Any tips on how to boost faint signal?

[Calzune]

Yesterday when I looked around on Astrobin I found this profile: https://www.astrobin.com/users/Wissam_Astrophotography/ and the first image I looked at was this one: https://www.astrobin.com/erq8pw/
Scrolling down and it says 4.2 hours! I know this is a super faint target and Im so confised on how he managed to process this and how he managed to boost the signal so much. most of his pictures have around 4 hours integrated and they all look like 30+ hours.

 

I know that locations matters but he is in bortle 4 but I still thinks its to good to be true.

I have read most of his comments and many thinks he is cheating, and some thinks he has discovered a super powerful technique. Im just confused and impressed.

If anyone knows and want to share PLEASE either post here or PM me.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calzune

[teoria_del_big_bang]

I really do not know, I agree it does look far too good and perfect for such a short integration time and the equipment used.

It does say category Traveller and that the  location is UAE desert so if well out of any cities probably will have clear dark skies and so the Bortle 4 may just be where he lives and a mistake but if he is close to Abu Dhabi then will be Bortle 4 or higher.

Obviously there are many ways to cheat, but like my teacher used to say the only person you are cheating is yourself.
Regarding a new processing technique then if it were a viable technique without adding stuff which is not on the original data (in most processing software you can paint things in or add things from other images but I would say this is just another way of cheating as the images are not from the original data just enhanced) then hard to believe he would be the only one using it and that processing software companies have not achieved it as well.

But at end of day I am do not have enough knowledge to say how the image is achieved, he has some great images and at the end of the day I just tend to take the images at face value and assume the acquisition info is correct. Yes if there is some great processing technique that does not include some form of painting stuff in then I would love to know and most imagers are willing to share but other than that I wouldn't worry much about the integrity of other peoples images, your own are what count (to yourself).

Steve

Edited August 23, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[pipnina]

I do often wonder if i am doing something wrong as I feel many people get much cleaner images than me on similar integration

I put it mostly down to better comfort with their kit and better processing.

My best attempt at processing my M81/82 data and another person's best attempt (i gave him the xisf master light) weren't even in the same league!

i suspect a lot of it is knowing exatly which denoise featured to use and how to use them.

[teoria_del_big_bang]

30 minutes ago, pipnina said:

I do often wonder if i am doing something wrong as I feel many people get much cleaner images than me on similar integration

Yes I also feel this and certainly a few people on SGL can certainly seem to get images to exhibit signal that others just can't seem to find.

32 minutes ago, pipnina said:

I put it mostly down to better comfort with their kit and better processing.

Absolutely will make a big difference both knowing how to get the most from your kit and processing software.

33 minutes ago, pipnina said:

i suspect a lot of it is knowing exactly which denoise featured to use and how to use them.

The many denoise methods out there certainly makes a difference but I would not think it can make a huge difference.
I mean @ollypenrice hardly uses denoise but has some magnificent images, of course he also has some fantastic clear dark skies.

Steve

[ollypenrice]

I try to avoid forming an opinion on the authenticity of images until I've shot the object myself. I've never tried this one but my curiosity is piqued.  An exotic PN in Ha and OIII in less than five hours at a conventional F ratio has to be a tempting prospect...  Occasionally, cheating is blantant. There was an image showing a faint galactic extension on Astrobin, purportedly taken in less than 10 hours with a DSLR. I couldn't find it in 20 hours of luminance, which means with far more light than captured through an OSC colour matrix. I have no interest in 'exposing' this obvious fraud but I noticed, some time later, that the image had been deleted.

In my opinion there are no significant techniques for faint data stretching which aren't in the public domain. Those that are known can be applied with more or less skill and success and the quality of the data depends upon a number of things, sky quality being a big one.  In the end there is no magic involved. In order to separate the faintest nebulosity from the background there has to be a different pixel value between the two in the linear data. Effective stretching simply means identifying and exaggerating that difference.  On occasions when I'm struggling to find faint signal which I think might be there I will simply sample the linear ADU values around the suspected nebulosity and compare them with 'empty' background sky. If there is no difference between a good sample of both regions then the data contain no trace of the nebulosity and that is emphatically that. I found this while chasing the outer glow of M31. A region I'd once seen in a reputable image wasn't present in my deep stack of 15 minute CCD subs. I tried a second run with 30 minutes and there it was. (Lots of arguments will tell you why this can't be true but you'll understand why I'm not convinced by them...)

As for software noise reduction, it makes no difference beyond a cosmetic one. It does not allow us to stretch harder, it simply allows us to stretch as usual and get less grain or speckle. The first thing to know is what's in the data. NR won't put it there. I do use NR on most images but only very lightly and in very carefully selected places. The best I've tried, by far, is Russell Croman's NoiseXtermeinator which uses AI.

My advice would be, Don't worry about other people's data, attend to your own. One of the best amateur imagers in the world had a piece of paper taped to his PC screen with the massage, 'Make your own picture.'

Olly

 

 

 

 

[iantaylor2uk]

Maybe they are using higher gain values on their cameras. 

[tomato]

That is a phenomenal result for 4 hrs 20’ integration. 
Proper dark skies do make a significant difference, I tried to replicate @gorann’s result on the Bat and Squid nebula with the same kit and integration time from my Bortle 5/6 location, and although it was there it wasn’t in the same league for depth and detail. Not a scientific comparison I know, but less noise does make a difference.

[gorann]

20 hours ago, Calzune said:

Yesterday when I looked around on Astrobin I found this profile: https://www.astrobin.com/users/Wissam_Astrophotography/ and the first image I looked at was this one: https://www.astrobin.com/erq8pw/
Scrolling down and it says 4.2 hours! I know this is a super faint target and Im so confised on how he managed to process this and how he managed to boost the signal so much. most of his pictures have around 4 hours integrated and they all look like 30+ hours.

 

I know that locations matters but he is in bortle 4 but I still thinks its to good to be true.

I have read most of his comments and many thinks he is cheating, and some thinks he has discovered a super powerful technique. Im just confused and impressed.

If anyone knows and want to share PLEASE either post here or PM me.

This is what the same target looks like after 9 hours at f/2 with a RASA8 and ASI2600MC under my Bortle 2 sky. Not that different, so one may wonder.......

https://www.astrobin.com/ick5pe/B/

One trick that really helps bringing out faint signals is to do most of the stretching on a starless version before bringing the stars back.

 

[Calzune]

3 minutes ago, gorann said:

This is what the same target looks like after 9 hours at f/2 with a RASA8 and ASI2600MC under my Bortle 2 sky. Not that different, so one may wonder.......

https://www.astrobin.com/ick5pe/B/

One trick that really helps bringing out faint signals is to do most of the stretching on a starless version before bringing the stars back.

 

yea.. .I have also started to boost a starless version. Hmm... It seems that Its not only me who thinks this is to good to be true ;D