Show me what you can do

[Anthonyexmouth]

Well, am now in possession of a nice triplet so really want to up my processing game.

This is 5 hours on the Western Veil last night and a morning of frustration in PI.

Here's what I managed, can anyone show me what's possible with the date. This is straight out of WBPP. 

Mine first, then the WBPP file underneath. 

WV_WBPP.xisf

VW_Fits.fit

Edited September 17, 2022 by Anthonyexmouth

[vlaiv]

I guess only people with PI can participate since you posted xisf instead of fits?

[Anthonyexmouth]

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

I guess only people with PI can participate since you posted xisf instead of fits?

Ah, I'll rectify that

[Anthonyexmouth]

Added a fits file

[JSeaman]

I think it looks good, I had a quick play just for fun and got this

 

[Anthonyexmouth]

1 minute ago, JSeaman said:

I think it looks good, I had a quick play just for fun and got this

 

 

Nice. I had the trial of noisexterminator a while ago. If I hadn't just spent every penny I have on this new triplet I'd buy the cool version. 

What did you do in your process? 

[JSeaman]

Tried to remember how to process stuff mostly  I only dusted my kit off last night for the first time in 9 months!

I did a quick stretch in PI and it all looked nice so moved to PS for levels/curves and a little color balance. Pushed vibration a smidge then back to PS with a starmask/star reduction.

Nothing fancy and I'm sure others will do better but it looks really clean and nice data

Edited September 17, 2022 by JSeaman

[Anthonyexmouth]

4 minutes ago, JSeaman said:

Tried to remember how to process stuff mostly  I only dusted my kits off last night for the first time in 9 months!

I did a quick stretch in PI and it all looked nice to moved to PS for levels/curves and a little color balance. Pushed vibration a smidge then back to PS with a starmask/star reduction.

Nothing fancy and I'm sure others will do better but it looks really clean and nice data

It feels sharper than my ed80 but that's might just be a little bias after spending all that money and convincing myself it is. 

[vlaiv]

ImageJ / Gimp / Starnet++ v2

[Budgie1]

I ended up doing three renditions in PI. I wasn't that happy with the stars in the first two, although I managed to bring out more faint nebulosity in them.

Personally I like the nebulosity in #1 and the stars from #3.

All three had DynamicCrop > DBE > BackgroundNeutralisation > PhotometricColourCalibration & IntegerResample x2 

Then things changed.

1. Had Star Reduction Method 1 PixelMath code by Bill Blanshan > StarXTerminatior to split background & stars > stretched both separately > Curves using Saturation, RGGB/K & CIE L > 40% reduction in the green using SCNR > UnsharpenMask > NoiseXTerminator on the background only > PixelMath to combine the stars & background.
2. Had StarXTerminator > Stretch background & stars separately > Curves using Saturation, RGGB/K & CIE L > 40% reduction in the green using SCNR > UnsharpenMask > NoiseXTerminator on the background only > PixelMath to combine the stars & background.
3. Stretch > Star Reduction Method 1 PixelMath code > Curves using Saturation, RGGB/K & CIE L > StarNet2 to split background & stars > 40% reduction in the green using SCNR > UnsharpenMask > NoiseXTerminator on the background only > PixelMath to combine the stars & background.

[ONIKKINEN]

Here is what i got out of it with ASTAP (binx2), SiriL, and Photoshop including StarXterminator and Topaz:

Had fun processing it, seems like good data and all around easy to work with 👍. Not very experienced in working with nebulae and non broadband captures so i ended up taking some liberties in colour processing somewhere along the process.

[Anthonyexmouth]

I think starxterminator and noisexterminator are on the shopping list.  I think this 432mm scope will benefit from a smaller pixel size too. Might be the push I need to go mono. Maybe the 183 or 533.

[RolandKol]

have not used my pix for a year or so, - it was interesting to test the memory...
(cheated a bit, used StarNet2)

Edited September 17, 2022 by RolandKol

[vlaiv]

16 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

I think starxterminator and noisexterminator are on the shopping list.  I think this 432mm scope will benefit from a smaller pixel size too. Might be the push I need to go mono. Maybe the 183 or 533.

From the data I got slight impression that your focusing was not really spot on, so first thing to do would be to sort that out.

(I ran sharpening in Gimp on data as is and got some doughnuts):

Once you get focusing spot on - I don't think you'll need smaller pixels. This size should be enough. I ended up binning data x2 for my processing.

