New Attempt at Horse Head Nebula and comparison Iris vs DeepSkyStacker

[Chrisj]

Hello SGL!

I have just processed a new attempt at this difficult area. This time I shot more light frames with a shorter duration, ie 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes for a total of 54 light frames.

As before I think it is lacking red signal because my 300D is unmodded but I prefer this version to my previous one.

Here is the image processed under DeepSkyStacker:

And the same image processed under Iris:

Cheers

Chris

[jgs001]

Chris, that's spectacular. I like that a lot.

[CELESCOPE]

well what ever Chris it still remains a very nicely captured image ,

well done ,its a treat to look at .

Rog

[trevboyd]

That's a fab image Chris! Nice one - I wasn't even sure this could be done with an unmodded Canon, so there's obviously hope for me yet! :D

Trev

[Sam]

That's brilliant :shock: well done!

[MiLK]

Great images! Lots of colour. What was your setup?

[brendant]

Chris two excellent images, the detail in both is superb, pin sharp.

Great to see such detail coming from an unmodded camera, lots of exposure required over a dedicated CCD, have to say I prefer the image processed in IRIS, but both images just prove the quality of your subs.

Excellent imaging

Brendan

[centroid]

For me its the Iris version Chris, as it seems to handle the large stars better.

Both 'cracking' images, but the IMO, the Iris processed image has the edge.

Dave

[markcol]

Interesting comparison Chris, have to agree with Dave , the Iris version looks better all round. I find you really have to tweak the saturaion up with DSS. both lovely and sharp though!

Mark

[SteveL]

wow, what a difference!! I think its time to take a closer look at Iris...

[Chrisj]

Yes I agree with you and prefer the Iris version as well. I think I'll have to understand Iris more because it is not an easy software to use but it seems worthwhile though.

Cheers

[anthony]

Lovely jobs. both of them.

Anthony

[Beyond_Vision]

Great image Chrisj for an unmodded camera. I found Iris to be really user unfriendly with no means of browsing to find files and it being command line orientated and not mousecentric. Did you try to tweak the saturation in DSS. I always have to increase it to somewhere between 15 to 20%.

Regards

Kevin

[Chrisj]

Yes BeyondVision I tried various settings in DSS with no real success. And I agree with you about Iris interface which is sometimes difficult to understand or not ergonomic enough.

I have various astronomy freeware on my PC and like to try them often because I realized that depending on the kind of image results can be better with a program or another.

[Astroman]

Second one for me, but I think they're both just a tad overcooked. But that's just me. Great data captures.

[cosmos]

thats a cracking shot chris, nice one

[MartinB]

The Iris version is much better. I'm not familiar with either but from the sounds of it both are introducing some processing into the stacking routine. I don't like the sound of that! Stacking software should keep it's nose out of any processing and just perform some simple mathematics - averaging the pixels and using some stats for pixel rejection if necessary. I hate processes that I don't have full control over!

[jsecondo]

Hey Chris,

Great pics!!!

I'm newbie to astrophotography. I've been trying to achieve exactly what you did but with no luck at all.

I'm using a Canon T2i and "trying" to process pics with Deepskystacker. I wonder if you could post what parameters you used or where to get that kind of info.

Thanks in advance.