Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_dslr_mirrorlesss_winners.thumb.jpg.9deb4a8db27e7485a7bb99d98667c94e.jpg

SteveL

M42/M43/NGC1977 RGB with the MakNewt... yes, another one!

Recommended Posts

First time out using Nebulosity, and seemed a doddle to use compared to Maxim. I used RAW FITS (so they are grey scale on disk).

I had to crop ever so slightly as I still have some flex in the system, which leaves me with some odd artifacts along one edge where the subs dont quite cover the entire area with every shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see on your qhy8 you have that line a couple of pixels wide (near the top).

TJ

:sign5:

Now thats like pointing out a mole on Kylie's butt TJ.

Seriously though, do they all do this, as my Nikon D50 is reputed to have the same sensor and I've never noticed such a line.

Kaptain Klevtsov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, I could tell you about every PORE on Kylie m8 :hello2: Besides, it was meant in no way as a critiscism, aplogies if that's how it came across (I think Steve knows me better than that though :D )

Its something I have meant to ask Bern about tbh, as I didnt want it to be 'only me', especially on a brand new camera, but if its there on a few, and it looks to be in a similar place to mine.

Steve, Bern also had some ring type OAG's for use with newts. I wonder whether one of them would fit into the setup and get rid of the flex altogether, if so, I reckon that'd be just about a perfect setup.

Raw FITS, thats what I meant. I have been wondering if it is worth taking each colour layer and treating it seperately, as per the NASA Fits tutorial, or just letting DSS do its stuff with the raw files.

Cheers

TJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was wondering about OAG for this, would help with the weight and flex, but I also remember the pain of OAGs and dont want to return there unless I have to.

I stuff the grey FITs into DSS and they it debayer and stack it. I do have 30x1min subs to add into this stack as well, just not sure if its worth it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this better or over processed? Cant tell.... both versions look good. Original has that ethereal smoothness to it, new one is a bit sharper and more contrasty (at the expense of a tiny amount of extra noise in the full size version)

Original versus New

m42_20081206_800.jpgm42_20081206_wip2_800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like you said Steve, it's hard to tell as they are both so good. At first glance i thought the original was better (smoother in the cloud area) but now i'm leaning towards the reprocessed one. The reprocess is certainly a lot more punchy and dramatic. A really hard call!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw i think you should get POTY for that one. It's simply perfect :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you changed the top first pic Steve ,im sure i could see a tiny bit of noise around the top stars yesterday,i cant tell the difference between the bottom two frigging awsome :thumbright: ............kev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the image at the top in the original post hasnt changed in any way since I first posted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both equally good for different reasons. I like the ethereal quality in the original, as mentioned above. The new version seems more 3D. The background stars seem further away. The more I look at them ....... just WOW! How big is that in reality? Makes me feel like I am looking out from an observation deck on some interstellar cruiser. A great start to my Monday morning - thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawd, If I won either one in a draw, I would be ecstatic.

Ron. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW Steve, awesome result. :shock: :shock: :shock:

You must be as happy as a kitten following a leaky cow.

Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studied this well Steve , i prefer the reprocessed one. you have held it in perfectly , just the right amount of contrast. very dynamic ,, thats of course on my super Monitor.

Its just a fantastic image .

Rog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both excellent. The first one looks very natural, in the second one you've emphasised the detail and upped the contrast a tad.

For me, for purely aesthetic reasons, I prefer the first....I like the ethereal quality. :D

Cheers

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there - what more is there to say - an absolutely exceptional image. That new tube is really top class for capturing these DSOs. Immense!!

Thanks. Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been kind of ignoring this thread for a while since it says M42 in the title. Then I saw it getting bumped to the top all of the time and finally decided to have a look. And what did I find?! Wow! I thought it looked awsome, and then I clicked the image for a full resoulution... Even more Wow! :D

I have to put my finger and one thing though; FOV. This spectacular image would have been out of this world with some black space framing the nebula. Nothing you can do about it though!

Excellent work and a crazy ammount of detail!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the second version. It is closer to "Perfect", and that standard I would take from Hubble's Pic of the same target.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic0601a.jpg

The edges of the clouds are crisp, sharp, and well defined. Of course, Hubble doesnt have to cut through the murk to grab its images, but that shouldnt mean we dont strive to process our images until they are as close to the Hubble standard as the resolution allows. We hear a lot about the "ethereal" quality of some pictures, which conjures up a picture of a misty moisty graveyard with swirling clouds of fog and mist. While the artist in me can appreciate the pure beauty that can be created via photoshop and processing, it is also nice and appropriate to see the images being as close to the Hubble standard as possible.

Interestingly, I spent the day emptying a pond full of mud leaves and general carp, and digging out a natural spring that has been covered up since WWII. All of a sudden the clear fresh water started to run into the muddy gunge, and I was struck by the similarities of the wispyness of the mud in the clear water, very similar to the swirls of dust and smoke we see in space. Again, even on the tiny scale, the edges of the swirls are clean and well defined. When the water was agitated, the pretty swirls just went "out of focus" and became a muddy blur.

So that's why I prefer No.2! The running man in particular has benefitted from the re-process. It's in that top area that the stars showed the tiniest trace of being oval, is that the side where the flex manifests itself? It also seemed in the original, that that was where the nebulosity seemed a little too soft, but the re-process sorts that completely.

Btw, have you tried Pixinsight? I havent used the full version yet, but there is a routine in there which allows the sharpening through deconvultion routines, but also has an algorithm to deal with the dark rings that it creates around the stars. There is always it seems that trade off when you sharpen things. It has a 30 day free full trial, and if you ask nicely, they will extend your license.

I think now Steve you should take a holiday at Olly's place. Can you imagine how this could look with a decent sky???? maybe like this! http://www.freewebs.com/jezstar/ORION%20NEBULA.jpg

Cheers

TJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.