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.

Rodd

IC-342....again

Recommended Posts

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

Image07-end2.thumb.jpg.6a9e3718b0dfc70371597731859febd6.jpg

1636135928_Astrobin-y4-Blend6clean.thumb.jpg.21909c9b08242f66e0012f0728f14ca2.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stargazer33 said:

I'd be very happy with either version! 😁

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

Rodd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

 

Image07-end2d.thumb.jpg.29cef2bf84b9cb12cc78dc3c2bdc820e.jpg

Edited by Rodd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by wimvb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Image48.thumb.jpg.cb9f2ff4d251059b6667399947952854.jpg

 

 

Edited by Rodd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Image48cropped.thumb.jpg.0b999d92d02b45e84e1363f63cb6a542.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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.