Ghost reprocesssed using StarXterminator.

[ollypenrice]

Here's my 31 hour TEC 140 Vdb141 Ghost image after StarXterminator intervention. I doubt that anything I've ever done will end up so different from its original. It's not so much that the replaced stars are smaller, though the small ones certainly are. Rather, it's the fact that I could stretch the nebulosity far harder once they were removed. If you've never tried this target, the dusty structures are faint and the starfield is full of  bright stars.  Here's the new one.

 

The net's so slow here today that I'll link to the original on Astrobin for now and edit when it's a bit faster.  https://www.astrobin.com/7kt3vn/B/

 

 

Method: Not having the linear data, I just worked from the original in Photoshop.

Copy Layer.

Run StarX on the bottom Layer. (Large Tile option enabled.)

Run Noise Xterminator on the bottom layer and use clone stamp, healing brush, colour balance, etc etc to rectify any artifacts left by StarX. There weren't many.

Stretch bottom layer further than before.

Top layer active, Blend Mode Lighten. Manipulate in Curves to pull down the stars at the top of the curve but shaping it so as not to give a hard edge to them as seen on screen. Gaussian blur to soften them to taste.

Some stars still had a 'stuck on' look so I used an appropriately-sized Dodge brush to brighten the bottom layer just underneath them. This settles them back into the image, visually. 

 

Olly

 

 

 

[carastro]

Big difference there Olly.

Carole 

[Richard_]

Amazing work there Olly. Well done! 

[simmo39]

V nice Olly, I must try harder!  

[tomato]

Yes, quite a difference! Does this mean you will be revisiting the rest of your back catalogue of faint nebula targets? I have put some of my past efforts through StarXterminator and NoiseXterminator since they arrived on the scene.

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, tomato said:

Yes, quite a difference! Does this mean you will be revisiting the rest of your back catalogue of faint nebula targets? I have put some of my past efforts through StarXterminator and NoiseXterminator since they arrived on the scene.

Yes, I'll potter away at it since I think that the quality of modern images is going to go through the roof.

Olly

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, tomato said:

Yes, quite a difference! Does this mean you will be revisiting the rest of your back catalogue of faint nebula targets? I have put some of my past efforts through StarXterminator and NoiseXterminator since they arrived on the scene.

Yes, I'll potter away at it since I think that the quality of modern images is going to go through the roof.

Olly

[tooth_dr]

15 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Yes, I'll potter away at it since I think that the quality of modern images is going to go through the roof.

Olly

You can say that again 😊

[happy-kat]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Some stars still had a 'stuck on' look so I used an appropriately-sized Dodge brush to brighten the bottom layer just underneath them. This settles them back into the image, visually.

That's an interesting read.

What we can't see up there above naked eye is quite incredible, the subtleties are lovely.

[gorann]

Great image Olly, and yes, we have all a lot of digging to do in our archives and subject them to modern processing - good that we have cloudy nights😁

[Pompey Monkey]

Super image, Olly.

I'm currently playing with 40 hrs lum on this from e-eye. 

Star and noise exterminator are both amazing. The noise reduction is very impressive when used carefully.

Combined with the awesome local normalisation module in WBPP, I've found that I can go a lot deeper into the data.

I'll post my progress tomorrow for critique. 

[Xiga]

On 04/10/2022 at 14:34, ollypenrice said:

Here's my 31 hour TEC 140 Vdb141 Ghost image after StarXterminator intervention. I doubt that anything I've ever done will end up so different from its original. It's not so much that the replaced stars are smaller, though the small ones certainly are. Rather, it's the fact that I could stretch the nebulosity far harder once they were removed. If you've never tried this target, the dusty structures are faint and the starfield is full of  bright stars.  Here's the new one.

 

The net's so slow here today that I'll link to the original on Astrobin for now and edit when it's a bit faster.  https://www.astrobin.com/7kt3vn/B/

 

 

Method: Not having the linear data, I just worked from the original in Photoshop.

Copy Layer.

Run StarX on the bottom Layer. (Large Tile option enabled.)

Run Noise Xterminator on the bottom layer and use clone stamp, healing brush, colour balance, etc etc to rectify any artifacts left by StarX. There weren't many.

Stretch bottom layer further than before.

Top layer active, Blend Mode Lighten. Manipulate in Curves to pull down the stars at the top of the curve but shaping it so as not to give a hard edge to them as seen on screen. Gaussian blur to soften them to taste.

Some stars still had a 'stuck on' look so I used an appropriately-sized Dodge brush to brighten the bottom layer just underneath them. This settles them back into the image, visually. 

 

Olly

 

 

 

 

Nice ghost Olly! Looking forward to seeing you go through your (no doubt vast) back catalogue! 

Did you know, there's actually a better way to add back in the stars than just using the original image in Lighten Mode.  I'll explain the manual method below:

1. Put the original image (ie with stars) on the bottom layer.

2. Put the Starless image on the layer above. 

3. Invert both layers. 

4. Set the top layer (the Starless one) to 'Divide' blend mode. 

5. Do a 'Stamp Visible', ie CTRL+ALT+SHFT+E to make a new layer, (i like to do this rather than Merge Down as it keeps the bottom layers intact). 

6. Invert the top layer. This is now your 'Stars Only' layer. Note, this stars image is superior to the one you get by just using blend mode Subtract (or Difference) between the Original and Starless images, as this new stars image contains the full brightness of all the stars. 

