IC-443 and Star Exterminator

[Rodd]

Does anyone know if star xterminator can be made to remove asi 1600 microlensing artifacts?  Here is IC-443 with two prominent artifacts that pretty much ruin the image.  Short of removing the two stars completely, I am at a loss.  I tried Star Xterminator, and while I think it does a much better job than Starnet, it could not remove these two artifacts.  There are no settings to manipulate--just 3 boxes to check.  I did screw up the framing of this target (should be pushed a bit to the right).  But It is still worth completing I think,  

FSQ 106 with .6x reducer and ASI 1600.  40 300 sec Ha --90% Moon

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Rodd

[powerlord]

when you say starnet, I assume you mean starnet2 ?

But I doubt it'll make a difference - they just remove stars - they don't try to correct anything.

What I'd do is let em remove stars, and then see where the artefacts are left - in the stars or in the background. then remove the artefacts in your editor (affinity photo for me).

Sometimes it's worth using curves on yours stars and trying to pull back the brightness on the big ones to get clean stars.

assuming the microlensing is left on the nebula, then it should be relatively simple to remove the right hand one with a patch or blemmish tool. the left one a bit more tricky as it sits in some nebulosity but should still be possible.

like this ? (though this was just with jpg and didn't spend long on it)

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by powerlord

[Rodd]

21 minutes ago, powerlord said:

like this ? (though this was just with jpg and didn't spend long on it)

Long enough, wow!  The problem is I use Pixinsight.  So I cant follow your method. And I do mean starnet--I have not upgraded to starnet2.  I think there is a charge for that?  anyway, I here star Xterminator is better.

[powerlord]

no starnet2 is free as always. And a big step better than starnet.

I have starXterminator too - did the above with it and affinity photo. Though with starnet2 I find it more often gets better results than StarX tbh - that I am a big fan of NoiseXterminator which I use.

Not a PI user so can't help you there - but maybe some sort of mask thing you could do there ?

stu

[Budgie1]

Have you tried running StarXTerminator before the stretch and then stretching the stars & background separately?  

There's also the GHS scripts for PI, which makes the stretch process more controllable and maybe worth a look.

 

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, Budgie1 said:

Have you tried running StarXTerminator before the stretch and then stretching the stars & background separately?  

Yes--this is how I did it.  How do you get starnet2?  Can it be used in PI?  You think Starnet 2 is as good as star exterminator?

[Budgie1]

3 hours ago, Rodd said:

How do you get starnet2? Can it be used in PI?

You can download the latest version from the StarNet website .

There's also a tutorial about installing StarNet2 in PI at this URL: https://www.galactic-hunter.com/post/starnet2

3 hours ago, Rodd said:

You think Starnet 2 is as good as star exterminator?

I do think they are as good as each other, but it's worth having both. On some images StarXTerminator will do a better job than StarNet2 and vice versa.

I normally use StarXTerminator, but when it leaves artefacts behind I try StarNet2 to see what that produces, then use the best rendition.

[Rodd]

26 minutes ago, Budgie1 said:

There's also a tutorial about installing StarNet2 in PI at this URL: https://www.galactic-hunter.com/post/starnet2

Thanks--had a look.  Gees.  Why does everything have to be so complicated.  It will take me a long time to figure it out and I am sure something will not work as per usual.  Thanks though for the link

[The Lazy Astronomer]

16 hours ago, Rodd said:

Thanks--had a look.  Gees.  Why does everything have to be so complicated.  It will take me a long time to figure it out and I am sure something will not work as per usual.  Thanks though for the link

It sounds complicated, but it's just a case of unzipping and moving 5 or so files into a couple of locations.

[assouptro]

On 07/11/2022 at 20:38, Rodd said:

Thanks--had a look.  Gees.  Why does everything have to be so complicated.  It will take me a long time to figure it out and I am sure something will not work as per usual.  Thanks though for the link

Amazing detail in the image Rodd, I can see the microlensing issue but it didn’t distract me

It’s not a problem I’ve had to deal with so I’m sorry I can’t advise but I have installed starnet2 with Pixinsight and if was a reasonably simple (and free) procedure
I do however prefer starXterminator though It just seems to do a better job?

I guess this is just one of the wonderfully frustrating things about the hobby/obsession that is astrophotography!

I have no doubt you will sort the software and make good use of it! 

 Thanks for sharing 

Bryan 

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, assouptro said:

Amazing detail in the image Rodd, I can see the microlensing issue but it didn’t distract me

It’s not a problem I’ve had to deal with so I’m sorry I can’t advise but I have installed starnet2 with Pixinsight and if was a reasonably simple (and free) procedure
I do however prefer starXterminator though It just seems to do a better job?

I guess this is just one of the wonderfully frustrating things about the hobby/obsession that is astrophotography!

I have no doubt you will sort the software and make good use of it! 

 Thanks for sharing 

Bryan 

Thanks Bryan.  I think I will buy star xterminator.  It is way better than Starnet. I’ll probably try starnet2 at some point 

[wimvb]

On 07/11/2022 at 15:00, Rodd said:

he problem is I use Pixinsight.  So I cant follow your method

Sure you can. It's called CloneStamp. You can even use it to clone in another image into the one you want to correct.

[Rodd]

9 hours ago, wimvb said:

Sure you can. It's called CloneStamp. You can even use it to clone in another image into the one you want to correct.

Yes, but the clone stamp can’t b  Ed used to fix the micro lending pattern unless I work at a very small scale. The stamp is not selective.  It removes everything.  Do if there is nebula behind the micro lens, it removes that. 

[tomato]

That’s a mighty fine NB image, and TBH if it is only the artefacts around the two bright stars that are a concern, I would edit them at the individual pixel scale, but then I do have plenty of time on my hands.

I recently hand made a mask for a galaxy in StarTools, editing individual pixels which this software allows you to do, about 2 hrs of painstaking work.  I then discovered the tool I wanted to use in StarTools wouldn’t work on an image with a mask, and I couldn’t export the masked image,  oh well…

[wimvb]

3 hours ago, Rodd said:

Yes, but the clone stamp can’t b  Ed used to fix the micro lending pattern unless I work at a very small scale. The stamp is not selective.  It removes everything.  Do if there is nebula behind the micro lens, it removes that. 

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You just have to decide what you are willing to sacrifice. With a small enough stamp tool, you could probably save most of the nebula.

[Rodd]

11 minutes ago, wimvb said:

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You just have to decide what you are willing to sacrifice. With a small enough stamp tool, you could probably save most of the nebula.

Well. In this case anything I do would be a band aide only gif this image.  My best option at solving the problem is upgrading my sensor to the 2600, which I do want to do.   That way I don’t have to worry about the diffraction patterns.  

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, tomato said:

That’s a mighty fine NB image, and TBH if it is only the artefacts around the two bright stars that are a concern, I would edit them at the individual pixel scale, but then I do have plenty of time on my hands.

I recently hand made a mask for a galaxy in StarTools, editing individual pixels which this software allows you to do, about 2 hrs of painstaking work.  I then discovered the tool I wanted to use in StarTools wouldn’t work on an image with a mask, and I couldn’t export the masked image,  oh well…

Thanks. It’s funny but I am shooting this on the same nights as the cave and heart. As one target moves out of prime position I switch. My guiding is always worse on this target.  Even if conditions are very good. I don’t understand.