Bubble Nebula Comparison

[vlaiv]

17 hours ago, Rodd said:

Well Vlad--I took everything that was said to heart and tried a reprocess.  No--I did not bn 2x2.  I plan on trying that next.  My opinion is the bubble and nearby nebula came out better--but the surrounding space is too dark--such a fine line.  Well--on second thought not so sure--my screen is set toward the dark end.  What do you think?

Rodd

Yes indeed - bubble looks marvelous now, very sharp, so does surrounding gas clouds. Outer nebulosity is indeed faint, but I guess it needs to be - it is probably very faint in comparison to bubble and surrounding gas clouds. To get that part smooth - much more exposure is needed, but I don't think it would be feasible and it does not detract from the target much.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Adam J said:

hat improved the second one but I think the blacks are looking a little blue at least on my monitor. 

Thanks-you have a very keen eye, sir.  The blue was indeed a bit higher (not by nuch)  I can't see much of a difference, but here is the same image with the background chroma equalized.  I think its a bit dark though--but it will do until I give it another go.

[tooth_dr]

What are all the tiny uniform white dots throughout the image?

[Rodd]

19 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

es indeed - bubble looks marvelous now, very sharp, so does surrounding gas clouds. Outer nebulosity is indeed faint, but I guess it needs to be - it is probably very faint in comparison to bubble and surrounding gas clouds. To get that part smooth - much more exposure is needed, but I don't think it would be feasible and it does not detract from the target much.

I am sure it can be brought out--I think I went a bit dark--such a fine line.  I think its an improvement--but the background bothers me....need a breal, but it will be attended (probably with a reprocess, or the creation of a blend of some kind)

Rodd

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

What are all the tiny uniform white dots throughout the image?

Hmm...Other than the stars I don't see to what you refer.

Rodd

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

What are all the tiny uniform white dots throughout the image?

I was going to make similar joke to Rodd's observation about uniform dots being stars, but yes indeed, there are very tiny white like artifacts (resembling dots, but in some cases - more like arcs).

I'll point it out, and I believe it is artifact of noise reduction process - place where both noise reduction and sharpening is applied or something similar.

[tooth_dr]

4 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Hmm...Other than the stars I don't see to what you refer.

Rodd

Vlaiv has highlighted it above ^^^

[Kinch]

I am not at home Rodd - so only looking in on a laptop.....but I also see those tiny white dots in the full size image. They have been there since the first rendition you put up. Now, the last effort (taking blue out of the background) has made the background worse. 

I hate making comments when I am looking in using a laptop (not a good monitor)…...but I suspect quite a few use laptops day to day.

[Rodd]

27 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Yes indeed - bubble looks marvelous now, very sharp, so does surrounding gas clouds. Outer nebulosity is indeed faint, but I guess it needs to be - it is probably very faint in comparison to bubble and surrounding gas clouds. To get that part smooth - much more exposure is needed, but I don't think it would be feasible and it does not detract from the target much.

Here ya go Vlad--a bit of exponential transform in the dim regions brought out the dim stuff a bit.

 

2 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

- place where both noise reduction and sharpening is applied or something similar.

That is from teh deconvolution process--too fine a scale for most observation though.  I will have to reporcess and maybe forgo the deconvolution.  I protect the stars but there are very fine scale features that cant be protected.

[Rodd]

5 minutes ago, Kinch said:

I am not at home Rodd - so only looking in on a laptop.....but I also see those tiny white dots in the full size image. They have been there since the first rendition you put up. Now, the last effort (taking blue out of the background) has made the background worse. 

I hate making comments when I am looking in using a laptop (not a good monitor)…...but I suspect quite a few use laptops day to day.

Dont see how--the effect was minimal only thing it did was change the color numbers from .06, .06, .1 to all .06s (blue is still .07 in places, but close enough for me)--but there is a final rendition

[Rodd]

13 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I was going to make similar joke to Rodd's observation about uniform dots being stars, but yes indeed, there are very tiny white like artifacts (resembling dots, but in some cases - more like arcs).

I'll point it out, and I believe it is artifact of noise reduction process - place where both noise reduction and sharpening is applied or something similar.

 

11 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

Vlaiv has highlighted it above ^^^

Upon closer inspection.....below my level of interest really.  Some of those are indeed very faint stars--others are tiny bits of nebula that have been excentuated through deconvolution.  We are now in the realm of micro pixel peeping.  No image is perfect, and as far as blemishes go, this one is less obtrusive than most.  I will see if they can be prevented in my next attempt......not in a rush though.  I can only see them if I peer at teh screen from a distance of an inch or so--or zoom in way far.  On astrobin they are not very noticeable.

Rodd

Edited September 26, 2019 by Rodd

[Rodd]

So--all good things must end...Thanks everyone.  I do not disregard your fiine scale pointers--I just can't tackle them without a complete reprocess--a full day endeavor.  I will try...not to say I will suceed.  A bit less fine scale sharpening, a bit more care with deconvolution.  We'll see.  Meanwhile--here is teh final image.  It has the bubble and nearby nebula of the sharpest, clearest version, and the background of the least dark, best color balanced version.  Let me know what you think and we can wait for chapter 2 (If I prove up to the task of reprocessing to better effect).  the reason I felt it necessary to create another version, is I did not protect the bubble and bearby regions well enough when I slightly lifted the background

Rodd

 

[tooth_dr]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

.....below my level of interest really.

