Jump to content

Banner.jpg.39bf5bb2e6bf87794d3e2a4b88f26f1b.jpg

Saturn 05.03.13 Reprocess


theo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Your last post had everything but the kitchen sink Neil...or did I miss you mention that in your reply..? :)

Let me reiterate - the post in question was made directly to Pete and you really have no business taking any of it as personal or seeing it as some sort of attack on anyone else.....in fact your comments suggesting I am constantly making remarks about certain issues is quite incorrect (as well as offensive) and I challenge you to dig through my posts here on SGL to back up this outlandish claim of yours - go on mate, I dare you to substantiate them with specific references that prove:

Quote< "its a topic ive noticed you mention time and again, about a lot of images taken and posted in the uk..."> etc

I also see nothing in this (your) latest respone in the form of even an "I apologise" for you posting in zip form my tutorial on WinJupos which you and quite a few others received as a private email from me by request.....it has never been a public document and you had no right to make it freely available without at first asking me at least Neil: I am more than happy to share something that took a lot of work to compile (as I did here with another Registax 5 processing tute which I did make publicly available) but there is such a thing as seeking permission, even if only from basic manners!!!

As I commented in my last posting I let it go at the time even if I thought "hmmm - that's a bit cheeky bro..!"

No doubt you'll have some excuse for that but let's leave all of this nonsense I'm reading from you out of any forum postings - this is Pete's thread and he took my perfectly respectfull and reasonable comments in the manner they were intended - it is none of your business to start these sorts of personal diatribes in his thread to be quite frank mate..! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief - talk about grinding axes..! :rolleyes:

Pete, if you don't mind I'll pm you so that I can ascertain whether you really took offence at my post - and if you did I'll apologise unreservedly to you personally.....perhaps you've communicated something differently to other persons here unbeknown to me that is at variance to your reply to me above..? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record I wanted to make it clear that I have responded to Darryl's PM but in no way discussed anything about anyone on here apart from conveying the respect I have for you guys.

I agree with Michael that we all have our own little quirks when it comes to image processing and hopefully each of us can respect that. I think that's important.

As i said earlier, what is appealing to one person is not so great to another and each is entitled to their view.

I will continue in my quest for trying to create the best, most detailed images I possibly can with the equipment at my disposal, and will also continue to enjoy the great discussions we have on Stargazers Lounge.

All the best guys,

Regards,

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record I wanted to make it clear that I have responded to Darryl's PM but in no way discussed anything about anyone on here apart from conveying the respect I have for you guys.

I agree with Michael that we all have our own little quirks when it comes to image processing and hopefully each of us can respect that. I think that's important.

As i said earlier, what is appealing to one person is not so great to another and each is entitled to their view.

I will continue in my quest for trying to create the best, most detailed images I possibly can with the equipment at my disposal, and will also continue to enjoy the great discussions we have on Stargazers Lounge.

All the best guys,

Regards,

Pete

Tactful Pete. I know you dont want to cause trouble of any kind i apologise for bringing this up on your post. i should bite harder i think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your last post had everything but the kitchen sink Neil...or did I miss you mention that in your reply..? :)

Let me reiterate - the post in question was made directly to Pete and you really have no business taking any of it as personal or seeing it as some sort of attack on anyone else.....in fact your comments suggesting I am constantly making remarks about certain issues is quite incorrect (as well as offensive) and I challenge you to dig through my posts here on SGL to back up this outlandish claim of yours - go on mate, I dare you to substantiate them with specific references that prove:

Quote< "its a topic ive noticed you mention time and again, about a lot of images taken and posted in the uk..."> etc

I also see nothing in this (your) latest respone in the form of even an "I apologise" for you posting in zip form my tutorial on WinJupos which you and quite a few others received as a private email from me by request.....it has never been a public document and you had no right to make it freely available without at first asking me at least Neil: I am more than happy to share something that took a lot of work to compile (as I did here with another Registax 5 processing tute which I did make publicly available) but there is such a thing as seeking permission, even if only from basic manners!!!

As I commented in my last posting I let it go at the time even if I thought "hmmm - that's a bit cheeky bro..!"

