IC-342

[Rodd]

technically, this image is not finished, but I thought it would be interesting to post at this stage.  This is an Ha(R)RGB image--the (R) indicates that I used the red channel as aa luminance.  Strange I know, but the high noise level in the blue channel was making the RGB image look blurry.  As I haven't had the opportunity to collect the lum data yet, and the red channel was the cleanest and sharpest data I had (6 hours on a good night), I thought to use the red channel as a luminance to see if it would hide the noise.  I know the background is too flat for this galaxy (actually foreground--as the dust and structures of the Milky Way are present), but the data set to date just can't support the subtle foreground structures.  So I rendered the background to exemplify the galaxy by itself.  I think there are suggestions of foreground stuff--but its pretty subtle.  As I had a decent Ha stack (12.5 hours), I deceided to gomahead and add it.

Not sure about the color of the galaxy--I thought it a bit gray, so I gace it a slightly more ruddy appearance, which I think is correct, but please correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Rodd

[carastro]

Looks Great

Carole 

[alan potts]

Looks very nice indeed from where I'm sitting.

Alan

[Rodd]

6 minutes ago, carastro said:

Looks Great

Carole 

Thanks Carole

[Rodd]

Just now, alan potts said:

Looks very nice indeed from where I'm sitting.

Alan

Thanks Alan

[wimvb]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Not sure about the color of the galaxy--I thought it a bit gray, so I gace it a slightly more ruddy appearance, which I think is correct, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Great iamge, Rodd.

Here's a trick I just picked up that can help boost colour saturation in the galaxy, using PixInsight

• Clone the image and call it "small_structure"
• Use MLT to remove the residual layer, leaving only the lowest 8 wavelet layers. You may need to experiment with the number of layers.
• Use pixelmath to create a new image called "large_structure": original - small_structure. Do not use the rescale option
• Use the colour saturation tool (c-curve) in CurvesTransformation to increase the saturation of the large_structure image
• Rebuild the image using pixelmath:  large_structure + small_structure. Now, use rescale result and create a new image
• Lower the background level of the new image a little to make the galaxy 'pop' (I usually go down to 0.07 in background value for galaxies)

Hope this helps

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, wimvb said:

Great iamge, Rodd.

Here's a trick I just picked up that can help boost colour saturation in the galaxy, using PixInsight

• Clone the image and call it "small_structure"
• Use MLT to remove the residual layer, leaving only the lowest 8 wavelet layers. You may need to experiment with the number of layers.
• Use pixelmath to create a new image called "large_structure": original - small_structure. Do not use the rescale option
• Use the colour saturation tool (c-curve) in CurvesTransformation to increase the saturation of the large_structure image
• Rebuild the image using pixelmath:  large_structure + small_structure. Now, use rescale result and create a new image
• Lower the background level of the new image a little to make the galaxy 'pop' (I usually go down to 0.07 in background value for galaxies)

Hope this helps

Thanks Wim. I will try this. Not sure how colorful the hidden galaxy is.  I will have a play. Will be some time before I have results!

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, wimvb said:

Here's a trick I just picked up that can help boost colour saturation in the galaxy, using PixInsight

Not your method yet--will take some time to learn.  But I did something similar--made the galaxy pop, reduced the core, and reduced it a bit so full resolution viewing is not too big.  Black point dropped but numbers are still around .1 for all colors.  i also reduced the biggest stars a bit.  Finally, I reduced the Ha saturation a bit--was getting out of hand.  The sraeas are so samll I figured a bit redder would stand out a bit more--but I think I have chaned my mind

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Rodd

[Rodd]

Well--thanks to Wim, I think the image is a bit better.   

[Rodd]

9 hours ago, carastro said:

Looks Great

 

9 hours ago, alan potts said:

ooks very nice indeed from where I'm sitting.

 

8 hours ago, wimvb said:

Great iamge, Rodd.

Well--How about this--I added a 7 hour red stack collected with a 12" Planewave by my friend Rick Kunts to my image as a lum.  then I blended my image with the new image 50-50.  

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Rodd

[wimvb]

Just getting better and better. The outer regions of this galaxy are very thin, and using red as luminance won't help bring it out, unfortunately. Hopefully you can collect "real" luminance soon. 

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, wimvb said:

Just getting better and better. The outer regions of this galaxy are very thin, and using red as luminance won't help bring it out, unfortunately. Hopefully you can collect "real" luminance soon. 

That's the plan, though the sky lately is terrible.  I was lucky to get 43 usable blue subs.  I would like a little better conditions for lum.  My friend is shooting the image too--so he will provide a nice lume stack.  I like teh combo of the 2 data sets so far.  The plan is to combine everything--50-60 hours of data.  Should be fun

[wimvb]

Yes, that should be fun. Good luck. 

[Rodd]

52 minutes ago, wimvb said:

Yes, that should be fun. Good luck. 

Thanks--hre is the end of the lune for the data so far--I actually extracted the lum from my original and inserted into the conmination, then lifted.  