Rodd

I'm sorry that you feel my comment is below your interest Rodd.

[Rodd]

10 minutes ago, tooth_dr said:

I'm sorry that you feel my comment is below your interest Rodd.

Come now, we were having so much fun.....not your comment, my processing mistakes.  If you dive deep enough into any image there are bound to be some.  The ones you point out are extremely fine scale.  One has to download the image then zoom in to really notice them.  So, I apology for saying what I said in the manner it was said.  I have also indicated that I will address the issue but that it will take a full reprocess, something that will take some time.   I think my. Comments must be taken in Toto and not clipped. No pun intended

Edited September 26, 2019 by Rodd

[glowingturnip]

2 hours ago, Rodd said:

 

others are tiny bits of nebula that have been excentuated through deconvolution. 

was going to say that (well after my initial schoolboy response to say "they're stars!") - not enough white derringing in deconvolution gives that, I liken it to the fluff that builds up on a jumper after a while.  I reckon the light and dark derringing on deconv is one of the hardest bits in processing to get right, for me anyway, more than once I've found myself struggling to process away subtle artifacts that shouldn't really have been there anyway.

Cracking final image 🙂

Edited September 26, 2019 by glowingturnip

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, glowingturnip said:

was going to say that (well after my initial schoolboy response to say "they're stars!") - not enough white derringing in deconvolution gives that, I liken it to the fluff that builds up on a jumper after a while.  I reckon the light and dark derringing on deconv is one of the hardest bits in processing to get right, for me anyway, more than once I've found myself struggling to process away subtle artifacts that shouldn't really have been there anyway.

Cracking final image 🙂

Yep. Your right. I thought I was so careful too.  Oh well, now I have something to do!

[astro mick]

Whatever the comments Rodd,the image is exerllent,and your dedication really does shine through.

I will wait for the next.

Mick.

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, astro mick said:

Whatever the comments Rodd,the image is exerllent,and your dedication really does shine through.

I will wait for the next.

Mick.

Thanks Mick!  

Rodd

[carastro]

I've been at Kelling for a week and now I am back and read this post again finding every-one prefers the opposite version to me, I decided to take a second look.  

I realise now that when I was trying to zoom in, it was impossible on the cropped version and it was in fact jumping from one image to another completely misleading me.  So in order to take a decent look at the cropped version, I went into Registar again and finally found the cropped version I could zoom into.

I now have to concede I was wrong in my earlier post mainly because I was getting confusing views of the two images.

Yes the cropped version is better. 

Carole 

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by carastro

[Rodd]

6 minutes ago, carastro said:

I've been at Kelling for a week and now I am back and read this post again finding every-one prefers the opposite version to me, I decided to take a second look.  

I realise now that when I was trying to zoom in, it was impossible on the cropped version and it was in fact jumping from one image to another completely misleading me.  So in order to take a decent look at the cropped version, I went into Registar again and finally found the cropped version I could zoom into.

I now have to concede I was wrong in my earlier post mainly because I was getting confusing views of the two images.

Yes the cropped version is better. 

Carole 

 

Now that's dedication!   I have noticed that at times the forum switches images when I zoom if 2 or more are posted.  Sometimes I have to try a few times.  Anyway-thanks for looking.  I hope you had dark skies at kelling

Rodd

[Kev M]

That image is truly stunning, dont care which version.....can only dream of getting one half as good as that.

Very well done.....

[Rodd]

Thanks Kev.....keep at it.....I am sure you will achieve your dreams.  Looks like you have a nice setup.  i wish i has a permanent observatory--it would make things so much easier.  I was keeping my rig set up under a 365/24/7 cover.  It worked well, but I had heart palpitations when ever I left the property (like every day!).  Since I built a wooden box that rolls off on rails.  I can lock it so it is much more secure.  Still takes me about 20-30 mins to get going, but it is much better than having to fully break down every night.  A dome or other permanent enclosure with a pier would be awesome.

Rodd

[carastro]

Quote

I hope you had dark skies at kelling

Dark skies but more terrible weather than clear skies unfortunately.   Like, torrential rain, thunder and lightning and all at the same time immediately followed by huge hailstones.  Luckily I was in a campervan, pity those in tents who found it quite scary.  Then the following day 40 - 50 mph winds.

We did get a 2 - 3 hours clear sky on 3 nights though.

Carole 

[Rodd]

6 minutes ago, carastro said:

Dark skies but more terrible weather than clear skies unfortunately.   Like, torrential rain, thunder and lightning and all at the same time immediately followed by huge hailstones.  Luckily I was in a campervan, pity those in tents who found it quite scary.  Then the following day 40 - 50 mph winds.

We did get a 2 - 3 hours clear sky on 3 nights though.

Carole 

I hope those short sessions made up for the bad.

Rodd

[carastro]

Better than nothing, but not long enough to get a decent image, except perhaps the last one. The others will have to be a WIP.

Carole