Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

M42 DSLR+QHY8 Collaboration (Registar)

Tim

By Tim
in Imaging - Deep Sky

Recommended Posts

Tim

Tim

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks all.

Obviously the final version wont contain the hubble data, but it should still be pretty I think.

What would be nice if anybody has any would be some OIII and SII data, and some more Ha to add to Robs.

I would REALLY like to do a widefield on this too, but for now we'll stick to the sort of framing for M42 that the pic shows please. There was a really great m43 close up some time ago from a C11, but I cant remember who posted it?

Guess whats next? M31!!! Even just combining Peter's and my data on it has resulted in a much smoother image. May post it later when I get home from work.

Roy, if you use a compressed tiff it will make it smaller, I will decompress it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Tim

Tim

Posted
  • Author
Posted

only just starting to look at the other stuff. I am seriously short of HDD space and need to delete a load of stuff to be able to do this, so it may take a little while. Trouble is, I hate throwing old pics away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ant

Ant

Posted
Posted

I've just bought a 120Gb HDD for the laptop - got fedup with running out of space.

Generally once I'm happy with a stack, I get rid of the Subs. But keep the unprocessed 32Bit Tif.

I have a 52Mb Tif of M31.:hello2:

Ant

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psychobilly

Psychobilly

Posted
Posted

I have a 52Mb Tif of M31. :hello2:

Ant

Thats the trouble with those small files they just keep getting lost :D

A typical HDR M42 stack is around 320 MB whilst its being "processed" as a multilayer and thats with roughly cropped 16bit layers I did try working of a 32 bit uncropped one but that was just plain silly ...

Will have to go 64 Bit with a load more Ram.... Only got 1.5TB of fixed HDD on this PC... and a few external HDD's to play with ... which get connected every now and again as offline backup...

Disks are so cheap these days need to build a nice raid array in NAS box so that all the pc's can see it...

Billy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim

Tim

Posted
  • Author
Posted

UPDATE:

After playing extensively with various pics, I think it is best if any pics you submit are ALREADY PROCESSED. Ideally still in 16 bit tiff format. Also, it really helps if the image is aligned in the "usual way", usually that means flipped on one of its axis, registar cant work with images that are reversed.

Steve, I have used your jpegs from your site, but would like to see the processed tiffs in their place if possible?

There is a big improvement in noise, the stars look better somehow and the whole image is smoother.

Thanks

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ngc2403

ngc2403

Posted
Posted

This has to be the best image i have seen in a long long time, sertainly since joining the forum! and that is saying something considering the quality of the images produced here each week.

i can't help but think though....

Do you think Neil Bone will look apon this as astronomical progress or just another M42???

well done to all

Great stuff TJ and Billy Well done guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
George

George

Posted
Posted

Hmmm M31 can't wait...

I'm clearing out subs and archiving stacks... once your sure that you haev the best stacks out of a set of subs then i dont really see the point of keeping them if your short of HDD space...

Billy...

Stunning images guys.

I have around 9 hours of M31 data, I'll see if i can dig it out :hello2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roy Batty

Roy Batty

Posted
Posted

TJ here's the link to the "already processed" TIFF for my M42.....

http://ukastronomers.com/roybatty/action/download_files/fileid/103

I tried the various options for compressing the file but they didn't seem make a lot of difference - so this is the 45Mb file - may take a bit of time to download depending on your broadband speed :)

As you'll see the framing is almost identical to your first posting on this thread so it should fit the bill nicely.

cheers for now....

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MartinB

MartinB

Posted
Posted

Lets say you have a couple of images of M31. In one the brightness adjacent to a dust lane is 20 000 and the dust lane itself is 10 000. The other could well be 25 000 and 10 000 - just a more contrasty process. By stacking you will be smoothing out the processing difference. You might get a bit of extra target data but the main result will be to smooth out the processing differences. If you stack the unprocessed you are just working on the unadulterated target data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.