Reprocess of Jupiter with Topaz Denoise

[Kon]

I went through my Jupiter capture from yesterday and I applied Topaz Denoise. In my eyes it looks pretty good and hard to see any artefacts. Your thoughts? First image is the Topaz Denoise with the Low Light option  and the second the original I posted yesterday. I have tried it before but with awful results but this time it seems to clean it nicely. Thoughts?

         

[PeterCPC]

I prefer the second image. It looks more natural to me.

[Kon]

1 hour ago, PeterCPC said:

I prefer the second image. It looks more natural to me.

Thanks Peter. I agree that it has a more natural feeling to it; I was probably drawn to the Topaz one as it seemed sharper but more artificial looking (posterised).

[ONIKKINEN]

A compromise between the two would probably be better than either, but closer to the second one than the denoised one.

Try running the low light AI with denoise and sharpening both at 1, and then fade that further down in photoshop later. The tool is very aggressive for astrophotography, often i find the best result is lowlight with 1 and 1 and still faded down to 50% or so afterwards. Very subtle difference at that point but it can be an improvement.

[Laurieast]

The second one is better to me. First has too much contrast, saturation.

The AI Denoise/Sharpen in Image Analyzer is less harsh. 

What does the original stacked tiff look like.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Laurieast

[Kon]

3 hours ago, ONIKKINEN said:

A compromise between the two would probably be better than either, but closer to the second one than the denoised one.

Try running the low light AI with denoise and sharpening both at 1, and then fade that further down in photoshop later. The tool is very aggressive for astrophotography, often i find the best result is lowlight with 1 and 1 and still faded down to 50% or so afterwards. Very subtle difference at that point but it can be an improvement.

Thanks. I will try these settings. I used the low light AI but i left the default settings. I will have a play later.

[Kon]

4 hours ago, Laurieast said:

The second one is better to me. First has too much contrast, saturation.

The AI Denoise/Sharpen in Image Analyzer is less harsh. 

What does the original stacked tiff look like.

This time i did not up the saturation, maybe i should have desaturated a bit. This is the stacked tiff if you want to have a go.

Jupiter_021057_pipp_lapl8_ap60.tif

[neil phillips]

Somewhere in between maybe ? First looks a bit stark. artificial noise creeping in

[Kon]

Thanks everybody; we seem to have a consensus of something in between 🙃. Very useful. I will give it a try once i have some time.

[Laurieast]

2 hours ago, Kon said:

This time i did not up the saturation, maybe i should have desaturated a bit. This is the stacked tiff if you want to have a go.

Thanks Kon,

I'll give it a go tomorrow. I still can't get to it at reasonable hour with my restricted easterly view ( My house in the way 🤦‍♂️) 

[CraigT82]

Thanks for posting your stacked tiff, I had a go with it in Astrosurface and Gimp - I'm a bit rusty as haven't done any imaging since last summer -  really nice data you're doing superbly with a manual dob!

[ONIKKINEN]

3 hours ago, Kon said:

This time i did not up the saturation, maybe i should have desaturated a bit. This is the stacked tiff if you want to have a go.

Jupiter_021057_pipp_lapl8_ap60.tif 1.15 MB · 4 downloads

Thanks for posting, im not getting any data of my own due to weather so will take any excuse to work with loaned data!

Data looks really nice, I came up with this:

Half-baked wavelets in Registax, then Imppg lucy-richardson deconvolution and unsharp mask and export as synthetic luminance (imppg turns everything mono). Combine in PS with the imppg version as luminance and the half done wavelets version as colour layer. Some further sharpening for the lum and saturation for the RGB layer. Topaz low light sharpening and denoise at 1 and 1 faded with original by 50% in the end.

[neil phillips]

4 hours ago, Kon said:

This time i did not up the saturation, maybe i should have desaturated a bit. This is the stacked tiff if you want to have a go.

Jupiter_021057_pipp_lapl8_ap60.tif 1.15 MB · 5 downloads

Have to admit i am leaning more towards Craigs interpretation. Too much messing with levels contrast and sharpening. Just makes it look less like gas. And more cartoon in flavour with artefacts

I think this is soft. But also with fine detail. You may not agree. But we are all different so its all good. 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by neil phillips

[Kon]

@CraigT82and @neil phillips thanks both. Interesting to see a similar approach to processing. You both went for the softer approach than trying to 'squeeze' more details. I wonder if I went a bit too heavy handed in registax and topaz.

@ONIKKINENthanks as well for your excellent effort and explanation. It feels where I would like to have it with a bit more punch.

I will probably need to settle for less is better. I will update this post once I give it another try.

 

[vlaiv]

[neil phillips]

Playing around more 

Edited September 20, 2022 by neil phillips

[PeterCPC]

It's knowing when to stop that's the problem.

[Simon128D]

I too prefer the softer, more natural, look. 
As the total noob I am I had a go at your TIF and gosh that was some easy data to work with. May I ask how many frames you stacked? 

This was my go only using waveletts in Regi and a touch to the saturation to bring out the colour. Still a bit too sharp for my tastes but for a quick 5 minute post process it was very nice to work with. 

[Kon]

3 hours ago, PeterCPC said:

It's knowing when to stop that's the problem.

True very true! I think we are drawn to sharper images but with loss of true likeness.

[Kon]

@neil phillipsthanks for the latest rendition. Colour balance looks better in my eyes to the earlier one.

@vlaivthanks. I see you also opted for the softer approach.

@Simon128Dthanks for your attempt as well. This was a 20000 frames movie and stacked the best 50%. I tried 25% but it seemed to lose some of the sharpness.

[Laurieast]

Heavy on the Gaussian wavelets in Registax, and RGB balance. Slight levels in PS. 50% Sharpen/Denoise in Image Analyser. 

Edited September 21, 2022 by Laurieast

[chiltonstar]

Lovely images! Personally I prefer detail to aesthetics, so I like the first image. Which scope we're you using?

 Chris

[Kon]

5 hours ago, Laurieast said:

Heavy on the Gaussian wavelets in Registax, and RGB balance. Slight levels in PS. 50% Sharpen/Denoise in Image Analyser. 

 

Thanks for the attempt and process. 

[Kon]

3 hours ago, chiltonstar said:

Lovely images! Personally I prefer detail to aesthetics, so I like the first image. Which scope we're you using?

 Chris

Thanks Chris. I am only doing this planetary imaging for just over a year (and more seriously this year) so I am trying to follow the feedback from experts. I like the sharpness but if it makes them look to artificial then it kind of defeats the purpose. I am also drawn to the first one although seeing the softer ones i may try to blend the two or find a middle ground. I am using a Skywatcher 200P (8")  Dob manual.

[Kon]

Ok, i had a play again and I agree that the original ones were over processed. What are your thoughts on these two. I think I am drawn to the second one although the first is more natural looking? Second is a blend of the first image below and my oversharpenned i posted at the start of the thread from registax. Topaz denoise doesn't make much of a difference in these softer images.