I also ran FWHM tool in AstroImageJ and stars in green image range from 2.6px to 4px. Ideally you'd want in properly sampled image this to be 1.6px-2px, so you are over sampled here almost by factor of 2 (hence bin x2).

When you sort out focusing - you should get sharper stars. I've found that 3.8um pixel size works well with 380mm of FL natively, so 4.63 should be good match for 430mm.

I've used no denoising when processing this image, and if I needed to, Gimp does excellent job on that. No need to purchase separate software for denoising (in my view).

Starnet++ v2 also works very well and is free - again, in my view - no need to spend money on software for star removal when there is good version available for free.

[Anthonyexmouth]

1 hour ago, vlaiv said:

From the data I got slight impression that your focusing was not really spot on, so first thing to do would be to sort that out.

(I ran sharpening in Gimp on data as is and got some doughnuts):

Once you get focusing spot on - I don't think you'll need smaller pixels. This size should be enough. I ended up binning data x2 for my processing.

I also ran FWHM tool in AstroImageJ and stars in green image range from 2.6px to 4px. Ideally you'd want in properly sampled image this to be 1.6px-2px, so you are over sampled here almost by factor of 2 (hence bin x2).

When you sort out focusing - you should get sharper stars. I've found that 3.8um pixel size works well with 380mm of FL natively, so 4.63 should be good match for 430mm.

I've used no denoising when processing this image, and if I needed to, Gimp does excellent job on that. No need to purchase separate software for denoising (in my view).

Starnet++ v2 also works very well and is free - again, in my view - no need to spend money on software for star removal when there is good version available for free.

When I check the FWHM for the subs the range is 1.4 to 1.9. Surely that means the focus is ok. Or am I missing something? 

[vlaiv]

6 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

When I check the FWHM for the subs the range is 1.4 to 1.9. Surely that means the focus is ok. Or am I missing something? 

Maybe focus drift?

How long was the session and was there significant temperature drop?

[Anthonyexmouth]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Maybe focus drift?

How long was the session and was there significant temperature drop?

5 hours but I set the auto focus to run every 30 mins. 

Over the 70ish subs the FWHM ranges from 1.4 to 1.9

[vlaiv]

6 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

5 hours but I set the auto focus to run every 30 mins. 

Over the 70ish subs the FWHM ranges from 1.4 to 1.9

Ok, I might be wrong, it just seems to me that final stack has that feature.

It is present in your processing as well, but not as prominent because you did not perform sharpening in the same way I did:

[Anthonyexmouth]

3 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Ok, I might be wrong, it just seems to me that final stack has that feature.

It is present in your processing as well, but not as prominent because you did not perform sharpening in the same way I did:

I'm just re-running WBPP again. 

Could it be a result of backspace? This is a new scope and only had one night out with it. 

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

Could it be a result of backspace? This is a new scope and only had one night out with it. 

I don't think so.

Correction at edges looks good. There is tiny bit of elongation in bottom right corner, but that is unrelated.

Any issue with distance to FF/FR would show there first as serious star issues.

 

[Anthonyexmouth]

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

I don't think so.

Correction at edges looks good. There is tiny bit of elongation in bottom right corner, but that is unrelated.

Any issue with distance to FF/FR would show there first as serious star issues.

 

When I look at a single sub it seems to be off on the right hand side, top and bottom corners. Maybe I'm just looking for issues that aren't there because I'm expecting it to be wrong on the fist setup. 0003 Filamentary Nebula -10.00 120 2022-09-16.fits

 

[vlaiv]

24 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

When I look at a single sub it seems to be off on the right hand side, top and bottom corners. Maybe I'm just looking for issues that aren't there because I'm expecting it to be wrong on the fist setup. 0003 Filamentary Nebula -10.00 120 2022-09-16.fits

 

Not really seeing it in that frame if it is there at all.

Here - look at this:

That is 4 corners of green component  - not seeing anything special.

 

 

 

[Anthonyexmouth]

5 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Not really seeing it in that frame if it is there at all.

Here - look at this:

That is 4 corners of green component  - not seeing anything special.

 

 

 

Thanks  for looking, I was probably just seeing things as I wasn't expecting it to be right first time, but saying that, I did just swap an already known back spacing setup from my ED80 directly onto my SM90. 

I just finished the WWBP re-run only this time with drizzle. corners look great in it.