posted images online and it really really annoys me, I sticks out like a sore thumb but amazingly those tend to be the images that get the most WOW comments and likes ( go figure ).

I like that BlurX can be controlled to prevent this with the sliders ( though if im sharpening in photoshop the sliders work in real time rather than having to apply it see the result, instead of trial and error with different slider positions with repeated apply and undo until happy with the result.) This is my biggest frustration in Pix and Topaz AI, that real time previews are only available in some processes as far as I can tell from my limited use of the program. I usually have to take the result from each process back to PS as a layer on top of the previous version then adjust the opacity until I think it looks natural but not overdone. Or selectively rub through only the bits I think should look sharper. 

what would be nice if there was a way to prevent people from going over the top with it, as its so easy to get carried away when sharpening and thinking its getting better and better, but there is a point where it just starts looking like a water colour or digitised image, being AI there should be a way to make an intelligent limit to prevent over sharpening, based on the structures joining together. 

Lee

1 minute ago, Stuart1971 said:

Anybody that can’t get there head around PI should get another hobby, as the rest is much harder….IMHO…

wow! I wont bite that one except to say its a bit late to find another hobby as ive only been doing Astrophotography for 30 years LOL.

Watching Adams very interesting video and noticed something

In the pillars of creation example im a little worried the the Bok Globules appear to actually grow from very little original data rather than just sharpen, though in a kind of cool way.

Ive dabbled with Topaz DenoiseAI and that can really create false details, I find I have to run it several times in each mode then apply them selectively in layers and avoid anything that looks additive. BlurX seems much better in this regard but I would still have to keep comparing to other images to satisfy myself that nothing has been added.

Lee

21 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

You are probably correct, you may well be the monkey….😉

Thats ok I like Monkeys 🙉

2 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

I'm afraid that "designed by monkeys" and "... PixInsight ... a barbaric environment of tyrants fresh from the Spanish Inquisition" don't amount to compliments in my book.

Adrian

I dont think software has feelings yet, maybe in the 24th century when they invent Data's emotion chip 😛 , but seriously when you said name calling I thought you meant id made fun of a specific person which I wouldn't do, didn't occur anyone would be upset by making a joke about some code or its creators whoever they may be.

Back to BlurX im watching Adams video and its very interesting.

Lee

50 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

I'm really not sure @ollypenrice and @Magnum that that all these insinuations and name calling are helpful, and I speak as someone who has been banned from the PI forum for comparing one script within PI with APP. I am disappointed, but not surprised, a Moderator has not stepped in and made comment. You may be employing the use of emojis to imply jokes but the jokes are in poor taste.

As for cost comparisons in my case PI represents less that 5% of my total outlay and in my opinion that small cost has been recouped many times over.

This is a hobby and as such to be enjoyed because it enriches our lives. If you cannot rise above the differences and use PI, PS or whatever you care for to your own benefit and hence the benefit of all without resorting to name calling and insults then perhaps you should find another hobby.

Keep this thread on the subject of BlurX and not a debate about PI vs. PS.

Adrian

woooh bit surprised  by this comment, as I haven't name called anyone, and have resisted getting into a Pix Insight vs PS debate. Only  reasons I mentioned Pix insight is BlurX can only be used within Pix insight so it's not possible to not mention one without the other. I have no hate for a piece of software, I just find it unintuitive to use compared to any other software. Also several other people in this thread had already said they cant get on with it so not sure why you have only singled out Myself and Olly ?

I use emojis to make it clear im party jesting and to avoid offending anyone, and they didn't seem in poor taste to me as I was only making fun of myself being cheap? so am baffled why me making fun of myself would offend you ?

Im currently reading through the thread with interest. no need to moderate as I cant see anything bad has been said, and all threads go off topic to some degree with all best intentions, thats why I didn't go into any detail or explanation of why I dont use Pix, as I didn't want to  hijack the thread, now Ive had to slightly to defend myself LOL. 

Back to Blur X the results do look impressive, I will try and have a play with it and post comparisons if I can get myself a new trial of Pix 🙂 

Friendly regards

Lee

9 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Each to their own whether they like PI or not but I've never quite understood the resistance to its cost. Given processing could be argued to be 50% of the game it's not a lot compared with the acquisition side 🙂

Yes I know you can get cheaper/free but you get my point

the resistance to cost is, im cheap 😛 

11 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Since you won't be able to try BlurXT without PI, feel free to Dropbox me a linear stack and I'll run it through my copy and send you the results back.

Olly

Thanks Olly but I will probably download another trial as need to see it in action, have to keep making dummy email addresses and postcodes 😛 I know im naughty but I never seem to get the time to make use of the 30 day trials, probably only used it 1 day out of each 30 day trial, so now after 10 trials ive used it 10 days, so in my logic im still entitled to 20 more out of the 30. I must admit my logic probably doesnt agree with the Pixinsight terms and conditions but hay ho. 😛 

Lee