BlurXTerminator - Wow!

[scotty38]

Just to add when I say I don't care, I don't mean that in a nasty way I mean I'm fine whether it's had BlurXT or not blah blah. If I see a process that works well with or without using these tools I'll maybe do the same, that's what I mean 🙂

[teoria_del_big_bang]

8 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

To be honest I'm not really fussed one way or the other. 99% of the time I only show my pictures to my wife and I can assure you she doesn't give a hoot as to whether it's had any BlurXT or any other process used or not. I just get a "That's nice" regardless.....

Now if it was being submitted for scientific use maybe that would be a different story but it's just a hobby for me and I see plenty of images that are "better" than mine but hey ho I don't much care how they were done... 😀

Best attitude to have,  and I guess as a PI user  I am used to the sly comments now and again about its methods, and the almost Marmite sort of following but was still surprised to  see how BXT had the same but to a greater extent with some giving it high praise but others so opposed to it.

[scotty38]

1 minute ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Best attitude to have,  and I guess as a PI user  I am used to the sly comments now and again about its methods, and the almost Marmite sort of following but was still surprised to  see how BXT had the same but to a greater extent with some giving it high praise but others so opposed to it.

It's almost as if it's fashionable to dislike PI...

[Stuart1971]

22 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

To be honest I'm not really fussed one way or the other. 99% of the time I only show my pictures to my wife and I can assure you she doesn't give a hoot as to whether it's had any BlurXT or any other process used or not. I just get a "That's nice" regardless.....

Now if it was being submitted for scientific use maybe that would be a different story but it's just a hobby for me and I see plenty of images that are "better" than mine but hey ho I don't much care how they were done... 😀

Yes me too, totally agree…👍🏻 .it’s all about the enjoyment of actually capturing the images and watching them pop up on the screen from the camera, the processing, for me, is a bit of a chore, one that I am not that good at, and if someone provides a tool to make that much easier and quicker, then I’m all for it, I never thought for a minute that it was adding anything that was not already there….

[scotty38]

4 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Yes me too, totally agree…👍🏻 .it’s all about the enjoyment of actually capturing the images and watching them pop up on the screen from the camera, the processing, for me, is a bit of a chore, one that I am not that good at, and if someone provides a tool to make that much easier and quicker, then I’m all for it, I never thought for a minute that it was adding anything that was not already there….

Same here, I much prefer the capturing element. I even built a new machine to speed up the processing to see if it would spark more enjoyment but it hasn't much 🙂 🙂

[Stuart1971]

3 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Same here, I much prefer the capturing element. I even built a new machine to speed up the processing to see if it would spark more enjoyment but it hasn't much 🙂 🙂

I think sometimes I would prefer to just live stack, and get an end result straight away…

the tinkering with all my kit, and getting it all to work well together, and also making bits and bobs for the set up with my 3D printer and stuff like that, along with the capturing, is what does it for me, and I think that there are many people the same, my images get shown to family, and they love them and think I am well clever….😂😂, that’s all the reward I need….

[teoria_del_big_bang]

6 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Same here, I much prefer the capturing element. I even built a new machine to speed up the processing to see if it would spark more enjoyment but it hasn't much 🙂 🙂

Sounds like you want a time machine and hit the FF button for a few hours 🤣

Steve

[teoria_del_big_bang]

2 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

my images get shown to family, and they love them and think I am well clever….😂😂, that’s all the reward I need….

I know exactly that feeling, it's not been often my kids (now in their 20's) have said I was good at something, best make the most of it 🤣

Steve

[Stuart1971]

Just now, teoria_del_big_bang said:

I know exactly that feeling, it's not been often my kids (now in their 20's) have said I was good at something, best make the most of it 🤣

Steve

Same here, i have one 28 and one 24…

[scotty38]

Ah well I learned not to show my kids (30 and 23) as their response was "All that money, time and effort and you could just look on the Internet...."

[StevieDvd]

Similar to my family except it was 'Your's don't look like the images in a book" to "They now look like the images in the book" and "Send your comet picture to the BBC" ( as if I was the only one who captured it 😀)

I can;t gie all the credit to the XTerminators as I have a new mount/scope/camera & filter but the processing is now getting easier and I'm getting the hang of it bit by bit.

[tomato]

A lot of the Imaging big hitters have embraced the RC tools, and they know how to do it the hard way, so that says a lot. For the same reasons as you guys I would happily use the "EffortXterminator" tool if Russ Croman ever releases one. 

