Melotte 15

[Rodd]

My last reprocess--out of data.  I was never satisfied with this.  It was collected with TOAQ 130 and the STT 8300.  It has over 20 hours of data--30min subs.  I used virtually no noise control, yet it appears like it has too much.  Not sure why--maybe focus was not spot on?  The palette gave ne trouble as well.  The new version is an improvement I think--if only for the saturation and palette.  Still not happy with full resolution viewing (edit--just looked at full res. --not as bad as I thought--much better than previous I think)

New

 

 

 

Old

[tooth_dr]

Wow Rodd. You wouldn’t think an amateur using ‘normal’ kit could achieve these images.  That is a testament to both your capturing and processing skills. 

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, tooth_dr said:

Wow Rodd. You wouldn’t think an amateur using ‘normal’ kit could achieve these images.  That is a testament to both your capturing and processing skills. 

Thanks Doc.  This one took far to long.  It will be interesting to shoot it again with the ASI 1600 and the TOA with the ,7x reducer--it will have the same pixel scale as this image--but a wider FOV.  I thing at F5.38 it will be mucg easier than F7.7.

Rodd

[souls33k3r]

You sir are my new favourite person to follow ... ok stalk  This is just crazy processing. Loving your re-works

 

[Rodd]

12 minutes ago, souls33k3r said:

You sir are my new favourite person to follow ... ok stalk  This is just crazy processing. Loving your re-works

 

Thanks Souls.. Very kind

Rodd

[gorann]

They are both quite outstanding images Rodd (spelled right this time). I can only side with tooth_dr's comment and I am afraid I cannot find anything wrong with them, except I start suspecting you are lying about your level of light pollution and that you have sneaked up on a moutain top somewhere?

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, gorann said:

They are both quite outstanding images Rodd (spelled right this time). I can only side with tooth_dr's comment and I am afraid I cannot find anything wrong with them, except I start suspecting you are lying about your level of light pollution and that you have sneaked up on a moutain top somewhere?

Thanks Goran--would that it were so.  I'd take The middle of Trafalgar square at this point--2 nights a month is just crazy wrong!

Rodd

[peter shah]

both great renditions ...but the first one has much more about it

[Rodd]

4 minutes ago, peter shah said:

both great renditions ...but the first one has much more about it

Is that the first one posted or the first one processed?

Rodd

[wornish]

Both are excellent.

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, wornish said:

Both are excellent.

Thanks Dave.

Rodd

[peter shah]

7 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Is that the first one posted or the first one processed?

Rodd

The New one

[Rodd]

Just now, peter shah said:

The New one

Pheww….At least I am not wasting my time!

Thans Peter

Rodd

[Xiga]

I have to agree, they are both stonkingly good images Rodd. The re-processed one has a lot more detail and depth to it. 

I am, however, quite drawn to the colour scheme of the original one (mainly because i'm just a sucker for those deep blues so it may just be me on that one!). 

One small thing - the re-processed one has quite a few tiny little red dots throughout the image. I'm not sure what they are, but if it were me i'd be tempted to blur the Color Layer by a few pixels to see what difference it would make. 

[Rodd]

14 minutes ago, Xiga said:

I have to agree, they are both stonkingly good images Rodd. The re-processed one has a lot more detail and depth to it. 

I am, however, quite drawn to the colour scheme of the original one (mainly because i'm just a sucker for those deep blues so it may just be me on that one!). 

One small thing - the re-processed one has quite a few tiny little red dots throughout the image. I'm not sure what they are, but if it were me i'd be tempted to blur the Color Layer by a few pixels to see what difference it would make. 

They are stars--I have desaturated them.  I had dimmed them down during star control, then boosted red a bit and didn't notice the resulting dots.  That's what happens when you screw with saturation! Thanks for pointing that out.  Still a band aide--the data is at its limits.  I need top shoot this one again.

Rodd

[wimvb]

Excellent image of my favourite part of the Heart nebula. Great reprocess as well. However, I do like the smoothness of the original. Normally I like images with a tiny amount of noise left. But for this, I quite like the "smooth shave" of the original version.

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, wimvb said:

Excellent image of my favourite part of the Heart nebula. Great reprocess as well. However, I do like the smoothness of the original. Normally I like images with a tiny amount of noise left. But for this, I quite like the "smooth shave" of the original version.

You'll notice that the original one was posted at a smaller size--I must have resampled when I saved it.  If you look on my Astrobin site and look at this version, you will see that it is overly smooth when zoomed--way too much noise control.  I liked it allot too, until I saw the smeariness at full res.  that's what prompted me to reprocess.  Not 100% successful.  

Rodd

[gorann]

I had not noticed the red dots but now I can see them. But that requires looking at the image at full resolution (and missing the big picture). In the old version they are small white stars so if you really want to fix them I assume you could just copy the stars from the old version and paste into the new. I often step back to older versions and retrieve selected things (like stars) when I find that something has gone a bit wrong. Easy to do in PS at least.

By the way, this image would be interesting to see in a starless-version. Something to keep you occupied when you have run out of data........

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, gorann said:

I had not noticed the red dots but now I can see them. But that requires looking at the image at full resolution (and missing the big picture). In the old version they are small white stars so if you really want to fix them I assume you could just copy the stars from the old version and paste into the new. I often step back to older versions and retrieve selected things (like stars) when I find that something has gone a bit wrong. Easy to do in PS at least.

By the way, this image would be interesting to see in a starless-version. Something to keep you occupied when you have run out of data........

Let me know if my fix in the last version was unsuccessful--If so, I like your idea of star replacement.  As farv as starless--in PI it is A LOT of work.  Inn PS maybe it would be easier?

Rodd

[Shibby]

Obviously, they're both great! I prefer the nebulous detail in the new image (due to lack of NR), but the stars and colour scheme of the original.

[Rodd]

35 minutes ago, Shibby said:

Obviously, they're both great! I prefer the nebulous detail in the new image (due to lack of NR), but the stars and colour scheme of the original.

I'm feeling a "replace the lum in the old with the lum from the new one" coming on.  That should give the best of both.  I'll let you know

Rodd

[gorann]

2 hours ago, Rodd said:

Let me know if my fix in the last version was unsuccessful--If so, I like your idea of star replacement.  As farv as starless--in PI it is A LOT of work.  Inn PS maybe it would be easier?

Rodd

Well, if you look carefully there are still quite a bit of red dots but then you have to peep and maybe very weak red stars should look like that, so just leave them.

I could not stop myself from having a go at a starless version using PS. I did it manually with the Spot Healing tool so it is a bit of work, at least 1-2 hours, and it makes the mouse arm hurt a bit. Sorry for messing with your data Rodd but I have run out of my own!

[alexbb]

Both are looking amazing, Rodd. At full resolution, though, I prefer the old version for the reasons stated above about the stars.

[Rodd]

32 minutes ago, gorann said:

Sorry for messing with your data Rodd but I have run out of my own!

No worries--join teh club.  I am always amazed at how different the image looks without stars--almost like its blurry, even though none of the details are different.  I think the stars add a sense of depth.  For me anyway, images look clearer and sharper with stars.  I like your version though.  It certainly eliminates any star troubles.  

Rodd

[Rodd]

28 minutes ago, moise212 said:

Both are looking amazing, Rodd. At full resolution, though, I prefer the old version for the reasons stated above about the stars.

That's because full res for the old version has been downsampled! I had forgotten I did that.  On the Astrobin site the old version looks really smeared from too much noise control.  

Rodd