Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Two colourful nebulae reprocessed via SXT.


ollypenrice

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Rodd said:

Awesome images--hard to know what's too much with out seeing the originals.  Is exterminator really that much better than starnet?  Was 2170 a TEC image of a larger scope?

Thanks, Rodd. 2170 was all TEC 140. Only the  Cocoon close-up was partially ODK14.  I had a real pantomime installing Starnet++ into Pixinsight and in the end asked my IT-savvy stepson to do it for me. This was an earlier version and it was very slow, sometimes stalled and sometimes worked well enough to use partially. I then found it had vanished from my Pixinsight tools and read that the developers had removed it. I wasn't about to repeat this experience so jumped at the chance to install StarX into Photoshop. I added Noise Xterminator at the same time.  StarX works either perfectly or almost perfectly even on fully stretched images but some say the same about Starnet. So I don't know. We ought to set up a side by side test on an assortment of datasets.

Olly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Thanks, Rodd. 2170 was all TEC 140. Only the  Cocoon close-up was partially ODK14.  I had a real pantomime installing Starnet++ into Pixinsight and in the end asked my IT-savvy stepson to do it for me. This was an earlier version and it was very slow, sometimes stalled and sometimes worked well enough to use partially. I then found it had vanished from my Pixinsight tools and read that the developers had removed it. I wasn't about to repeat this experience so jumped at the chance to install StarX into Photoshop. I added Noise Xterminator at the same time.  StarX works either perfectly or almost perfectly even on fully stretched images but some say the same about Starnet. So I don't know. We ought to set up a side by side test on an assortment of datasets.

Olly

Sound all to familiar, though my pi glitches have for the most part ended with the new release ( a few releases show). A comparison would be great. I like Starnet. I like processing the starless image. I don’t particularly like the stars after they are put back.  They look dim, or wan.  Hard to explain. I have not found a fix yet. Bumping up their brightness before inserting doesn’t seem to work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Sound all to familiar, though my pi glitches have for the most part ended with the new release ( a few releases show). A comparison would be great. I like Starnet. I like processing the starless image. I don’t particularly like the stars after they are put back.  They look dim, or wan.  Hard to explain. I have not found a fix yet. Bumping up their brightness before inserting doesn’t seem to work. 

The official method for re-starring in Ps is very strange but the stars can go back fully bright and still adjustable. You paste the starless image on top of the starry, invert them both, set the blend mode to divide and stamp down to produce a third layer on top. Once inverted and flattened this is a stars-only image which behaves just as you'd like it to. Paste it on top of the starless in blend mode screen. Lowering it in levels produces smaller but perfectly good stars. Sometimes a touch of blur settles them into the picture. This method is just incredibly effective, honestly.

Olly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.