Sh2-132 Hubbel Pallet

[Rodd]

Same data as the bicolor attempt with Ha and OIII.  This includes 9 hrs Ha, 7.5 hours OIII and 6.5 hours SII with np101is and STT-8300 with Astrodon 3nm

[Knighty2112]

Beautiful. Nice work. Well done!  

[graemlourens]

Beautiful!

I just started gathering HA on this one and can't wait to get all the data, if i can get anywhere close to your's i will be delighted.

Btw: 'Hubble Palette'

Kind regards, Graem

[seo]

Very nice. Well done.

[antony_courtney1987]

beautiful work, well done.

[Rodd]

9 hours ago, graemlourens said:

Beautiful!

I just started gathering HA on this one and can't wait to get all the data, if i can get anywhere close to your's i will be delighted.

Btw: 'Hubble Palette'

Kind regards, Graem

Thanks Graem--I am sure you will far surpass this attempt.  There are elements of the image I like--but it still has one foot in in cartoon land--I can't seem to escape Roger Rabbit.  

[graemlourens]

15 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Graem--I am sure you will far surpass this attempt.  There are elements of the image I like--but it still has one foot in in cartoon land--I can't seem to escape Roger Rabbit.  

I wouldn't bee so harsh on yourself. I truly believe its a very good image.

If i would have to (and i don't like doing this with this image!) mention things i would still try, then it would be to reduce star size, and look over you're sharpening techniques. My suspicion is that you sharpened the whole image (including the stars). But i could be totally wrong... The stars in my opinion are distracting from the main focus - the nebula. In Pixinsight this is a relatively simple process. If you're a Photoshop-User then there are also tricks around to do this.

Its not easy our hobby

Kind regards, Graem

[Uranium235]

Nice image, but im not entirely sure its classic hubble colour - which tends to be gold & blue. But there is nowt stopping you from being inventive with your colour scheme

 

Check this tutorial out (if you havent already seen it):

http://bf-astro.com/hubblep.htm

 

[steppenwolf]

Quote

Nice image, but im not entirely sure its classic hubble colour - which tends to be gold & blue.

Isn't this the joy of narrowband - anything goes! I seem to recall that original Hubble Palette images as produced by the Hubble team majored on green as the Ha content was mapped to the green channel and the 'gold and turquoise' images that are so popular now are simply an amateur astronomer's construct? As it happens, I like the gold and turquoise appearance but back to my original point, where false colour narrowband is concerned I really believe that anything goes.

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, graemlourens said:

I wouldn't bee so harsh on yourself. I truly believe its a very good image.

If i would have to (and i don't like doing this with this image!) mention things i would still try, then it would be to reduce star size, and look over you're sharpening techniques. My suspicion is that you sharpened the whole image (including the stars). But i could be totally wrong... The stars in my opinion are distracting from the main focus - the nebula. In Pixinsight this is a relatively simple process. If you're a Photoshop-User then there are also tricks around to do this.

Its not easy our hobby

Kind regards, Graem

Graem--I always mask out either the stars or background before sharpening (working on a way to mask or both but its hard)--but I don't do very much sharpening per se.  I use LHE and only sharpen using MSLT very slightly-if at all.  In this image I just can't seem to get rid of the tiny littler stars embedded in the middle of the nebula--and the little stars have halos.   Trust me--there are more things wrong with this image than there are things right!  The data all look excellent, but when combined, its a noisy pile of blurriness.

[graemlourens]

6 hours ago, Rodd said:

Graem--I always mask out either the stars or background before sharpening (working on a way to mask or both but its hard)--but I don't do very much sharpening per se.  I use LHE and only sharpen using MSLT very slightly-if at all.  In this image I just can't seem to get rid of the tiny littler stars embedded in the middle of the nebula--and the little stars have halos.   Trust me--there are more things wrong with this image than there are things right!  The data all look excellent, but when combined, its a noisy pile of blurriness.

Hi Rodd. I understand, thx for clarification.

The stars in the nebula its self i do not think are bad / distracting, i would have more tried to tone down the outer stars for example with MT, but its easy to say from where i stand Maybe if i would have the data i'd come to the same conclusion as you.

But again: GREAT IMAGE!

Kind regards, Graem

[Rodd]

19 hours ago, Uranium235 said:

Nice image, but im not entirely sure its classic hubble colour - which tends to be gold & blue. But there is nowt stopping you from being inventive with your colour scheme

 

Check this tutorial out (if you havent already seen it):

http://bf-astro.com/hubblep.htm

 

When do you use MT?  I have been doing the star reduction based on a Pixinsight Tutorial by Vicent Peris--but I do it as the first step once the image is rendered non linear.  Perhaps it should be done near the end of processing?  The other question is how do you mask the nebula AND stars?  Sometimes I create a range mask for the nebula (Nebula white/background red) and use Pixel Math to subtract a star mask from the range mask--that leaves me with a range mask with the nebula exposed, the background protected, and the stars in the nebula protected.  But this does not work perfectly--I find it impossible to protect the tiny stars in the nebula--no star mask will identify them as stars.  What do you do? 

[Rodd]

8 hours ago, graemlourens said:

Hi Rodd. I understand, thx for clarification.

The stars in the nebula its self i do not think are bad / distracting, i would have more tried to tone down the outer stars for example with MT, but its easy to say from where i stand Maybe if i would have the data i'd come to the same conclusion as you.

But again: GREAT IMAGE!

