Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

Recommended Posts

Quote

just to be clear, it was the Morphology causing the artifacts not the noise reduction, in case anyone else was wondering. 

I have no idea what MT is, I don't use Pixinsight, but whatever it is seems to have had the same effect as OTT noise reduction.  But anyway the image certainly looks better without using MT.

Carole 

Edited by carastro
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ran into all sorts of issues with this and couldn't quite get the colours right. Star masks were nigh on impossible so I skipped deconvolution altogether. There is a lot of data in this (2 panel mosai

Here you go. I've re tried MT and it does produce the artifacts. 

I have completely re-processed the image now and this is the result.   Hi-res here  

Posted Images

@carastro, sorry I wasn’t being offensive, I was trying to be funny about how this post kept going round the same conversation.

Morphological Transformation is usually used to dilate or erode stars. It can create a splotchy effect with the filaments present if it’s used badly, as in my image. I tend to use it to draw more attention to the nebula but I may not anymore. 😀

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

PI is incredibly effective at so many tasks. The learning curve is to figure out which process to use when and, more important, which mask to create for what purpose. 80% of success comes down to masks, but once you get a grip on that, you can do some crazy things with it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use mostly PI too.
One thing i've found is that if doing a process and it's effect is too drastic and it's not possible to tune it down it can be a nice thing to combine the before and after image with Pixelmath to give a more pleasing result, it does of course not work with all processes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Xplode said:

I use mostly PI too.
One thing i've found is that if doing a process and it's effect is too drastic and it's not possible to tune it down it can be a nice thing to combine the before and after image with Pixelmath to give a more pleasing result, it does of course not work with all processes.

indeed, almost everything I do in PI I merge back with a 'before' version, experimenting with the opacity to suit.  Saved process icon for it, but would be nice if they actually formalised a tool, real time sliders etc - but then it gets too much like PS for their tastes

Edited by glowingturnip
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎24‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 12:45, steviemac500 said:

@carastro, sorry I wasn’t being offensive, I was trying to be funny about how this post kept going round the same conversation.

Morphological Transformation is usually used to dilate or erode stars. It can create a splotchy effect with the filaments present if it’s used badly, as in my image. I tend to use it to draw more attention to the nebula but I may not anymore. 😀

I'm not a PI user myself. It just looks unnecessarily convoluted to my eyes, and don't get me started on all those names lol 🙄 

But just on the subject of star reduction, rather than use MT, you might want to look into a new technique that a certain Adam Block came up with:

https://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=13567.0

Edited by Xiga
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2019 at 19:50, Datalord said:

The alternative is to make a completely starless version, but I don't know how to help you with that.

Starnet++ is now a module in PI. That should do the trick. No sliders, no mask just select and apply.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/07/2019 at 11:22, ollypenrice said:

Still, if you like trying to mend your watch while wearing boxing gloves you'll love PI!

:Dlly

That's exactly what PS feels like to me. 😄

Edited by wimvb
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@steviemac500, I just had a play with the image you posted. I created a star reduced and a starless version (starnet++)

combination.thumb.jpg.89c29d457d136156d3b75b999647af6f.jpg

I think that your star reduction didn't work because of the mask. I created a ring mask by combining two ordinary star masks:

A. Noise threshold = 0.5, Layers = 6, Large scale/Small scale/Compensation = 2/1/2, Smoothness = 10, Aggregate and Binarize checked

B. Same settings but Large scale/Small scale/Compensation = 0/1/0 and smoothness = 3. Strengthened this mask by bringing in the white point somewhat.

Then pixelmath to create the ring mask: A - B

Morphological Transform: 3x3 element, Morph. Selection, amount = 0.5, selection = 0.25, iterations = 8

The starless version was created with standard settings in starnet++ on the original image.

Combined with PixelMath, applied to the star reduced image:

iif((X()+Y())>1, $T, starless)

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wimvb said:

@steviemac500, I just had a play with the image you posted. I created a star reduced and a starless version (starnet++)

combination.thumb.jpg.89c29d457d136156d3b75b999647af6f.jpg

I think that your star reduction didn't work because of the mask. I created a ring mask by combining two ordinary star masks:

A. Noise threshold = 0.5, Layers = 6, Large scale/Small scale/Compensation = 2/1/2, Smoothness = 10, Aggregate and Binarize checked

B. Same settings but Large scale/Small scale/Compensation = 0/1/0 and smoothness = 3. Strengthened this mask by bringing in the white point somewhat.

Then pixelmath to create the ring mask: A - B

Morphological Transform: 3x3 element, Morph. Selection, amount = 0.5, selection = 0.25, iterations = 8

The starless version was created with standard settings in starnet++ on the original image.

Combined with PixelMath, applied to the star reduced image:

iif((X()+Y())>1, $T, starless)

 

Thanks Wim, I’ll have a look at the other file later. Your mask generation is very interesting, I don’t understand it, but it’s interesting. Why the 3x3 element, everything I’ve read has said to use a 5x5? 

Funny, I like starless nebula images but for some reason in Cyprus, no one else does! 🙄

By the way, what language is that bottom line written in and where do you go to learn it?

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

I'm afraid there's still something really wrong with that image (I hesitate as I have never produced anything in this league).

This is a crop from centre bottom, the fault should be self-evident:

image.png.c13911eee89eecd4065dc1075b849fa4.png

 

Basically - two panes haven't been properly aligned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used  Photoshop until the computer it was on died.  I bought the PC with PS already installed.  Now with a newer PC with much better performance I have PixInsight which I bought.  Very powerful but one hell of a learning curve.  Mind you PS was almost as bad!  I think PI is the more powerful and does everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

I'm afraid there's still something really wrong with that image (I hesitate as I have never produced anything in this league).

This is a crop from centre bottom, the fault should be self-evident:

image.png.c13911eee89eecd4065dc1075b849fa4.png

 

Basically - two panes haven't been properly aligned.

Yep, I see it now, can't believe I missed it but in fairness you have to look pretty hard or be looking for something anyway to see that!! I never noticed it first time round and I don't think it detracts from the image if you're not looking too hard. At a loss to explain it though as APP normally is faultless. Don't ever hesitate to offer criticism though otherwise how do we learn and this will be something I will scrutinise more in the future,

Still, AN have published it so I am going to remain happy with that! :)

Edited by steviemac500
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.

×
×
  • 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.