No doubt you'll have some excuse for that but let's leave all of this nonsense I'm reading from you out of any forum postings - this is Pete's thread and he took my perfectly respectfull and reasonable comments in the manner they were intended - it is none of your business to start these sorts of personal diatribes in his thread to be quite frank mate..! :)

First off i certainly will apologize for posting that up. Im not sure why, but it didnt occure to me that you didnt want the tute as a public document. Or if it had ever been so on here or any other site. For some reason i assumed it was public. I suppose because i had no reason to assume it wasnt, or you didnt want it to be. Ok bad assumption So yep that does deserve a apology

The comments i am remembering Darryl likely go back over a long time span possibly the last year or two. You cant seriously expect me to trawl through hundreds of posts to show the times you have made those kind of remarks. But i know you said something more fairly recent about Chris Gs Noise reductions being a English thing ? That was obviously tongue in cheek. But often it is. And is a little Cheeky in my book. But for the most part i ignore that kind of superiour toungue in cheek humour Darryl. The advice and comments are great, the superiour humour, is a little ugly personally i find. Maybe its just me ? In this case you was actually saying you thought the image was ok, And it was me that was saying to Chris it looked over smooth.

Quote: "I definitely spent too long messing with the image whilst doing other things, probably doing multiple iterations of noise reduction followed by sharpening." - each to their own as my dear old departed Mum would say, but it must be "an English thing" :eek: End

I dont think Chris took offence to that, i noted it, but just forgot about it, I tend to remember things, and just leave them there. But when the same type of comments re appear over time or even just the same theme. I guess i remember those other times, and hence say something which i did here. But probably a little out of context agreed Darryl

You continued here

what with all the emphasis on noise reduction.....and i have to say that although I appreciate why some prefer the aesthetics of "the softer look" I think you can definitely overdo it.....whenever I come up with worthwhile images I send them on to the BAA and JUPOS - and I know they want so see and measure details etc so you have to strike a balance where detail resolution is still the number one priority. End

I dont totally dissagree with that how can i. But not everyone sends there images for scrutiny on detail. As i mentioned a few times, some prefer to have a very natural feel without the utmost detail possibly being extracted. Nothing wrong in either approach. But the theme is one ive seen from you a lot over the years Darryl. Almost like some of us are incapapble of striking the ideal balance or something ? I agree you can overdo the smoothing, and on this post i think i was suggesgting to Chris that had happened here on hes image. But its not something i keep coming back to time and again using specific words ? I just wonder why over the years you felt the need to. Especially when we have had discussions.

Clearly you feel some of us are overdoing it on more than one occassion. And i certainly have, both under done and overcooked. Ive agreed with that.

Here you go again Darryl

Qoute

Not trying to stir things up but just stating my own opinion/perspective and reasoning.....if we were using an ep and sending in drawings (which some do and are still relevant) then we'd be first and foremost trying to ellicit as much detail in said sketch primarily, and not trying to make it look "pretty".....so as such my objective is to get a detailed image where there's a bit of balance with grain/noise/smoothness but not to the detriment of what the image might be able to reveal re details! :smiley:

With a big smile at the end

Thats really like saying ive spent most of my time ( or someone has ) just trying to make a image look pretty ? But your objective is to get a detailed image where theres a bit of balance with grain and smoothness, but not to the detriment of what the image might be able to reveal. End

Slightly superiour tone there, or is it just me ?

Do you really not think thats not my goal too ? or anyone elses on here ? we may get it wrong from time to time, i know i often do. ( sometimes i get it right ) as others also do here.

But the constant theme, over doing it, pretty pics too much colour ect. Starts to come across, as a bit of ego trip after a while Darryl. I really can t be bothered to trawl through hundreds of posts going back over the years. to show more examples of this kind of tounge in cheek superiour humour. I have a memory and thats all i need to know.

I certainly dont want to have any bad feelings about our astro discussions, thats not my intention. And i hope we can see eye to eye a bit here. Lets leave it at, if i ever overdo it, ( noise reduction smoothness ect ) or anyone else. Just say could be more detail in that image ect. or something siimilar. Lets leave the country of origin out of it. And certain key tounge in cheek words that are often used. I just dont see the need for it, and feels a bit belittling if im honest. I dont think you even notice your doing it to be honest. Or maybe im just to senestive. Possibly i dont know ?

Lets leave it that and have group hug. If you accept my apology for posting the tute. And my strong mindedness. For pointing out a few english reservations

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another repro I have carried out from scratch. I think this is about as good as I can achieve from this data. I am happy to admit that the first repro I probably pushed the noise reduction a little too far. I think the hexagon may be more defined in this attempt so that's a definite plus. Regarding surface storm spots, well of course there is the remnants of the storm band visible but for other surface detail I may have lost in the first repro I will leave you guys to make up your own minds on that one!!

Regards,

Pete.

post-22012-0-37135900-1364135445_thumb.p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another repro I have carried out from scratch. I think this is about as good as I can achieve from this data. I am happy to admit that the first repro I probably pushed the noise reduction a little too far. I think the hexagon may be more defined in this attempt so that's a definite plus. Regarding surface storm spots, well of course there is the remnants of the storm band visible but for other surface detail I may have lost in the first repro I will leave you guys to make up your own minds on that one!!