If the AI doubters want to tag their images with "Processed without using the Xterminator tools", that's fine by me, but they should take a look at Adam Block's then and now images at the end of the interview, I couldn't let that level of improvement pass me by. 

[ONIKKINEN]

Give it a few years and nobody remembers what the issue with AI tools was anymore. I think a large part of the resistance to these tools and BXT in particular is how expensive they are so a lot of people will conveniently choose to be against them when they dont want to dish out 400€ to use them. Which is understandable because that's a mountain of money to most, but still kind of lame to think in the way that "i cant have it so i dont like you having it either".

Im going to be honest i used to think that way about many things, but there is no benefit to thinking like this so i just stopped. 400€ in astrophotography is pennies in the end when you think about it... Kind of sad, but its an expensive hobby.

[powerlord]

1 hour ago, scotty38 said:

Ah well I learned not to show my kids (30 and 23) as their response was "All that money, time and effort and you could just look on the Internet...."

I had that from a view folk. I pointed out - it's not the same... for example 23 million years ago (or no time at all ago if you're the photon), a photon was generated out of a star in another galaxy - it could have been headed anywhere, but over the next 23 million years it headed towards our galaxy. Not only that, but our solar system. Interstallar space, be it galaxies or solar systems withiinin them are mostly nothing.. but this particular photon happen to be on path that would make it hit earth - just as it revolved around the sun, and the solar system revolved around the Milky way... and it could have been obsorbed in earths atmosphere, hit a bit of dust, been absorbed by the sea.. but it hit land.. and of all the land it hit, it hit england. And Suffolk. And of all the suffolk, it happened to make it to my back garden... only a tiny fraction of a percent of which happened to be covered by a telescope at the point in time - but it headed straight down that through a few layers of glass before hitting my camera sensor and being absorbed.. ended it's journey after 23 milion years. And that's what you are looking at now - MY photons that I killed to make this picture. It's not the same as the one on the  internet.

When I got to the end of that they were probably still not in the least bit interested, but they stopped making further comments for fear of having to listen to another big explanation 🙂

stu

[teoria_del_big_bang]

6 minutes ago, powerlord said:

I had that from a view folk. I pointed out - it's not the same... for example 23 million years ago (or no time at all ago if you're the photon), a photon was generated out of a star in another galaxy - it could have been headed anywhere, but over the next 23 million years it headed towards our galaxy. Not only that, but our solar system. Interstallar space, be it galaxies or solar systems withiinin them are mostly nothing.. but this particular photon happen to be on path that would make it hit earth - just as it revolved around the sun, and the solar system revolved around the Milky way... and it could have been obsorbed in earths atmosphere, hit a bit of dust, been absorbed by the sea.. but it hit land.. and of all the land it hit, it hit england. And Suffolk. And of all the suffolk, it happened to make it to my back garden... only a tiny fraction of a percent of which happened to be covered by a telescope at the point in time - but it headed straight down that through a few layers of glass before hitting my camera sensor and being absorbed.. ended it's journey after 23 milion years. And that's what you are looking at now - MY photons that I killed to make this picture. It's not the same as the one on the  internet.

When I got to the end of that they were probably still not in the least bit interested, but they stopped making further comments for fear of having to listen to another big explanation 🙂

stu

Pretty much how I think how amazing any DSO image is, or any astro image for that matter, and would never say anything negative to anybody's attempt at it, and lets face it most of our first attempts are not much more than a bright fuzzy image of Orion, or Andromeda and nothing like the spectacular images you strive for but like somebody told me on my first fuzzy attempt how amazing it was for the very reasons you state, albeit a bit more concise 🙂 

It's all truly remarkable, what isn't remarkable how once again I have managed to steer a great thread off track 🤪

Steve

[StevieDvd]

@powerlord I rescue my photons and help them re-generate in other media

So astroimagers = photoncopiers 😉

[Tomatobro]

My ideal processing software would be (computer voice of Hal from 2001)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"I see you were imaging last night. Did it go alright?"

"Yes Hal"

"would you like me to process that data for you?"

"Yes please Hal"

"can I use the calibration data that is on file?"

"Yes please Hal"

"do you want me to save an image at each stage of the processing?"

"No thanks Hal, just the final image"

"OK I will send you a text when its done "

"Thanks Hal"

[DaveS]

"Open the observatory dome HAL"

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that"

"Why not HAL"

"Because it's raining Dave"

LOL