Leo Triplet - 9 hours exposure

[tooth_dr]

54x300s with modded Canon 40d (first light!), ED80 FF EQ6.  I have another 54 subs to stack to this as well from another camera.

 

If anyone fancies a go at processing I would be extremely grateful. 

 

 

 

Edited to add an additional 54 subs from a second DSLR:

 

[Allinthehead]

Nice. How will you combine the two sets?

[tooth_dr]

2 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

Nice. How will you combine the two sets?

Hoping in DSS. Camera sensors are identical-ish and so are scopes. 

[Allinthehead]

So would you calibrate and stack each set and then integrate? 

[newbie alert]

Very nice Mr tooth

[tooth_dr]

1 hour ago, Allinthehead said:

So would you calibrate and stack each set and then integrate? 

I was thinking of having a main group and group 1. I have flats and bias for each camera, to match each set of lights. I’m hoping it’ll be similar in fashion to taking subs of different nights. I just need to chop 2 pixels off the long side of one of the cameras images”.

[Barry-Wilson]

Very good image of the Trio Dr Tooth .

I would be tempted to blend the two images, the first has a more natural process 'feel' with the second bringing less noise.

[tooth_dr]

14 minutes ago, Barry-Wilson said:

Very good image of the Trio Dr Tooth .

I would be tempted to blend the two images, the first has a more natural process 'feel' with the second bringing less noise.

Thanks Barry. I could even just make out the tidal tail on this image. My processing is inconsistent, no two attempts ever seem to end up the same. 

[Xiga]

Lovely image Adam. really, really like that. The first image has a gradient, but you've dealt with it nicely in the 2nd one. You've also got great star colour too, right down to the core. It makes such a difference, mine are usually white in the middle, lol. 

Did you re-size or crop the image at all?

You have a lot of signal there. On close inspection, i think the galaxies themselves (especially the big one on the right) could stand up to some more selective sharpening. 

[tooth_dr]

7 hours ago, Xiga said:

Lovely image Adam. really, really like that. The first image has a gradient, but you've dealt with it nicely in the 2nd one. You've also got great star colour too, right down to the core. It makes such a difference, mine are usually white in the middle, lol. 

Did you re-size or crop the image at all?

You have a lot of signal there. On close inspection, i think the galaxies themselves (especially the big one on the right) could stand up to some more selective sharpening. 

Thanks Ciaran. I was actually thinking I wonder what you could do with the data yourself! The image is cropped, and it’s two separate camera images combined which may have affected it. 

[Shibby]

Very nicely done. The natural-looking processing is pleasing.

[Allinthehead]

 

On 2/21/2018 at 20:15, tooth_dr said:

If anyone fancies a go at processing I would be extremely grateful

Looking great. I'd like a crack at processing.

[tooth_dr]

@Allinthehead

 

Heres the file out of DSS, its quite large> if you don't mind having a crack at it that would be great.  108x300s ISO800 (Canon 40d + 1000d)

 

Autosave002.tif

[wimvb]

I had a (quick) go at your image.

The tidal tail is visible in the original, but veeery close to the noise floor. It may just be visible in the jpeg as well. With a little more tlc you'll probably be able to make it stand out more.

[tooth_dr]

6 hours ago, wimvb said:

I had a (quick) go at your image.

The tidal tail is visible in the original, but veeery close to the noise floor. It may just be visible in the jpeg as well. With a little more tlc you'll probably be able to make it stand out more.

That’s very cool thanks Wim. I could maybe hit this one again with 600s subs and LPF perhaps?

[ollypenrice]

The tail is indeed visible and even with a vast amount of data in long subs from a dark site it remains a considerable challenge, so good going!

I don't know if DSS will support this process but the ideal way to combine two different sets might be to make a complete set of separate calibrated subs first. You could then stack these calibrated subs in a second operation to maximise the benefits of the Sigma clip algorithm.

Olly

[wimvb]

1 hour ago, tooth_dr said:

That’s very cool thanks Wim. I could maybe hit this one again with 600s subs and LPF perhaps?

More data seems the obvious answer to the problem of revealing more detail. But in the tiff you provided, the background level was very high. PixInsight registered the background at 0.2+ (on a scale from 0 - 1). In essence you lost a great deal of dynamic range in your image. If light pollution was the cause, then using a filter may be the answer. But you'll also need to optimise the ISO settings and exposure time to suit your imaging conditions.

[tooth_dr]

8 hours ago, wimvb said:

More data seems the obvious answer to the problem of revealing more detail. But in the tiff you provided, the background level was very high. PixInsight registered the background at 0.2+ (on a scale from 0 - 1). In essence you lost a great deal of dynamic range in your image. If light pollution was the cause, then using a filter may be the answer. But you'll also need to optimise the ISO settings and exposure time to suit your imaging conditions.

 

The TIFF files stacked from each camera were not light like that, it was only when I stacked the two ‘stacks’ that it went light! Perhaps there is a better way of combining data from 2 identical cameras?

[tooth_dr]

10 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

The tail is indeed visible and even with a vast amount of data in long subs from a dark site it remains a considerable challenge, so good going!

I don't know if DSS will support this process but the ideal way to combine two different sets might be to make a complete set of separate calibrated subs first. You could then stack these calibrated subs in a second operation to maximise the benefits of the Sigma clip algorithm.

Olly

I have flats and bias for each camera. I’m pretty sure DSS would allow this by using main group and group 1. But for some strange reason the pixel size changes when the RAWs are imported into DSS, so it doesn’t want to stack the calibrated files from each camera, as one set becomes 2 pixels longer. 

I’m planning on using this setup a lot and have invested time and money into it so I really need to get the right software even if it means spending more   

[tooth_dr]

This is what the raw size changes to in DSS, despite both files being 3888x2592 when I right click on properties in their saved folder. Also I put both sets of files into Astro Pixel Processor (APP), the files all remain at 3888x2592! Confused  

 

[Allinthehead]

Here's my effort. Nice data btw.

 

[tooth_dr]

42 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

Here's my effort. Nice data btw.

 

Wow. The colour and detail in the trio is incredible Richard! It really takes a good few hours on the old DSLRs to get a good image but it does get there

[Allinthehead]

13 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Wow. The colour and detail in the trio is incredible Richard! It really takes a good few hours on the old DSLRs to get a good image but it does get there

Thanks. To be honest i did very little with it.

I brought your autosave into APP.

I did a 10% ddp stretch. Used the light pollution removal tool. Ticked the saturation box.

Saved with the stretch applied and then into photoshop.

I used hlvg. Layered high pass filter (used only on the galaxies), noise reduction (masked). Adjusted the black and grey point in levels to what i liked. Carboni's make stars smaller. That's it. 

[Rodd]

Very natural looking--very nice.

Rodd

[gonzostar]

Excellent images, However did you know that the tidal trail extends both sides of the galaxy  

This is a light frame taken other night 300s exposure (raw) un-modded canon450d with a 102APO refractor

LIGHT_300s_800iso_+11c_20180320-23h20m10s761ms.CR2 

 

Cheers 

Dean