IC1396 with L-eXtreme

[Budgie1]

I had another go at The Elephant Trunk Nebula this week and managed a couple of nights imaging.

This time I used the L-eXtreme filter on the ASI294MC Pro, attached to the Evostar 80ED with 0.85 FF/RF and centred on the trunk itself.

I could have done with more data but high cloud come over just after midnight last night, which put and end to proceedings.

So, this is a total of 3 hours 48 minutes of 4 minute subs (gain 120, offset 20 @-15°C) with flats, dark-flat & Darks. Stacked in DSS and processed in PI.

I did the main render and then decided to do a Hubble palette version, just to see what it was like. I think the image has more definition in the OSC version of this one, but that's probably more down to my processing.

C&C's welcomed.

[Lee_P]

Oooh, nice! Good definition in the dust clouds. SGL's @Luke Newbould has made a great video about processing OSC + L-eXteme data to be like the Hubble Palette. If it's useful to you, my attempt at the Elephant's Trunk Nebula using his technique is here, and here are notes on the workflow. 

[Budgie1]

Thank Lee, I've used the technique Luke posted for this one.

Looking at it again I think I'll have another go at processing both of them. They're a bit on the dark side and quite blotchy in the nebulosity. Maybe trying too hard to get the detail out when the data can't handle it. 

I'll try and get more data tonight but there's high cloud at the moment, so I'll wait and see if it disappears later.

[Budgie1]

That's a bit better. Less is more in this case with less messing about with curves and trying to fine turn the image.

[Luke Newbould]

Nice job mate! - your reprocess came out the best I think, knowing when to say 'enough is enough' while stretching your hard-won data is a fine art, one I don't think I'll ever really master! 😅

Clear skies!

[newbie alert]

Stars are far better in the second, they seem to over kill the image in the first..

Nice job, well done

[Budgie1]

2 hours ago, newbie alert said:

Stars are far better in the second, they seem to over kill the image in the first..

Nice job, well done

I used Starnet to separate the stars from the nebula and then I think I just reduced the saturation on the stars in the first attempt but in the second I did a 30% size reduction as well.

[newbie alert]

1 minute ago, Budgie1 said:

I used Starnet to separate the stars from the nebula and then I think I just reduced the saturation on the stars in the first attempt but in the second I did a 30% size reduction as well.

In PS you can dim the stars with curves, opposite to stretching them.. not too sure on the proceedure in PI 

[Budgie1]

2 hours ago, Luke Newbould said:

Nice job mate! - your reprocess came out the best I think, knowing when to say 'enough is enough' while stretching your hard-won data is a fine art, one I don't think I'll ever really master! 😅

Clear skies!

I know what you mean, in the first one I ended up removing nebulosity by over use of curves.  Now to have another go with the Hubble Pallet.

[Budgie1]

3 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

In PS you can dim the stars with curves, opposite to stretching them.. not too sure on the proceedure in PI 

In PI you can do the same with curves, only I find it a bit more controlled than PS, although I only have PS CS3 so later versions may be better . 

PI also has a routine called MorphologicalTransformation which is good for reducing the size & brightness of the stars.

[newbie alert]

Just now, Budgie1 said:

In PI you can do the same with curves, only I find it a bit more controlled than PS, although I only have PS CS3 so later versions may be better . 

PI also has a routine called MorphologicalTransformation which is good for reducing the size & brightness of the stars.

Yes, in P.S. it hasn't got ant fancy names, it's called make stars smaller 😉

[Budgie1]

I think I've nailed it this time.

It was clear last night and I got some extra data which has really made a difference.

These are a total of 6 hours 20 minutes of 4 minute subs with the same parameters & kit listed in the first post. A slightly more sympathetic processing in PI and it's brought out a lot more detail, especially in the Hubble Pallet version. 

Comments?