PACMAN Nebula

[Marky1973]

Despite my moaning in anther thread about frosting on the camera, I did manage 5.5 hours of 10 minute subs in Ha last night on the PACMAN nebula. Basic processing and false colour applied in Photoshop. Needs more sensitive processing, but amazed how much easier basic processing is when you have so much good data. Stacked in DSS, no BIAS/FLATS/DARK, will add them later - or I might have another go tomorrow but try and push it to 20 minute subs as the guiding worked well last night.

But happy with my first ever narrowband image!

 

[Knighty2112]

Nice Image. Well done!  

[Marky1973]

19 minutes ago, Knighty2112 said:

Nice Image. Well done!  

Thanks! After a long summer and many false starts it is nice to get something! Builds confidence and desire again....although it also makes you want to buy more filters! :-)

[graemlourens]

Hi Marky.

Very very nice! 

If i'm allowed to put a sidenote - have you already tried to get the core brightness toned down a little? There is LOOOOTS of detail in the core in your image, but as its pretty bright it needs to be toned down a little. It would put the dot on the i for me, and then be perfect  

In Pixinsight its HDRMultiscaleTransform and in Photoshop i'm not sure whats the best to use, maybe somebody else can chip in. I quickly dabbled with it, i hope you do not mind.... it looks something like this:

Kind regards, Graem

[gnomus]

Marky

This is a terrific image of the Pacman.  Congratulations.  The PixInsight version looks very PixInsight-y to my eyes.  I much prefer the original.

[graemlourens]

3 minutes ago, gnomus said:

Marky

This is a terrific image of the Pacman.  Congratulations.  The PixInsight version looks very PixInsight-y to my eyes.  I much prefer the original.

 I just read your thread about calibrating your monitor, and was thinking of posting the same, good i didn't!  But also yours has so much hidden detail there in the middle, its shouting to me to get visible! But obviously, this is all personal preference...

As already said, its a very very nice image!

Kind regards, Graem

[Marky1973]

2 hours ago, graemlourens said:

 I just read your thread about calibrating your monitor, and was thinking of posting the same, good i didn't!  But also yours has so much hidden detail there in the middle, its shouting to me to get visible! But obviously, this is all personal preference...

As already said, its a very very nice image!

Kind regards, Graem

Thask Graem - happy for people to "dabble" or "fiddle" - thanks for posting a different version. I like the detail you have teased out of the image, my original was a bit soft - but then again, this is part of the "fun" of processing - there are so many options and ways you can present an image.

To be honest, i spent very little time with it as my knowledge and understanding of PI has dried up over the summer, so I am back to square one again. Was fiddling a bit last night, but couldn't even get the original FITS files through the BACTHPREPROCESSING script and my DSS-stacked TIFF looked a bit "weird" when I was fiddling with HDR MT so it is back to the tutorials (and Warren Keller's book which should be coming this weekend, fingers crossed). Either way, I agree the core needs dialing back a little bit.

Ultimately I was just glad to get 30+ 10 minute images that all looked pretty decent - so much easier than trying to work with 50, 30 second exposures like I was when starting out!

[Marky1973]

2 hours ago, gnomus said:

Marky

This is a terrific image of the Pacman.  Congratulations.  The PixInsight version looks very PixInsight-y to my eyes.  I much prefer the original.

Thank you sir! There's magic in that Filter Wheel! ;-)

[gnomus]

5 hours ago, Marky1973 said:

Thank you sir! There's magic in that Filter Wheel! ;-)

Indeed.  You really should have given me a credit...

[Marky1973]

Well, i didn't want to embarrass you.... you can half the credit...I mean, it was MY filter... :-)

 

 

[graemlourens]

8 hours ago, Marky1973 said:

Thask Graem - happy for people to "dabble" or "fiddle" - thanks for posting a different version. I like the detail you have teased out of the image, my original was a bit soft - but then again, this is part of the "fun" of processing - there are so many options and ways you can present an image.

To be honest, i spent very little time with it as my knowledge and understanding of PI has dried up over the summer, so I am back to square one again. Was fiddling a bit last night, but couldn't even get the original FITS files through the BACTHPREPROCESSING script and my DSS-stacked TIFF looked a bit "weird" when I was fiddling with HDR MT so it is back to the tutorials (and Warren Keller's book which should be coming this weekend, fingers crossed). Either way, I agree the core needs dialing back a little bit.

Ultimately I was just glad to get 30+ 10 minute images that all looked pretty decent - so much easier than trying to work with 50, 30 second exposures like I was when starting out!

Hi Marky.

Don't get hooked up on the idea that you HAVE to do this with Pixinsight, not at all the case. This is a kind of Windows / Mac thing. Both have advantages, but in the end you can do everything with either of them. Also I have switched to Photoshop for certain tasks that are just impossible for me with Pixinsight. I learnt to use both in the end (took me a while to figure that out, as the intuition is to stick to one program...)

Kind regards, Graem

[Marky1973]

Oh yeah, I realise that Graem, but I do like what I have seen with PI, I just need to spend more time with it to get the best out of it. I still use PS for "tweaks" though - as you say, everything has a use, there are just too many options some times! :-)