Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Recommended Posts

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 :) 

2018-04-19-N4565-3.jpg

2018-05-06-M106-2.jpg

Thanks for watching!

Edited by drjolo
  • Like 20
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

needle_deconv.thumb.jpg.f1cce8bc362bf80be8a78926a4e63a68.jpg

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 :) 

Edited by drjolo
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By alan4908
      Whilst waiting for clear weather, I decided to reuse some data that was previously acquired by my Skywatcher ED80 and my Esprit 150.   I used the Esprit data to get maximum detail on M106 and its companion NGC4248, whilst I reprocessed the ED 80 data such that the resultant background showed very faint objects.
      The ED 80 data is LRGB whilst the Esprit data also contains a Ha blend into the red channel. On the processing side, I used RegiStar to align the Esprit 150 and ED 80 images and then used Pixinsight's Gradient Mosaic Merge to create a seamless image. 
      Alan
      M106

      M106 (annotated)

    • By alan4908
      A LRGB image of M106 with an Ha blend into the red channel.
      Along with the main galaxy (M106) and NGC4248 (bottom right), quite a few very distant galaxies can also be seen in the background.  M106 is quite bright in Ha, so I decided to blend 6.5 hours into the red channel to obtain a more structural detail.
      The total image integration time was just under 16 hours and was taken with my Esprit 150.
    • By alan4908
      A LRGB image of M106 with an Ha blend into the red channel. Along with the main galaxy (M106) and NGC4248 (bottom right), quite a few very distant galaxies can also be seen in the background.  The total image integration time was just under 16 hours and was taken with my SW Esprit 150 and Trius 814 camera.
      The image was processed using four software packages:
      CCDstack: calibration, registration, data rejection, deconvolution (L), DDP stretch.
      PS: colour enhancement, noise reduction, sharpening, mask generation, image blending. 
      Pixinsight: gradient reduction (DBE), photometric colour calibration, sharpening (MLT), HDR Multiscale Processing, dark structure enhance
      Neat Image: background noise reduction.
      Alan

    • By alan4908
      A LRGB image of M106 with an Ha blend into the red channel.
      Along with the main galaxy (M106) and NGC4248 (bottom right), quite a few very distant galaxies can also be seen in the background.  M106 is quite bright in Ha, so I decided to blend 6.5 hours into the red channel to obtain a more structural detail.
      The total image integration time was just under 16 hours and was taken with my Esprit 150.
      Alan
       

       
      LIGHTS: L:14, R:14, G:13, B:15 x 600s, Ha:13 x 1800s, DARKS:30. BIAS:100, FLATS:40 all at -20C. 
    • By coatesg
      This is the first "proper" image from my rebuilt 14" Newtonian - has been a long time coming, and more tweaking to follow, but pleased how it performed. I've made a light box which works well and used data from evenings of 13th/15th Feb to create this image (but this showed the R channel, I think, where the OAG impinges and throws an odd reflection and doesn't reduce nicely - need to sort.... :-/).
      This is M106 and NGC 4248 (and a load of other faint fuzzies including at least one z>1.0 QSO right at the far left edge of the frame, as well as lots of anonymous galaxies that don't feature in anything in Simbad/Vizier). North is roughly down in this image.
      L: 5h35m (56x5m + 21x3m)
      R: 1h45m (21 x 5m, 2x2 bin)
      G: 1h20m (16 x 5m, 2x2 bin)
      B: 1h20m (16 x 5m, 2x2 bin)
      ST2000XM (@-20C), 350mm double truss Newtonian @ f4.53 (1584mm FL), Losmandy Titan. Guiding via ASI120mm on OAG. 
      Reduction and Processing in Pixinsight. 
      The L channel behaved nicely; colour less so, and was a bit of a challenge to get it to behave, especially the background which I needed to be quite firm with to remove blotchiness. I think really the moral is: more data... a bit more colour (and lum!) data might allow a bit more from the outer reaches and a much smoother background, but clear skies are what they are... Haven't got any HA here to bring out the jets, but the brightest (above/south of the core) is just about visible.
      All comments/suggestions/improvements appreciated! Thanks for looking.
       
      LRGB:

      Lum channel (pushed a touch more than the above...) - EDIT: had a tweak of it:

×
×
  • 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.