[ollypenrice]

I guess the blue channel has a right to be blurry because it's being dust-scattered. I think this is a tremendous rendition already. The target is an absolute devil of a thing, unlike any other galaxy I've ever imaged.

Yours has come out somewhat less yellow than ours (mine and Tom O'Donoghue's. We processed the data individually and got very similar colour but that doesn't prove anything.) Your star colour is convincing and you've controlled them well.

I think this is great.

Olly

[Rodd]

23 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I guess the blue channel has a right to be blurry because it's being dust-scattered. I think this is a tremendous rendition already. The target is an absolute devil of a thing, unlike any other galaxy I've ever imaged.

Yours has come out somewhat less yellow than ours (mine and Tom O'Donoghue's. We processed the data individually and got very similar colour but that doesn't prove anything.) Your star colour is convincing and you've controlled them well.

I think this is great.

Olly

Thanks Olly.  I ws debating on collecting more blue, as that is the noisiest channel by far--with the least amount of data.  But now not sure if more blue will help with noise.  The lum is the key I think.  I hope I get better nights for lum than I did for the RGB--the R wasn't bad--ut the blue an dgreen were a struggle.

Rodd

[Rodd]

On 21/12/2019 at 09:14, carastro said:

Looks Great

Carole 

 

On 21/12/2019 at 09:20, alan potts said:

Looks very nice indeed from where I'm sitting.

Alan

 

On 21/12/2019 at 10:53, wimvb said:

Great iamge, Rodd.

 

On 22/12/2019 at 15:40, ollypenrice said:

ours has come out somewhat less yellow than ours (mine and Tom O'Donoghue's. We processed the data individually and got very similar colour but that doesn't prove anything.) Your star colour is convincing and you've controlled them well.

Wanted to follow up on this project--I added 6 hours of luminance.  I had collected nearly 9 hours but conditions were deplorable nd many subs had to be tossed.  I probaby need 2-3x more luminance, but not sure.  That is sort of the question....Do you think more luminance would add much?  The effect of this lum was prtty subtle.  Then again it could just be extra processing.  I look back and can't really say I see much of an improvement--but it has to be compared to the image without the red data from the Planewave CDK, of course.  To be fair, this is a 50-50 blend of the original and my new LHaRGB image.

[carastro]

Never having attempted this object which i know by reputation is supposed to be also called the Hidden Galaxy (wioth good reason), I think it is difficult to answer your question. 

Carole 

[wimvb]

3 hours ago, Rodd said:

  To be fair, this is a 50-50 blend of the original and my new LHaRGB image

What does the new LHaRGB look like? If the blend is an improvement over the original, isn't then the new image even more of an improvement? 

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, wimvb said:

What does the new LHaRGB look like? If the blend is an improvement over the original, isn't then the new image even more of an improvement? 

Not necessarily.  I think the new one, not having been toiled over for nearly as long, lacked some things.  But I think it was smoother and less noisy. I think the original was too angular, and fine scale noise stole depth. As Olly said the palette was a bit off.  The blend is cleaner, and at fine scale the appearance of depth to faint structure is more evident.  I think the darks were too dark In the original.  I find often that a blend will contain the best of both images.  It will be midpoint between one to far to the left and one too far to the fight

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, carastro said:

Never having attempted this object which i know by reputation is supposed to be also called the Hidden Galaxy (wioth good reason), I think it is difficult to answer your question. 

Carole 

Thanks for looking. I might br crazy anyway!

[ollypenrice]

I think the last one is the best and a very good rendition indeed. Somehow this is a target which leaves you wanting more from it but I suspect that this is simply because the heavy dust obscuration is denying us access to a significant part of the target's light.

A small detail but the background sky along the two vertical sides is somewhat red or magenta as compared with the background around the galaxy, which is perfect to my eye. Should be an easy fix if you agree.

Olly

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I think the last one is the best and a very good rendition indeed. Somehow this is a target which leaves you wanting more from it but I suspect that this is simply because the heavy dust obscuration is denying us access to a significant part of the target's light.

A small detail but the background sky along the two vertical sides is somewhat red or magenta as compared with the background around the galaxy, which is perfect to my eye. Should be an easy fix if you agree.

Olly

Thanks Olly. I will have a look and see if I can fix.  I was a bit surprised that the lum didn’t add more.  Maybe I need more?

[ollypenrice]

5 minutes ago, Rodd said:

  I was a bit surprised that the lum didn’t add more.  Maybe I need more?

Looking carefully at our version taken from my dark site I don't see anything in ours which isn't in yours. You have all the faint outlying patches that we have. Of course there may be more but, if there are, we ain't got 'em!

Olly

[Rodd]

14 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Looking carefully at our version taken from my dark site I don't see anything in ours which isn't in yours. You have all the faint outlying patches that we have. Of course there may be more but, if there are, we ain't got 'em!

Olly

Well--I fixed it.  Needed the devil on my shoulder.  This is the fial version.  I spent all day reprocessing thi s image and ended up right back here---so, for good or ill....

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by Rodd