Testing new processing techniques!

[astroavani]

Image above or left before, below or right after the new techniques.

[Scooot]

All excellent images of course  

Viewing on my iPad I can’t tell the difference with the two Jupiter’s.

Mars is the most noticeable and I prefer the bottom one.

Bottom one for Saturn as well but the difference seems more subtle.

[Freddie]

Nice. So what are these new techniques?

[jetstream]

To my eyes-right Jupiter,top Mars and bottom Saturn are very nice improvements.Saturns rings are excellent in the bottom image IMHO.

[sloz1664]

Mine are right Jupiter, Mars and Saturn both bottom. Excellent images - all of them.

Steve

[Grimbles]

On 04/01/2019 at 00:06, jetstream said:

To my eyes-right Jupiter,top Mars and bottom Saturn are very nice improvements.Saturns rings are excellent in the bottom image IMHO.

I agree with Gerry

[astroavani]

Hello everyone, thank you for the comments!
In all the photos I tried to do a very smooth processing because I believe that the original images should not be too much altered under penalty of being artificial. So I just tried to remove the noise and gently pull out the details.

[astroavani]

Hello
It was asked by some colleagues of Astrosurf that I post the raw image that gave rise to the Saturn images posted above, I believe that perhaps someone here is also interested in comparing the before and after treated.
Everyone knows that the original image was a movie, this movie was made using Fire Capture. It captured 10,000 frames of which I piled 3916 to get the raw image below without sharpened by 50%, and with sharpened by 50% on AS! 2.
  Registax processing is a routine processing used by most planetary astrophotographers, in it I apply the wavelets, brightness, contrast and let the program itself establish an automatic RGB balance to stay in that color that was posted above. Then it is the case to just give another sharp one in Fitswork which is the program that really greatly improves noise and sharpness.

[orion25]

On 05/01/2019 at 09:37, Grimbles said:

I agree with Gerry

Ditto!   All excellent images, Avani!

[tooth_dr]

Stunning. But Saturn is something else. You just wanna pick it up, it’s like a chalky marble. 

[jetstream]

On 06/01/2019 at 17:32, astroavani said:

Hello
It was asked by some colleagues of Astrosurf that I post the raw image that gave rise to the Saturn images posted above, I believe that perhaps someone here is also interested in comparing the before and after treated.
Everyone knows that the original image was a movie, this movie was made using Fire Capture. It captured 10,000 frames of which I piled 3916 to get the raw image below without sharpened by 50%, and with sharpened by 50% on AS! 2.
  Registax processing is a routine processing used by most planetary astrophotographers, in it I apply the wavelets, brightness, contrast and let the program itself establish an automatic RGB balance to stay in that color that was posted above. Then it is the case to just give another sharp one in Fitswork which is the program that really greatly improves noise and sharpness.

Avani I highly respect your imaging work and hope to try lunar/planetary imaging myself. In a thread I saw the unprocessed capture of Saturn and have a couple of questions. First- and this is not criticism- I can see Saturn much clearer than the unprocessed image and I'm wondering how to relate this to my seeing conditions, which at times can be excellent. If I see Saturn at say 400x in the 15" dob very sharp would this relate to a sharp unprocessed image stack?

Also when viewing the moon (and planets) is there a way to relate your image sizes to visual magnification?

Your images are stunning Avani!

Thanks,Gerry

[astroavani]

Hello, Gerry!
I have great difficulties with English, so I do not know if I understood your questions well. Even so let's go, if it was not this, redo the question again.
Unprocessed image is never a sharp image as seen visually. This is because it is the sum of thousands of images that have to be treated to gain sharpness.
If your vision conditions are excellent as you say, you could probably produce better images than mine, my vision is usually average, it can rarely be considered good. The processing techniques that clean the image so as to leave them in that final appearance.
"Also when viewing the moon (and planets) is there a way to relate your image to visual magnification?"
This I do not know to tell you, I know that one can calculate the magnification that the filmed image has. Usually the pixel size of a camera corresponds approximately to the focal length of an eyepiece in millimeters. But this is a very imprecise calculation, in the case of ASI 290 that has a pixel of 2.75 microns I consider as if I had using a 3mm eyepiece. But you have to take more things into account like the use of barlow or even the distance from the last barlow lens to the camera sensor.
More doubts please ask!

5 hours ago, jetstream said:

Avani I highly respect your imaging work and hope to try lunar/planetary imaging myself. In a thread I saw the unprocessed capture of Saturn and have a couple of questions. First- and this is not criticism- I can see Saturn much clearer than the unprocessed image and I'm wondering how to relate this to my seeing conditions, which at times can be excellent. If I see Saturn at say 400x in the 15" dob very sharp would this relate to a sharp unprocessed image stack?

Also when viewing the moon (and planets) is there a way to relate your image sizes to visual magnification?

Your images are stunning Avani!

Thanks,Gerry

 

[Ruud]

I can see a clear improvement on the Jupiter and Mars images at the top of the page. The new technique on Saturn makes it look a bit overcooked. But that is just my opinion, I like Saturn dreamy, as the one you show further down.

translation/Eu posso ver uma melhora clara nas imagens de Júpiter e Marte no topo da página. A nova técnica em Saturno faz com que pareça um pouco demais. Mas essa é apenas a minha opinião, eu gosto de Saturno sonhador, como o que você mostra mais abaixo./

Thanks for sharing!

[jetstream]

3 hours ago, astroavani said:

More doubts please ask!

Thank you Avani, you answered my questions perfectly!

I did not know that an unprocessed stack is not as sharp as a visual observation- very good to know this. If the pixel size of that camera gives an approximate 3mm eyepiece fl then the C14 operates at roughly 1300x (no barlow or spacing calculated)- also very good to know.

I'm not sure if my seeing is better than yours or not but I want to gather as much information about things before delving into lunar imaging.

I just might have a few more questions later when I'm closer to imaging, Avani and again thank you. Please post more images as you get them! Gerry