7. Finally, when you're ready to add back in the stars, just add the layer and set it to 'Screen' blend mode. 

Try it and see. I found it was a game changer for re-adding stars in a starless workflow. 

 

ps - The method above works just as well for those using Starnet++V2 btw, but for those using Star-XT and Photoshop you're better off just using the PS action that Russ Croman has created here  https://www.rc-astro.com/StarXTerminator/UnscreenStars.atn.zip   The action runs StarXT and removes the stars and puts them in their own layer all in one click. 

Edited October 11, 2022 by Xiga

[Pompey Monkey]

So many options for separately processing and re-combining images these days*

It's mind boggling!

*Stewart Lee reference for those that still don't know these days.

[Rodd]

Wow. You have to have awesome signal to stretch like that, stars or no stars.  That is the best defined Ghost  I have seen. There is a con cavity to the body I did nog know was thrre.  To tell the truth, I don’t really like the way stars look after they are reinserted.  I find stars look much better in original state. Crisper,  cleaner. More like burning balls of plasma as opposed to pale flat circles.  I only use Starnet. Though.  Sometimes it’s just a matter of a slight curve bump to the stars-only image and they look better.  Definitely smaller though, as they are extracted from an early stretch stage.  Not familiar with exterminator. Maybe it’s better.  If you want to get rid of the blue rinds on some of the larger stars. Try inverting the image. The blue rinds will look red (or green, what ever the complementary color of blue is)   Whatever the color, it will be the only color of its hue in the inverted image.  Scnr will eliminate it.  Then you can reinvert, remove the stars and deal with the grey halos left behind. Or maybe they won’t be very pronounced and leave as is. 
BTW, the FSQ arrived from Japan yesterday. If the forecast holds I will get 4 days to put it through its paces. It’s a full moon, I know, but Ha will be fun. Fingers crossed. It will be nice not to lose 60% of my subs to poor seeing

[assouptro]

Wow! 
The detail is amazing! 
It looks like tortured souls are attempting escape from some ethereal cosmic dust! 
 

Simply brilliant! 
 

Thanks for sharing your methods too Olly 

Bryan

[ollypenrice]

On 06/10/2022 at 00:09, Xiga said:

Nice ghost Olly! Looking forward to seeing you go through your (no doubt vast) back catalogue! 

Did you know, there's actually a better way to add back in the stars than just using the original image in Lighten Mode.  I'll explain the manual method below:

1. Put the original image (ie with stars) on the bottom layer.

2. Put the Starless image on the layer above. 

3. Invert both layers. 

4. Set the top layer (the Starless one) to 'Divide' blend mode. 

5. Do a 'Stamp Visible', ie CTRL+ALT+SHFT+E to make a new layer, (i like to do this rather than Merge Down as it keeps the bottom layers intact). 

6. Invert the top layer. This is now your 'Stars Only' layer. Note, this stars image is superior to the one you get by just using blend mode Subtract (or Difference) between the Original and Starless images, as this new stars image contains the full brightness of all the stars. 

7. Finally, when you're ready to add back in the stars, just add the layer and set it to 'Screen' blend mode. 

Try it and see. I found it was a game changer for re-adding stars in a starless workflow. 

 

ps - The method above works just as well for those using Starnet++V2 btw, but for those using Star-XT and Photoshop you're better off just using the PS action that Russ Croman has created. If you've bought Star-XT, then you should have an email from Russ containing a link to download the action, which removes the stars and creates the stars only layer in one click. 

Thanks Ciaran, I'll give this a go. Although I say that I replace the stars using blend mode lighten, I do a lot of tinkering about, mostly in Curves, when I have them as a top layer like that. I don't find I can just drop in them in as they are. They tend to look very hard without adjustment.

Olly

[MartinB]

A wondeful  image Olly which had me gawping at my laptop screen.  The stars are certainly looking very natural.

[Xiga]

On 05/10/2022 at 23:09, Xiga said:

Nice ghost Olly! Looking forward to seeing you go through your (no doubt vast) back catalogue! 

Did you know, there's actually a better way to add back in the stars than just using the original image in Lighten Mode.  I'll explain the manual method below:

1. Put the original image (ie with stars) on the bottom layer.

2. Put the Starless image on the layer above. 

3. Invert both layers. 

4. Set the top layer (the Starless one) to 'Divide' blend mode. 

5. Do a 'Stamp Visible', ie CTRL+ALT+SHFT+E to make a new layer, (i like to do this rather than Merge Down as it keeps the bottom layers intact). 

6. Invert the top layer. This is now your 'Stars Only' layer. Note, this stars image is superior to the one you get by just using blend mode Subtract (or Difference) between the Original and Starless images, as this new stars image contains the full brightness of all the stars. 

7. Finally, when you're ready to add back in the stars, just add the layer and set it to 'Screen' blend mode. 

Try it and see. I found it was a game changer for re-adding stars in a starless workflow. 

 

ps - The method above works just as well for those using Starnet++V2 btw, but for those using Star-XT and Photoshop you're better off just using the PS action that Russ Croman has created here  https://www.rc-astro.com/StarXTerminator/UnscreenStars.atn.zip   The action runs StarXT and removes the stars and puts them in their own layer all in one click. 

For anyone interested in how the 'unscreening' method of separating stars from an image works, here is a video where Bill Blanshan (the guy who came up with it) describes it. The video itself is actually about star reduction, but he also shows how the method is superior for extracting stars from an image. The whole video is worth a watch, but the specific section on the method above is from 13:40 to 17:20.