willuk2010 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Evening all,Anyone fancy having a go at post processing my .tiff, to see what the data looks like?I have tried to play with the data, and cant get anything great, i mean.. the data isn't great either its from my 3rd attempt at AP.20x20s Lights,5 x Darks5 x Flats (badly taken... i'm learning)Im interested in purchasing PI, i have applied for the 45 day trial, (at 14:30 today) but haven't yet received the details to download, and the trial key...Im just interested in seeing what can be done as i'm new to this... and tips on acquiring better data!http://home.nixbox.co.uk/willuk2010/ap/OrionTest.TIF.zip (file is 56mb zipped, 96mb unzipped)Thanks!Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc-c Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I've got a feeling the flats have some how reduced the data - simply playing with curves is hard to pull anything usable. Try stacking just the lights and darks and see what happensThis was the best I could do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc-c Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 IMO you should be getting more data in a single exposure - here's a comparison, single 30s exposure taken with a modded 400D. Apart from the colour, there is a lot more detail than the 6 minutes of stacked images you have, hence my suggestion of stacking without flats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddsocks Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 As Malcom states in his posts there is very little data above the background noise, it could be a problem with your flats, try another stack without the flats and see if the signal to noise improves and the colour signal increases, if not then you need to take longer, and many more subs. I assume the image was taken with the Edge HD in your signature? Even with the 0.7 reducer this is still quite a slow system so 20 second subs is probably a little too short. When I last imaged M42, a good few years ago now, using a Meade LX200 8", 0.63 reducer, and cooled SX camera I remember using a mix of about 50 second exposures for the nebulosity and 20 seconds for the trapezium, probably twenty of each. Because in M42 there is a large signal difference between the outer nebulosity and the inner trapezium stars, to get the balance right in the final image I would take a mix of long and short subs, process them separately, and then blend using layers in PS. Your current image stack looks as though the exposure time is just right for the trapezium but not long enough for the outer nebulosity I played with your image in PI and PS and had to push really hard to see anything but here is the result, very noisy but a hint of what lies beneath your data, you just need more of it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien 13 Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 I allways check my data by stacking without darks flats etc it gives a good indication if they are good or bad before proceding.Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willuk2010 Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Thanks for taking the time guys,I think one reason, is that when DSS finishes, it doesn't use all 20 of the images, it only uses 8... is that because, it only thinks 8 are good enough?I do agree, that 20s on the EdgeHD 8, is not enough, but i'm still fighting with guiding/polar alignment, and all that funky stuff.. so the best i could do was 20s... At work tonight, so didn't manage to get out ;( nice and clear over here too which sucks.. hopefully will find time to get out and try some more,i'm just doing another DSS stack without Darks and Flats.. ill upload and link, and we can have a look maybe.. see if the Flats are causing issues or not.Thanks again appreciate it,Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russe Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Just that I'll find this thread again - I've downloaded your file and will give it a look too on the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willuk2010 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 I've got a feeling the flats have some how reduced the data - simply playing with curves is hard to pull anything usable. Try stacking just the lights and darks and see what happensThis was the best I could doCheers mate,Im going to upload a tiff with no flats applied.. see how it looks!Btw, where in Herts are you ?Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc-c Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Btw, where in Herts are you ?WillI'm in Stevenage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willuk2010 Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 Ah nice, I'm In Harpenden.. Know of any descent dark sites around these parts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc-c Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Used to live in Harpenden. Used to go out along the lanes around Bowers Heath. Not really a dark site, but sheltered enough by trees to cut out the light from Harpenden and Luton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willuk2010 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 Oks, Here is a new file, with no flats or darks.. (forgot darks doh..)i did 20 x 60s.. and DSS ended up stacking, 19 of the 20.. http://home.nixbox.co.uk/willuk2010/ap/OrionTest2.TIF.zipCheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willuk2010 Posted March 17, 2014 Author Share Posted March 17, 2014 my attempt with just RGB/Luminance & Saturation adjustments in DSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommohawk Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Not sure if this is relevent, but I had a lot of problems trying to work with tiff files in DSS.I couldnt open the Autosave file which DSS creates with any image editors, so I resorted to copying the image to the clipboard, and then pasting into the editor software. What I didnt realise is that the cut and paste option loses a lot of data. The reason the Autosave file cant be opened, other than from within DSS, is that its 32 bit. So, even if you havent done any editing within DSS, you have to save the file manually as 16 bit, and then open this file with the image editor.Of course it may be that this is terriibly obvious, but it took me quite a while to figure it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willuk2010 Posted March 18, 2014 Author Share Posted March 18, 2014 Oops, wrong link (linked to my local photo repo! lol)try again, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey-T Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Flats will get rid of the spots and you can make DSS process all your images no matter how bad they are, think you can alter the rejection threshold as well, try different stuff , lot's of trial and error learning AP, also good idea to make notes of what you do so you can repeat it if it works.Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc-c Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 I've just played with levels and colour balance in photoshop. Not as colourful as the above, but still pulled out a fair amount of detail - here's the png file Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey-T Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Pic in post 15 has caught the Trapesium so just need some longer exposures to get the faint stuff.Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willuk2010 Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 I've just played with levels and colour balance in photoshop. Not as colourful as the above, but still pulled out a fair amount of detail - here's the png fileThanks Malc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willuk2010 Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 Pic in post 15 has caught the Trapesium so just need some longer exposures to get the faint stuff.DaveCheers Dave,So the way i see it, with Darks, Flats, good polar Alignment.. longer subs, i should get a decent image! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc-c Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Cheers Dave,So the way i see it, with Darks, Flats, good polar Alignment.. longer subs, i should get a decent image! LOLThing is with longer exposures, guiding needs to be included in that mix - Unless your PA is spot on and tracking accuracy of the drive is very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcinek82 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 You've made a nice image - keep up the good work and you'll quickly learn how to gently touch the data in postprocessing. Clear skies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey-T Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Don't chuck the data you've got you can use the Trapesium bit by masking in PS, plenty of tutorials on You Tube, Astronomy Shed etc.Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.