Regards,

Pete.

post-22012-0-37135900-1364135445_thumb.p

Hi Pete Studying these in more detail ( now with my stronger glasses on ) I know i should be looking on here with them on all the time. I think i will start doing that from now on. Apologies.

The first was certainly oversmoothed. And while obviously me and Darryl have had some negative words, i do agree with him that the first was smothered so to speak.

I dont think you will get any more out of this than this reprocess. It looks like a good balance to me.

Though i will say, Im not sure why my laptop screen is so bright and revealing. But i can see a slight box outline, rotating it makes it more obviouse on my bright screen. I can see its outline around Saturn Rotated. I dont think its anything to worry about, as i suspect my screen is probably too revealing and bright, so not sure if i should be mentioning it or not ?.

You can not process for every laptop out there, and Most will likely not see it. For my laptop. A slight gamma drop has sorted this out. But you may find it has clipped the crepe a touch. So possibly ignore those comments. I would be interested though if others are seeing this. So i can start to understand how over revealing my screen is. Its weird Pete my last screen was like that. I always seem to get very bright screens for some reason. Other than that. what a amazing shot you have pulled off at 24 25 degrees. I supect you will get a even better one in the coming weeks if the weather plays ball. Your work is now the bench mark on here for others to go by ( including me )

Nice capture.

Gamma drop. kills the outline on my screen. does the crepe look clipped to you on this ?

post-2700-0-54284300-1364144259_thumb.pn

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see any box on my screen Neil, your repro looks a little too dark on the crepe. For sure Pete has set the bar sky high here in the UK but I've heard there is another guy come on the scene with a 12" so its gonna be interesting to see what images crop up over the next few weeks. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see any box on my screen Neil, your repro looks a little too dark on the crepe. For sure Pete has set the bar sky high here in the UK but I've heard there is another guy come on the scene with a 12" so its gonna be interesting to see what images crop up over the next few weeks. :wink:

I suspected as such Stuart, in which case Pete should just ignore those comments. Why my screen is so revealing i have no idea ? it looks very obviouse here. Its a fairly new HP laptop ? Not sure if they are known for this ?

Dont count your chickens ive learned.

Getting anything as good as this will be difficult for many of us i think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too see the box. It is dark blue, a bit "speckled" and rotated ~45deg to the main image. Still a great pic though.

Looks like your screen is bright too Freddy, I wish there was some kind of standard on Screens. The variations are probably so large. what will look right to one screen might not on another.

When i first started i had a screen that was too dark so i made everything too bright. ( that was a CRT though ) when switching to a laptop. everything i had processed had bright backgrounds and such, Its frustrating.

Some of this also might explain differences on peoples opinion of things like the crepe being too dark, ect. Because obviously it depends on the monitor being used. As many of us are not using state of the art monitors, the problem is hard to get a handle on. What laptop are you using Freddie is it a HP ?

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an HP Compaq. The blue "box" stands out quite a lot if you just look at the blue channel. My reprocess adjusted the black point in each channel as it was there to a lesser degree on both green and red. Fantastic original image though especially with a DFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an HP Compaq. The blue "box" stands out quite a lot if you just look at the blue channel. My reprocess adjusted the black point in each channel as it was there to a lesser degree on both green and red. Fantastic original image though especially with a DFK.

Yes makes sense i see the blue too, if it is more in the blue, then your right to do that, but im suspecting mine and your screens are somewhat brighter, as no one is mentioning it, And clearly Pete hasnt noticed it. So the problem is likely ours if you see what i mean, considering Most dont see it.

Fantastic with a capital F is that capture. Processing also looks like a good compromise between detail and noise. If it was my capture of course i would do what you just did. . But i only did a quick gamma drop, not splitting the channels and doing a black point drop as you did, which is better Freddie. So again i think the problem might be our screens are a bit too revealing. Unless lots more are seeing it. which they dont appear to be. As stated its hard to process to every monitor out there. But i certainly wondered if anyone else was seeing it

Edited by neil phillips
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers guys. Wish I had spotted that but just didn't notice it on my monitor at all!!

Just had another look at it and if I look at my monitor from a certain angle other that straight on then I can just make it out.

Can't see anything in your reprocesses so many thanks for sorting that for me. Crepe also looks fine in the last one Neil.

It is difficult to know how our images will look on other screens for sure, still, now I am aware of this it will be something to be extra vigilant on in the future.

Neil, I am pleased you think I have got the noise / detail balance about right as that was the main purpose of the repro.

Got there in the end :smiley:

Also big thanks for all the generous comments Neil, Freddie and Stuart.

Pete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • 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.