Messier 4 and Sh 2-9 in Scorpius

[gnomus]

I recently purchased AstroPixel Processor (APP).  I had been playing around with the trial version (which is fully functional as far as I am aware), but this is my first attempt with the purchased product.  APP was used for calibration, registering and stacking the subs.  I then combined the RGB in APP.  And finally I used APP's Background Calibration and Star Calibration tools.  I was very pleased with the results I got from these last two - I had spent some time in PI trying to get good colour, and just could not get rid of a very 'muddy' look. 

I then took the linear stacks (and RGB combo) into PI for further work, LRGB combination and so forth. 

This is data from the DSW Tak 106/QSI 683 rig:

• Lum: 21 x 600s
• Red: 12 x 600s
• Green: 17 x 600s
• Blue: 17 x 600s
• Ha: 9 x 1800s

A total of 15 hours and 40 mins exposure

[PhotoGav]

Very nice result there. A big +1 for APP, I really do find it a great bit of software. 

[gnomus]

Thanks Gav... I forgot to add that I used APP's Light Pollution tool too, in place of DBE.

[tomato]

That's a great image Gnomus, I'm no expert but this particular FOV would seem to be a very good test for any Astro image processing software.

I'm currently struggling to process LRGB subs with a combination of DSS, Moravian SIPS and Star tools. 

Is there much to choose between APP and PI? I do find the workflow in Startools quite intuitive, and I got (by my standards) some half decent results with OSC data, but  recent experience is telling me my next AP purchase should be one or the other for LRGB processing.

Steve

[gnomus]

2 minutes ago, tomato said:

That's a great image Gnomus, I'm no expert but this particular FOV would seem to be a very good test for any Astro image processing software.

I'm currently struggling to process LRGB subs with a combination of DSS, Moravian SIPS and Star tools. 

Is there much to choose between APP and PI? I do find the workflow in Startools quite intuitive, and I got (by my standards) some half decent results with OSC data, but  recent experience is telling me my next AP purchase should be one or the other for LRGB processing.

Steve

Thanks for your comment.

I found PI extremely complicated and it took me a long time before I had any idea what I was doing with it.  I stick to a few processes and have tried to learn them as best I can.  APP is probably much simpler, but the interface could be clearer.  However, as I said, I find that I reach a point wih APP when I have to head for another program.  You can stretch and so on in APP - I just prefer to do it elsewhere.

[tomato]

Thanks for the advice, and apologies, I really should have posted the software question elsewhere. 

I take your point about taking enough time with the software, I think part of my current difficulties is being too impatient to see an end result, my early attempts at OSC processing were not much good either.

[ollypenrice]

I don't intend to sulk because this is so low in the sky for me. So there!

Looking at the image I can guess that the processing challenge would be handling a stretch-demanding faint nebula (upper left) and a restrained-stretch-demanding globular (lower right.) You seem, by whatever means, to have pulled this off with commendable aplomb!

Olly

[gnomus]

8 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I don't intend to sulk because this is so low in the sky for me. So there!

Looking at the image I can guess that the processing challenge would be handling a stretch-demanding faint nebula (upper left) and a restrained-stretch-demanding globular (lower right.) You seem, by whatever means, to have pulled this off with commendable aplomb!

Olly

Thanks Olly,  I ordered the 'plomb' from Amazon last week.  I knew it would come in handy.

[ollypenrice]

5 minutes ago, gnomus said:

Thanks Olly,  I ordered the 'plomb' from Amazon last week.  I knew it would come in handy.

Will it work with XP? You know how up to date I am...

 

[gnomus]

1 minute ago, ollypenrice said:

Will it work with XP? You know how up to date I am...

 

I didn't know they released an 'XP' version of Fortran.

[wimvb]

Great image.

As I've said before, it isn't the [airplane] software,  but the pilot.

'nough said.

[gnomus]

Thank you, Wim. 

[Mark at Beaufort]

Fantastic image. To get such bright objects like M4 and Antares and then details in the Nebula is brilliant

[MartinB]

Well, whatever you used for processing has certainly worked.  What a well conceived and executed image, fantastic work

[gnomus]

Thank you, Mark and Martin.

[Rodd]

Very nice

Rodd

[gnomus]

Thank you Rodd.

[gorann]

Beautiful image and how you manage to handle those extreme differences in brightness in very impressive!

My only small comment (and it is just a detail) is the central colour or the bright star. The shine from the star is blue but centrally it becomes green and yellow, at least on my screen. I would assume it should be going from blue to white (when all channels become saturated). Maybe it is some physics going on that I do not understand.

[gnomus]

Thanks Goran.  Do you mean that sort-of 'cyan' tint in the first halo?

[gorann]

1 hour ago, gnomus said:

Thanks Goran.  Do you mean that sort-of 'cyan' tint in the first halo?

Sorry, it could just be my screen that made it look greenish and yellow.

I just did a screen dump of the central part of that star. After I upload it and see it on SGL it looks more cyan than green as you say.