Needle and M106

[drjolo]

But not in one field I collected subframes for these two at the end of April and beginning of May this year, but just over last few days found the time to make some final processing. Conditions these days were not ideal - seeing was ok, but transparency was moderate under my suburban sky. So I had some hard time with colour balance and processing, but eventually I think I managed to set them close to proper values

Setup was: Meade ACF 10" with AP CCDT67 telecompressor, QHY163M camera and EQ6 mount. Guided with SW 80/400 + ASI290MM.
M106 details: LRGB 45:15:10:12 x 2 minutes.
NGC4565 details: LRGB 100:15:10:12 minutes.

The image targets do not require any more introduction I think  

Thanks for watching!

[wimvb]

Nice images, both. What software do you use for processing? I think that both could benefit from a subtle increase in sharpness in the brightest areas. In PixInsight that can be accomplished by using deconvolution and hdr processing.

[drjolo]

Thanks Wim! I use Maxim (calibration), Pixinsight (processing in linear phase and some stretch) and PS CS5 (processing in nonlinear phase). Actually I did deconvolution here using some Pix tutorial with PSF model, luminance mask and star mask. Here is image before (left) and after deconvolution:

I think the difference is quite subtle, however I used only 25 iterations. More iterations caused artifacts to show. In Pix I did: DBE, deconvolution, noise reduction (TGV and MMT) and preliminary stretch, then export to TIFF to Photoshop. HDR you mean HDR Multiscale Transform? I tried it once or twice, but was not able to get decent outcome, maybe I need more practice in this tool. 

I also think I would benefit from more subframes. But this ACF tube is pretty fresh purchase and I was a little bit crazy about choosing targets  

[wimvb]

That's what I meant. Deconvolution should be subtle, otherwise it will show artefacts. Remember that the image is still in the linear state, so any artefacts will be amplified during stretching. But you definitely have better definition in the stars and near the core.

As for HDRMT, try using it with a lightness mask with the brightest parts brought back to about 50%. You can then push the tool a little harder (lower number of scales, increase iterrations). Or use the same mask (made starless) and apply LHE at different settings (64 pixels, 128 pixels, 256 pixels, amount 50 %). This is just a case of experimenting.

[astrosathya]

Both images are brilliant as hell! Wow! I mean the M106 is so good, it kind of scared me to bits, just imaging a galaxy so may thousands of light years away, so clearly captured by a human in one edge of another galaxy! I mean, just thinking about it makes me scared. The size of our Universe.

[swag72]

Lovely pair of galaxies.... great work ????

[tomato]

Those image subjects are right up my street, and your results are first class! ?

[drjolo]

Thanks, I already forgot about this topic (but not pictures )