Is this for real!? Your opinion please!

[Kitsunegari]

I am not exactly sure how to explain what happened here,  but imppg just did some sort of magic trick.

 

127mm x 1200mm telescope with a 2x meade telenegative ,  and a 2.5x televue powermate stacked on top of it   (something like 4.5x)

 

So here is the raw capture, looks like garbage.   But something magical happened when I started experimenting with imppg.

 

 

second pass

 

third pass

 

 

fourth pass

 

 

fifth pass

 

 

sixth pass

 

seventh pass

 

 

 

Is this for real!? Because this is some insane magic here.

For your reference, please follow this link to another user operating an 11" telescope for calcium imaging and you can see that there is some sort of voodoo here.

 

http://solarchatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=26801

 

http://solarchatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=26460   <---- this image in particular!   

 

and here  http://solarchatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=26178

 

and here is one more 

 

http://solarchatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=25591

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Kitsunegari

[Kitsunegari]

here are a a couple image from the dutch open telescope, which uses adaptive optics on their calcium system.

 

 

 

 

here is a video of the same feature

https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~rutte101/dot/albums/movies/2006-04-24-NW-ca.avi

[GreatAttractor]

I have no experience with CaK imaging and processing yet, but your 4th pass and above definitely look "overcooked" (with "ringing" artifacts of sharpening).

It's a good idea to compare to DOT images (maybe also the 1-meter Swedish Solar Telescope has some CaK material in its gallery). Another thing you could try is running the raw video through Stackistry and checking the mosaic of best fragments it generates. (In case of white light material, it would nicely show granulation in the whole FOV.) This gives some idea about how the "real image" would look without seeing effects (though it will be noisy and low-contrast, so a histogram stretch will be needed - can be done in ImPPG, just disable all sharpening and use the "stretch" button in the curve window).

 

(See the tutorial on how to get this best fragment mosaic; make sure to enable subtitles. You don't need to wait for stacking to finish, the mosaic is available as soon as "Quality Estimation" finishes.)

Edited July 8, 2020 by GreatAttractor

[Kitsunegari]

5 hours ago, GreatAttractor said:

I have no experience with CaK imaging and processing yet, but your 4th pass and above definitely look "overcooked" (with "ringing" artifacts of sharpening).

It's a good idea to compare to DOT images (maybe also the 1-meter Swedish Solar Telescope has some CaK material in its gallery). Another thing you could try is running the raw video through Stackistry and checking the mosaic of best fragments it generates. (In case of white light material, it would nicely show granulation in the whole FOV.) This gives some idea about how the "real image" would look without seeing effects (though it will be noisy and low-contrast, so a histogram stretch will be needed - can be done in ImPPG, just disable all sharpening and use the "stretch" button in the curve window).

 

(See the tutorial on how to get this best fragment mosaic; make sure to enable subtitles. You don't need to wait for stacking to finish, the mosaic is available as soon as "Quality Estimation" finishes.)

thank you for confirming my suspicion that it is not real.   

 

I have great experience resolving white light granulation, so no troubles there. 

 

  I am just trying to figure out why Valery's and Dutch open telescope and several other users are getting the similar effect;  are we all processing wrong? . see this thread here for more information https://solarchatforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=25168

 

 

[GreatAttractor]

1 hour ago, Kitsunegari said:

I am just trying to figure out why Valery's and Dutch open telescope and several other users are getting the similar effect;  are we all processing wrong?

No, the bright "celullar" pattern of lines is there for real. It's just that it gets "overcooked" when you keep applying deconvolution over and over.  E.g., those super-fine bright lines in your 7th pass don't look like something that could come out of 127 mm aperture with the kind of PSF it has - but rather like accumulated ringing artifacts.  (Note how in Valery's and DOT images the lines are randomly oriented, but the 7th pass shows them mostly near-vertical and near-horizontal.)

Of course, I can't be sure where exactly "overcooking" begins - one would have to, I guess, capture at the same time and conditions also with a large aperture and compare the results.

Edited July 8, 2020 by GreatAttractor

[Kitsunegari]

@GreatAttractor

 

here are a couple raw stackistry stacks.  i just tried random settings on the first one, set it to "90% best percentage"  and the second one is default settings.

 

 

Mars_134342_pipp.ser_stacked.tif Mars_134352_pipp.ser_stacked.tif

[Kitsunegari]

okay now i am very confused.  

Here is a different sample,  this time i used PIPP to extract 500 of the best frames .   I still cannot tell if they are artefacts from imppg or if this is real.

 

This is only two passes and very light sharpening.   Raw file is attached,  this was stacked with registax this time around.

 

Mars_134342_pipbp.tif

[Kitsunegari]

  this stuff is really there and cannot be an artifact.  Yes i can be greatly "Exaggerated" or "over cooked" but its there in the raw data.

 

just look at this animation of the "Cooking"    ,  its clear when it begins to be too much processing as the little streaks become over exposed.

This brightening is some type of "intergranulation connection" between the celluar divides..

[Kitsunegari]

  @GreatAttractor  @Montana   my imppg files are attached, 

one pass with anio above 

second pass below with anio2  (a little sharper but with more noise)

 

anio.xml anio2.xml'

Edited July 9, 2020 by Kitsunegari

[GreatAttractor]

Based on these newer images I agree, all the lines are really coming from underlying data. As you wrote, they should not be oversharpened (then they look unreal, too thin and too uniform in brightness for the aperture used).

 

And the animation rocks! (I like the "one pass" version better.)

[Kitsunegari]

1 hour ago, GreatAttractor said:

Based on these newer images I agree, all the lines are really coming from underlying data. As you wrote, they should not be oversharpened (then they look unreal, too thin and too uniform in brightness for the aperture used).

 

And the animation rocks! (I like the "one pass" version better.)

@GreatAttractori think i nailed it here with the right processing.  There is a slight dotting, but i think i can eliminate this if try a bit more.

 

 

single pass using 100.xml above

 

double pass below using 100.xml first, then 100b.xml second.  (slightly darker, slightly sharper)

 

100.xml 100b.xml

Edited July 10, 2020 by Kitsunegari

[Kitsunegari]

here are  ultra high resolution surface video captured by the dutch open telescope

https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~rutte101/dot/movies/2006-04-24-NW-ca.mpg

https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~rutte101/dot/albums/movies/2006-04-24-NW-ca.avi

 

 

here is an ultra high resolution limb video captured by dutch open telescope

https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~rutte101/dot/movies/2003-11-04-AR10486-ca-limb.mpg

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Kitsunegari