Mars - 13 November 2022

[geoflewis]

11 minutes ago, Kon said:

Thanks for the detailed walk through. By 

Do you mean, just 10% sharpening in AS!3? I have always used unsharpened images in registax, at least for my captures I seem to get a lot of noise if I take the sharpened version, but I should retry.

This latest one is more vibrant, in a good way.

Thanks Kostas, yes, I think that's what it is, but not completely sure. I have these settings now.

I was using Blend RAW for 30%, thinking that meant 30% sharpening, but as I experimented I discovered that the higher the blend RAW % was, the less the image was sharpened. I used to never sharpen in AS3! until someone (can't remember who) suggested trying it. It's all trial and error - I'm really good at the error part....

[skybadger]

Aye, the first. 

[Kon]

39 minutes ago, geoflewis said:

Thanks Kostas, yes, I think that's what it is, but not completely sure. I have these settings now.

I was using Blend RAW for 30%, thinking that meant 30% sharpening, but as I experimented I discovered that the higher the blend RAW % was, the less the image was sharpened. I used to never sharpen in AS3! until someone (can't remember who) suggested trying it. It's all trial and error - I'm really good at the error part....

Thanks. I was under the same impression too. I will give it a try.

[geoflewis]

54 minutes ago, skybadger said:

Aye, the first. 

Thanks, so by 'the first' do you mean my original image, or the one on the left of the three being compared, i.e. the latest version, which BTW I've already updated after discussing with @Kon

[neil phillips]

12 hours ago, geoflewis said:

Ok @skybadger and anyone else that want's to comment, how about this version please? The original is on the right, V2 in the middle and latest on the left?

A tad more sharpening and less saturation.....🤔

Just saw this. So here goes

It's a close call Between the original (far right) and the latest (far left) Far left has slightly less noise but also slightly less detail that's a touch softened compared to the original. And slightly brighter. 

Middle is just blurry and over softened. with somewhat different colour. Out of the running. So, to recap for detail I prefer the original. new left version slightly cleaner, softer more aesthetically pleasing. Original for science. New version for a magazine. Both excellent

[geoflewis]

4 hours ago, neil phillips said:

Just saw this. So here goes

It's a close call Between the original (far right) and the latest (far left) Far left has slightly less noise but also slightly less detail that's a touch softened compared to the original. And slightly brighter. 

Middle is just blurry and over softened. with somewhat different colour. Out of the running. So, to recap for detail I prefer the original. new left version slightly cleaner, softer more aesthetically pleasing. Original for science. New version for a magazine. Both excellent

Thanks Neil, your observation is very much in line with the feedback that I received from Richard McKim, who on a similar comparison prefers the original processing as having greater scientific merit.

FWIW I have continued to refine the final processing and following feedback from Niall MacNeil in Australia about the 'milky' appearance of the image, I have further adjusted the black and white points in Affinity Photo to get this.....

BTW I saw a clear sky last night here at 11:30pm, so ventured out, but as I was focussing on Mars the screen went dark and looking up the sky was 75% cloud, which by the time I shut everything down was more like 95% cloud, so not a single capture..... Maybe tonight.....🤞