alacant Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Hi everyone This is 1 hour and 4 hours. Was it worth the extra three I wonder or is my it'll do type justification misleading me?! Thanks for looking. 700d @ ISO800 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rotatux Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Difference is far from obvious to me... Depth looks the same, as well as colors. But they are not the same scale so there may be much more details in the second one. Both good shots given the respective exposures, maybe too large a framing (reduce 25-30% ?), but be proud of them :) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlaiv Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Second one obviously better and certainly what one would expect from more exposure. I agree that both images should be processed the same. In fact, if you really want to do good comparison - try making a split screen scenario. Take both images - preferably stacked with the same method, bin/scale to same resolution, align them the same (register one to another) and equalize them, and then, in the end, compose one image by taking left part from one image and right part from the other image - while still in linear stage - and process resulting image. This will provide excellent way of seeing the difference between the two. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_taurus83 Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) First one is noisy, second one isn't. So yes, well worth the extra few hours! Edited February 25, 2020 by david_taurus83 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carastro Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 I am finding it difficult to tell as the images are different scale. Carole 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celestron8g8 Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Very nice capture , love the WFOV ! You have several bonuses in the field also ! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollypenrice Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 3 hours ago, vlaiv said: Second one obviously better and certainly what one would expect from more exposure. I agree that both images should be processed the same. In fact, if you really want to do good comparison - try making a split screen scenario. Take both images - preferably stacked with the same method, bin/scale to same resolution, align them the same (register one to another) and equalize them, and then, in the end, compose one image by taking left part from one image and right part from the other image - while still in linear stage - and process resulting image. This will provide excellent way of seeing the difference between the two. There is no point in taking a 1 hour and a 4 hour image and applying the processing of the 1 hour image to the 4 hour. The whole point of the 4 hour (or, ideally, the 20 hour!) image is that it will stand much harder processing. However, it would be instructive to apply the harder processing to the shorter image because all its shortcomings would show. For me the second image is clearly better, particularly in terms of colour intensity. I also think it has a lot more colour to give. It would probably stand more sharpening and local contrast enhancement as well and a harder stretch of just the outer halo. You have to catch more data but you also have to exploit it. Olly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alacant Posted February 25, 2020 Author Share Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, carastro said: different scale Hi and thanks for taking a look. I made sure they were the same size. Are you seeing something different? No need to resize or manipulate them. Just a gut reaction side by side is fine. Cheers Edited February 25, 2020 by alacant 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlaiv Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 1 minute ago, alacant said: No need to resize them. Just a gut reaction side by side is fine. Not much point in saying that to a certified pixel peeper like myself - my instant reaction is right click / open in a new window / zoom to full size - even typing it seems long in comparison to motions now firmly set in muscle memory 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alacant Posted February 25, 2020 Author Share Posted February 25, 2020 1 minute ago, vlaiv said: peeper @vlaiv: Of course, we'll make an exception for you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vlaiv Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, ollypenrice said: However, it would be instructive to apply the harder processing to the shorter image because all its shortcomings would show. That sort of thing I had in mind. Btw, above procedure is applicable to regular session if one wants to see a difference between for example 2h vs 0.5h or similar - you just stack fewer number of subs in one stack. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollypenrice Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, vlaiv said: That sort of thing I had in mind. Btw, above procedure is applicable to regular session if one wants to see a difference between for example 2h vs 0.5h or similar - you just stack fewer number of subs in one stack. Certainly true. Once my dear friend Tom O'Donoghue has found how much data is finally enough, by test-processing it, he....... doubles it and calls it a day! 🤣lly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 18 minutes ago, ollypenrice said: Certainly true. Once my dear friend Tom O'Donoghue has found how much data is finally enough, by test-processing it, he....... doubles it and calls it a day! 🤣lly From my motorsport days relating to cubic capacity, supercharger boost etc etc, “if some is good, more is better and too much is just right”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des anderson Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 A real classic, both are really good. BUT,there`s always a BUT....The 2nd just pip`s the first one a little more detail in the smaller galaxy. Des 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now