Kind regards, Graem

When do you use MT?  I have been doing the star reduction based on a Pixinsight Tutorial by Vicent Peris--but I do it as the first step once the image is rendered non linear.  Perhaps it should be done near the end of processing?  The other question is how do you mask the nebula AND stars?  Sometimes I create a range mask for the nebula (Nebula white/background red) and use Pixel Math to subtract a star mask from the range mask--that leaves me with a range mask with the nebula exposed, the background protected, and the stars in the nebula protected.  But this does not work perfectly--I find it impossible to protect the tiny stars in the nebula--no star mask will identify them as stars.  What do you do? 

 

 

[Rodd]

19 hours ago, Uranium235 said:

Nice image, but im not entirely sure its classic hubble colour - which tends to be gold & blue. But there is nowt stopping you from being inventive with your colour scheme

 

Check this tutorial out (if you havent already seen it):

http://bf-astro.com/hubblep.htm

 

Sorry--previous post was not intended for you.  It is Pixinsight blabber.

[graemlourens]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

When do you use MT?  I have been doing the star reduction based on a Pixinsight Tutorial by Vicent Peris--but I do it as the first step once the image is rendered non linear.  Perhaps it should be done near the end of processing?  The other question is how do you mask the nebula AND stars?  Sometimes I create a range mask for the nebula (Nebula white/background red) and use Pixel Math to subtract a star mask from the range mask--that leaves me with a range mask with the nebula exposed, the background protected, and the stars in the nebula protected.  But this does not work perfectly--I find it impossible to protect the tiny stars in the nebula--no star mask will identify them as stars.  What do you do? 

 

 

Hi Rodd.

Just to confirm (could be confusing) i'm talking about Morphological Transformation, right? 

With MT i use a contour starmask as a mask (only exposing the outer ring of a star). If you have stars in nebula, this is sometimes very tricky and you'll have to start inverting, adding subtracting until you got all the stars you want to. And to be honest, we PI guys sometimes just do it the hard way. Simple way is to generate your different starmasks, take them to Photoshop and just start cutting pasting around, as well as just removing certain areas (when starmasks for example pickup nebula as stars etc). I've learnt to use photoshop for a lot of steps that is just much easier than in PI.

Starcontrol is to date still the most tricky thing for me, especially that i have very bad halos due to the not very optimal ED80 scope (baader filters not that bad). But you learn to deal with them...
In nearly 100% of my images i have taken the image to photoshop and honestly handled one star by a time, to get rid of halos  manual & time consuming but works!

I also tried photoshop plugins that reduce star size, and there's only one that really worked very nicely was StarShrink from RC-Astro but its not cheap.

Kind regards, Graem

[Rodd]

Graem,

 

Yes  Morphological Trans (MT)--I do the same with the contoured mask--that was the tutorial I mentioned.  But should it be done early--or late?  By the way, I am creating a new thread where I upload the fits files and a final version (better I think)--but please knock yourself out with the calibrated fits files if you want. 

[graemlourens]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Graem,

 

Yes  Morphological Trans (MT)--I do the same with the contoured mask--that was the tutorial I mentioned.  But should it be done early--or late?  By the way, I am creating a new thread where I upload the fits files and a final version (better I think)--but please knock yourself out with the calibrated fits files if you want. 

I do it right after initial stretching. My reasoning is, that all other sharpening / contrasting etc (even if you should mask out the stars) will be easier when you're stars are already smaller/sharper.

I experimented once if you should do MT after or before NR (assuming you don't do NR in a linear state). I didn't see any great difference. I do MT before NR as i can then use different aspects of NR to (for example in ACNDR the 'bright edge protection') actually help reducing halos that the MT creates (at least in my data)

I'd be very happy to play around with your raws! Please do PM me when you have posted it. I love experimenting with foreign data, it gives me a third person aspect on certain processes that i maybe got just used to, as my data requires it.

Kind regards, Graem

[Rodd]

28 minutes ago, graemlourens said:

I do it right after initial stretching. My reasoning is, that all other sharpening / contrasting etc (even if you should mask out the stars) will be easier when you're stars are already smaller/sharper.

I experimented once if you should do MT after or before NR (assuming you don't do NR in a linear state). I didn't see any great difference. I do MT before NR as i can then use different aspects of NR to (for example in ACNDR the 'bright edge protection') actually help reducing halos that the MT creates (at least in my data)

I'd be very happy to play around with your raws! Please do PM me when you have posted it. I love experimenting with foreign data, it gives me a third person aspect on certain processes that i maybe got just used to, as my data requires it.

Kind regards, Graem

That's when I do MT too--but I find it very difficult to cover the tiny stars inside the nebula--if they are not reduced, later they become intrusive.  Anyway--I posted all FITs stacks and anew final image in new post (Sh2-132-Data for processing)-something like that.  You'll see it near the top created by me.  Can't wait to see what you come up with!

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, graemlourens said:

I do it right after initial stretching. My reasoning is, that all other sharpening / contrasting etc (even if you should mask out the stars) will be easier when you're stars are already smaller/sharper.

I experimented once if you should do MT after or before NR (assuming you don't do NR in a linear state). I didn't see any great difference. I do MT before NR as i can then use different aspects of NR to (for example in ACNDR the 'bright edge protection') actually help reducing halos that the MT creates (at least in my data)

I'd be very happy to play around with your raws! Please do PM me when you have posted it. I love experimenting with foreign data, it gives me a third person aspect on certain processes that i maybe got just used to, as my data requires it.

Kind regards, Graem

Hows this version Graem?  I included a crop too.  Oh well--for some reason I can't add images to these comments--the add image icon is hidden.  Go to the new post for processing data and you'll see it

 

Rodd