Jump to content

1564402927_Comet2021Banner.jpg.a8d9e102cd65f969b635e8061096d211.jpg

LRGB Data Set


Rodd
 Share

Recommended Posts

As promised, here are the fits files for M8 and M20.  This was an unusual image for me.  Usually LRGB gives me trouble do to my skies--and these targets are in the absolute worst part of my skies--most times I can't image there at all, except narrowband a little.  Thor's helmet is the lowest I have gone--and these targets are below that.  The conditions this week were the best I have seen though, and that allowed me to collect respectable data.  Enjoy!  My version is posted as well.  All 5 min subs, the number is in the name.  Unity gain (FSQ 106 with .6x reducer, ASI 1600 with Astrodon series e Gen II true balance filters).  All linear, just aligned and integrated.

Lum-218.fit

Red-110.fit

G-151.fit

B-109.fit

My version

LRGB-2ac3c-scnr3a-alt.thumb.jpg.c2159947c16eea25cc02a361dcac4e0c.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fully agree with Wim. I know what to do tomorrow! Tonight I have other plans.  I will see 2001 with a young lady (my wife) who has never seen it but we just listened to the audiobook and she loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wimvb said:

Version 1.

POW!  That is colorful.  Maybe a bit oversaturated ?  I'd say less so enlarged....but maybe a bit.  Then again, maybe mine is  gray and lifeless.  I was going for a "natural" look.  I worked to keep saturation under control.  Maybe I should have let the horse run.

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

version 2.

The starfield on the left is much stronger than on the right, which doesn't seem (for lack of a better word) ... right. And I haven't found anything on Google that contradicts this. So I leave it as it is.

Ok if I put the full resolution image on Astrobin, Rodd?

M8M20_RGB_v2r.thumb.jpg.9f7be2507db44228c2d7600548c65245.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wimvb said:

, which doesn't seem (for lack of a better word) ... right. A

Well, the starfield definitely is denser to the left, so it makes sense that it is "stronger".  The nebulae are even more colorful.  Nice job on the details.  Post away Wim

Rodd

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wimvb said:

would these be oversaturated? In my opinion not. They are just cutouts from the larger wide field. I think it can handle the amount of colour.

No, they are the same.  I just think the reds get a bit garish at the edges.  Then again, Maybe that is the way these nebulae are supposed to look.  Besides, saturation is easy to manipulate.--largely a matter of taste.  So, what ever works for you.

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rodd said:

I just think the reds get a bit garish at the edges.

I see what you mean, so let's see what others come up with. There's always room for a version 3.

It's amazing data to work with. Thanks for sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, wimvb said:

I see what you mean, so let's see what others come up with. There's always room for a version 3.

It's amazing data to work with. Thanks for sharing.

Version 3?  I am on 30 or 40!  

Rodd

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim talked sense into me....I revisited my image and tweaked saturation.  I guess originally I processed it to look like it would visually.  Here is my rework (the simplest rework ever!).  I like it much better.  Thanks Wim!!

LRGB-2ac3c-scnr3a-alt-2.thumb.jpg.f4d5bf41937b791af0dfdf2a7e244fd1.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wimvb said:

It looks better if you number them as software (or Die Hard movies): 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0

That opens up the possibility of 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.....2.4, 2.5   etc.  AHHHHH!

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at this thread I see a lot of amazing images and realize that I am way behind, and got a bit stuck with the gradients. I hope I get some time tomorrow but I doubt it will bring any improvements to the excellent images I here see. I am impressed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rodd said:

That opens up the possibility of 1.1, 1.2, 1.3.....2.4, 2.5   etc.  AHHHHH!

Rodd

Or 1.2.6. Or you could do as microsoft does with windows, and skip numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gorann said:

When I look at this thread I see a lot of amazing images and realize that I am way behind, and got a bit stuck with the gradients. I hope I get some time tomorrow but I doubt it will bring any improvements to the excellent images I here see. I am impressed!

Time to abandon PS and and make your conversion to the dark side complete. Try dbe in PixInsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am slowly using more and more things in PI but like Olly I probably will just cherry pick procedures and then go back to my comfort zone (i.e. PS). This time I did not manage to get a useful image out of the Deconvolution in PI even if I went down to just 8 iterations I got ringed stars (I am sure that it could be done but I just do not know how the settings work). I ended up using a sharpening filter for PS called Neat Image with some success.

Maybe the best that can be said about my version (version 1) is that it is different. For once I do not have the most saturated one. It is quite striking how different the images can turn out.

 

Rodd M8 LRGB PS21 (increased star color).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gorann said:

This time I did not manage to get a useful image out of the Deconvolution in PI even if I went down to just 8 iterations I got ringed stars (I am sure that it could be done but I just do not know how the settings work).

Nice image. Deconvolution doesn't really add anything here. The only areas that could benefit are the brightest part of the nebulae. Deconvolution works best if stars are a bit soft, ie spread over more pixels. As would be the case if seeing or guiding is less than perfect. Most of the data here is in a range where deconvolution just isn't necessary. Otoh, you could try HDRMT to boost the nebulae a bit.

3 hours ago, gorann said:

For once I do not have the most saturated one. It is quite striking how different the images can turn out.

He he!

I even had more saturation than this aapod:

http://www.aapodx2.com/2018/20180319.html

Do you think I should take it down a notch?

Edited by wimvb
h
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gorann said:

Maybe the best that can be said about my version (version 1) is that it is different. For once I do not have the most saturated one. It is quite striking how different the images can turn out.

Looks good.  I did use Decon successfully--but only 13 iterations.  I found I had to up the dark ringing parameter.  But the effect was subtle--the longer the focal length and higher the resolution the more the Decon will show--so for this image, it is less than longer focal lengths--but more than allot of widefield setups due to the small pixels in camera.  Your saturation looks good.  I originally left mine rather unsaturated, being conservative, but since have upped the saturation a bit,  

Rodd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Wim, this time you have really gone way over the top?. Just kidding, but you could try to desaturate it a bit and see what it looks like.

I only attended to use decon very selectively on brighter parts but got too many ringed stars with PI (I am sure different setteings would have worked), so I ended up using an old trusted PS filter that is also a deconvolution but with much fewer settings (actually just one), and I used it at the lowest setting.

Robb's and my image are rather similar but I am puzzled about the difference in colours of the centre of the main nebula. Unfortunately (for me) I like Robb's colours better....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Looks good.  I did use Decon successfully--but only 13 iterations.  I found I had to up the dark ringing parameter.  But the effect was subtle--the longer the focal length and higher the resolution the more the Decon will show--so for this image, it is less than longer focal lengths--but more than allot of widefield setups due to the small pixels in camera.  Your saturation looks good.  I originally left mine rather unsaturated, being conservative, but since have upped the saturation a bit,  

Rodd

How do you "up the dark ringing parameter". Sorry to be such a novice on PI.....

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • 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.