IC-342....again

[Rodd]

I hope I have seen the errors of my ways.  After some tie and seeing a truly great IC-342, my efforts grew weaker by the day.  So I had a re-go at it.  This is just data from the TOA 130 and ASI 1600.  Still about 32 hours, but not the 64 obtained from the Planewave TOA combo.  Please let me know if I am thinking clealy jere.  version one is the new process, and version 2 is the old final image.  Is version 1 more real? less artificial?  I appreciate any opinions!  thanks

Rodd

[Stargazer33]

I'd be very happy with either version! 😁

[Rodd]

Just now, Stargazer33 said:

I'd be very happy with either version! 😁

Be critical--its the only way to foster improvement.....but thanks

Rodd

[tomato]

The brighter stars have a distinct blue/green hue on the first image, they are more white on the second image, at least on my monitor. The detail looks crisper to me on the second image, so that's my preferred option, but they are both fine images of the Hidden Galaxy.

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, tomato said:

The brighter stars have a distinct blue/green hue on the first image, they are more white on the second image, at least on my monitor. The detail looks crisper to me on the second image, so that's my preferred option, but they are both fine images of the Hidden Galaxy.

But the secon one looks so unreal t me--artificial--over sharpened and over stretched.  It is way out of balance to me.  

[Freddie]

I was also going to say version 2 but it appears that you want people to decide but they have to choose version 1 otherwise you will tell them they are wrong!!!

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, tomato said:

he brighter stars have a distinct blue/green hue on the first image

Fixed the blue star halo as much as I can (the stars ARE blue--supposed to be anyway).

 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Rodd

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, Freddie said:

I was also going to say version 2 but it appears that you want people to decide but they have to choose version 1 otherwise you will tell them they are wrong!!!

We are all entitled to an opinion--why can't I have one too?  

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, Freddie said:

I was also going to say version 2 but it appears that you want people to decide but they have to choose version 1 otherwise you will tell them they are wrong!

It just boggles my mind is all

[wimvb]

V3 for me. In v1 the blue stars were a bit too obvious, while in v2 the arms of the galaxy seemed pushed a bit too much. As if a mask was used to enhance them. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by wimvb

[tomato]

I like your modified ver 1 better,  but sorry, I still prefer ver 2, it’s the clarity of the detail for me.

But hey, I would be mighty proud to have posted either of them.

[EyeGuy]

3 hours ago, Rodd said:

Be critical--its the only way to foster improvement.....but thanks

Rodd

I hate them both!
 

just kidding. Both real tour de forces and very impressive. There’s definitely a bit more detail visible in the second (bottom) version. They’re both very pleasing to the eye and neither has a crazy over-processed look.

Maybe the star colours are a bit more realistic in the bottom one to my eyes? Lovely work.

Barry

 

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, wimvb said:

V3 for me. In v1 the blue stars were a bit too obvious, while in v2 the arms of the galaxy seemed pushed a bit too much. As if a mask was used to enhance them. 

You nailed it Wim--that exactly what I did.  I agree

[Rodd]

 

 

6 minutes ago, EyeGuy said:

I hate them both!

So do I!!!!   I think its drivel for 30+ hours.  But I am unable to make it right.   But I will NOT be collectig more data on this one.😃

Rodd

[Rodd]

55 minutes ago, wimvb said:

V3 for me. In v1 the blue stars were a bit too obvious, while in v2 the arms of the galaxy seemed pushed a bit too much. As if a mask was used to enhance them. 

 

55 minutes ago, tomato said:

I like your modified ver 1 better,  but sorry, I still prefer ver 2, it’s the clarity of the detail for me.

But hey, I would be mighty proud to have posted either of them.

OK--here is the best of both worlds--a blend

 

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Rodd

[astro mick]

Hi Rodd.

V1 although very good looked a little too sharp for my liking.V2 although you definitely tamed the Galaxy,it was at the expense of the dreaded blue halos around the brighter stars.Your last effort has corrected both issues,and that is the one I would go for.On my screen the image may need a slight crop as I,m seeing borders.

However considering the faintness of this object,and the difficulty in capturing enough photons,it maybe the best you can achieve Rodd.

Mick.

[Rodd]

2 minutes ago, astro mick said:

Hi Rodd.

V1 although very good looked a little too sharp for my liking.V2 although you definitely tamed the Galaxy,it was at the expense of the dreaded blue halos around the brighter stars.Your last effort has corrected both issues,and that is the one I would go for.On my screen the image may need a slight crop as I,m seeing borders.

However considering the faintness of this object,and the difficulty in capturing enough photons,it maybe the best you can achieve Rodd.

Mick.

Thanks Mick---I forgot about the edges.  Oh well--easy fix.  Thanks!

Rodd

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, astro mick said:

Hi Rodd.

V1 although very good looked a little too sharp for my liking.V2 although you definitely tamed the Galaxy,it was at the expense of the dreaded blue halos around the brighter stars.Your last effort has corrected both issues,and that is the one I would go for.On my screen the image may need a slight crop as I,m seeing borders.

However considering the faintness of this object,and the difficulty in capturing enough photons,it maybe the best you can achieve Rodd.

Mick.

Thanks Mick--here is the cropped edge version of the last.  I feel like I found that tiny sliver in my heel that has been plauging me for weeks!

[ollypenrice]

Version two is flatter and more evenly illuminated, which is less like the eyepiece view (such as there is one!) The core is the only part that we were able to see in a 14 inch and even then it was faint. So the revised version is probably more honest but I like both, I must say.

Olly

[Rodd]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Version two is flatter and more evenly illuminated, which is less like the eyepiece view (such as there is one!) The core is the only part that we were able to see in a 14 inch and even then it was faint. So the revised version is probably more honest but I like both, I must say.

Olly

Thanks Olly. You hit the nail on the head with “eyepiece view” and “evenly distributed”

Rodd