Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

M13 & M13 - comparison


centroid

Recommended Posts

I am afraid I have to go against Gaz's choice and select Process 1, whatever that was. The reason I choose 1, is because I find it much clearer, and the cluster's central mass appears defined more than in proc. 2.

Of this is purely my perception, and totally based on what I see. Also, I had difficulty in recognizing either of them as M13.

Of course, the globular can change in appearance according to exposure time, ISO settings, the imaging device, and a few other factors.

Anyway, I digress. based on what I see, I select image process 1.

Ron. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Process 2 for me, much more subtle detail in that one.

Although i have to say that in both images it does look as though whatever stacking process you used did not get them aligned proprly,

there appears to be a few double exposures in both.

All the points ive marked appear to be the same group of stars.

If your using DSS try checking the mosaic box in the settings in the stacking popup window before you stack them.

Mike

post-13591-133877331321_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for your input on this one, and in-line with the majority vote, my persoanl preference is for Proc 2 also.

Mike was absolutely 'spot-on' with his comments about the 'double exposure' effect, and must 'scoop' the award for 'powers of observation' :wink:.

I hadn't noticed this, but it was indeed there. I think the cause was the fact that having done an auto 'all star' alignment, the software got lost in the mass of stars in the image.

So, I re-did the alignment, still on auto, but with two pre-selected stars.

I hope that I've pretty much reproduced the processing applied to the Proc 2 image, and have attached it here, along with the original, as requested by CW.

The original was only subjected to basic processing (unsharp mask and levels adjustment), whereas the other image (as Proc 2) was subjected to a degree of DDP filtering. Proc 1 image also went down the 'same route', but with a different degree of DDP filtering applied.

Image capture details:

SXVF-H9C - 10" LX200GPS + 3.3 FR. 35x15sec subs, processed in AA4.

Thanks again for your comments, and thanks to Mike for 'spotting' the aligmnent defect.

Dave

post-13389-133877331327_thumb.jpg

post-13389-133877331332_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.