Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

1st Complete Image with New EQ5--Lots of Problems

JohnSadlerAstro

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
SkyBound

SkyBound

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, JohnSadlerAstro said:

So you would suggest using a mixture of DSS and GIMP for processing?

Absolutely not in my opinion, DSS is a stacking tool, it is useless at any sort of processing....leave that to the proper software, just stack in DSS and as I said ealrlier embed the changes but DO NOT apply them, as the bit of processing that DSS does will be applied and the data will be clipped....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyBound

SkyBound

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, JohnSadlerAstro said:

I've been trying out setting up the histogram so it looks like the one in the photo--its looking good!

John

DeepSkyStacker 3.3.2 21_01_2017 12_42_52.png

If you do process in DSS and save it, you will get no more out of the image in Gimp, bad bad idea to process at all in DSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyBound

SkyBound

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, wxsatuser said:

It will be near colourless if you apply changes and don't boost the colour in DSS, boost colour by at least 25.

The whole point is that you SHOULD NOT apply any changes that DSS makes, just embed and leave the processing to Gimp or whatever you use....try it and see... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wxsatuser

wxsatuser

Posted
Posted

The point is you can apply changes in DSS and still come out with a reasonable image.

Seeing as the OP was struggling with Gimp he could have got the colour straight out of DSS.
Minor tweaks could then be done in Gimp.

Alan/Alien 13 points out, that a reasonable image can be got from DSS, it ain't no PS or PI but you can get
a good job with judicious moves of the histogram sliders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
newbie alert

newbie alert

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Magnus_e said:

When I started out I remember I found it easier to process the image in dss so I could see the nebula with some saturation, and then move on to gimp / ps. It might not be ideal in the long run, but to me at least it was a easier way to process images.

My standard process in dss was to align rgb (to some degree), move the histogram (peeks) in to the stretching curve, make the curve a little steeper, and saturate to ~19-21%

Looks something like this.

ProcessingTab.jpg

This usually ended in something that was easy to continue in gimp.

In dss i align the peaks as green red blue..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyBound

SkyBound

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, wxsatuser said:

The point is you can apply changes in DSS and still come out with a reasonable image.

Seeing as the OP was struggling with Gimp he could have got the colour straight out of DSS.
Minor tweaks could then be done in Gimp.

Alan/Alien 13 points out, that a reasonable image can be got from DSS, it ain't no PS or PI but you can get
a good job with judicious moves of the histogram sliders.

Well I am sorry but we will have to agree to disagree here :) as DSS is not good at any type of processing, and once saved from there and the changes applied, you are then stumped if you want to process further in PS or Gimp...as the data will have been clipped when the changes were applied, thatbwhy I suggest not applying them, by all means have a go in DSS and see what you can do, but in the end just don't apply the changes, export to PS or whatever you use and do it from there, as you will still get back the image you produced in DSS, but you will also be able to manipulate further if required... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wxsatuser

wxsatuser

Posted
Posted

Difference of opinion, not a war. :icon_biggrin:

DSS does a good job of stretching if you know how to use the sliders, don't see why the saved image will be clipped.

The save with changes will still be a 16bit image and can still be manipulated afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyBound

SkyBound

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, JohnSadlerAstro said:

Hi,

Its always fun to watch a 'war' between experts :D --it seems there are loads of different ways that different people find work best for them.  :) I've tried again using folk's advice, and come up with  this; I think I've kind of cracked it at last!

 

Processed.jpg

 

Whoa whoa less of the name calling...please don't mistake me for an expert.... lol :):) just an obsessed amatuer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alien 13

Alien 13

Posted
Posted

The point I made was that a few tweaks in DSS using the sliders and colour boost and of course remembering to tick the align channels box at the start can show you within a few seconds if your image capture has useful data, it was an observation during lots of processing that the quick look often resulted in better results than using PS no matter how hard I tried. The good thing about this is you can try various methods without changing the original file so its a win win for me.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dph1nm

dph1nm

Posted
Posted

Just to clarify. The standard GIMP (2.8) is 8-bit only.  If you try to read a 16-bit tiff it will scale the numbers down by 2**8! If you do this with a DSS image it will be virtually all black and highly quantised. So you MUST make changes in DSS first so that the image looks OK on the screen and then make sure you apply them.  If you do that then GIMP is perfectly adequate for post-processing.

If you insist on not making changes in DSS (personally I can't see any good reason for this, but there you go), then you will need the experimental 2.9 version of GIMP, which does handle 16-bit images.

NIgelM

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Casa Christiana

Gerry Casa Christiana

Posted
Posted
On 21/01/2017 at 12:54, Alien 13 said:

I have found DSS capable of producing an image that is more than good enough to show whats in the stack just by using the sliders and other adjustments and saving as a 16 bit tiff with all settings applied, in fact on many occasions it has given me far better results than the autosave with post processing in PS.

Alan

I agree although the current advice is to not apply the changes. I find if I adjust the mid tones and the saturation I get much better results in processing afterwards. 

By the way GIMP can do something's but I wouldn't use it for everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Casa Christiana

Gerry Casa Christiana

Posted
Posted
On 21/01/2017 at 12:54, Alien 13 said:

I have found DSS capable of producing an image that is more than good enough to show whats in the stack just by using the sliders and other adjustments and saving as a 16 bit tiff with all settings applied, in fact on many occasions it has given me far better results than the autosave with post processing in PS.

Alan

I agree although the current advice is to not apply the changes. I find if I adjust the mid tones and the saturation I get much better results in processing afterwards. 

By the way GIMP can do something's but I wouldn't use it for everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gerry Casa Christiana

Gerry Casa Christiana

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, JohnSadlerAstro said:

!?!?!?!? :eek: WOW!

Looks like there are still some remaining wisps of hope in budget astronomy....

John

By the way I'm breaking all the rules. ISO3200 Saved with adjustments in DSS I do not work on TIFF either just png because it's smaller. If I had a computer that could run star tools I would! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • 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.