BlurXTerminator - Wow!

[geeklee]

8 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

I can’t recall the reasoning but I seem to think it’s advised to not do any noise reduction before using blurxt 

It was mentioned in this thread I think - referencing Adam's video.  It's also mentioned in the official documentation in PI (under the Linear data section)

Edited December 29, 2022 by geeklee

[Stuart1971]

28 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

I can’t recall the reasoning but I seem to think it’s advised to not do any noise reduction before using blurxt 

Yes correct, I did try it and it looked awful doing it after Noise reduction….👍🏻

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, scotty38 said:

I can’t recall the reasoning but I seem to think it’s advised to not do any noise reduction before using blurxt 

Indeed, but in my case it was just a way of boosting the single sub S/N ratio for my experiments. I'm just impatient to get hold of a stack! 

Olly

Edited December 29, 2022 by ollypenrice

[Bibabutzemann]

On 29/12/2022 at 09:34, ollypenrice said:

No it doesn't!  

Oh all right, maybe it does.    I  can offer these. They are heavy crops of what is, for a TEC 140 (1 metre FL) at 0.9"PP, a small target. The first is the original, sharpened in Ps using iterations of unsharp masking on different layers.

The second was sharpened first with BlurXT and then with a single iteration of unsharp mask. It has also been through StarXterminator for star reduction, so bear that in mind.

My feeling is that the second has more delicacy and finesse. In the first, the main dust lane has more impact but that's because it has been artificially widened and darkened by USM. The BXT image has the dust lane in better agreement with R Jay GaBay's large telescope rendition here. https://www.cosmotography.com/images/wide_ngc891_2010.html

My image had 7 hours luminance and 2 hours per colour, so 13 hours. That's a few hours shy of what I used to aim for doing galaxies in the TEC.

Olly

GGC891original.tif 1.57 MB · 1 download

The sharpening of the dustlanes looks pretty similar to me. 

But i prefer the first one simply because in the 2nd image it seems the StarXterminator turned into GalaxyXterminator  Many tiny background galaxies are gone

[ollypenrice]

3 minutes ago, Bibabutzemann said:

The sharpening of the dustlanes looks pretty similar to me. 

But i prefer the first one simply because in the 2nd image it seems the StarXterminator turned into GalaxyXterminator  Many tiny background galaxies are gone

That's my carelessness in using it, though. It would be easy to avoid this.

Olly

[Horwig]

I've just come across BlurXTerminator today, I'm blown away with what it can do to an image captured in pants seeing.

I shot a widefield M45 over three nights mid Dec, and was relatively proud ,within limits, of the result. Truth is, I'd have been proud of any result after having more than a year of no imaging.

Ran the linear master L and RGB through BlutXT this afternoon, and ran the resulting images through Photoshop, as per my normal workflow.

Here's a 100% crop of both versions, I'll let you guess which is which.

Guess it's going to be a late xmas present to myself.

[Karl Perera]

currently I am sticking with PS and trying out StarxTerminator and NoiseXterminator as these are two problems, I'm facing these days. Need to process better, does everyone say this?

[PeterCPC]

I did a quick capture of M1 to be able to try BX before my trial ends. Two images here - one before BX and one after. BX seems to have done strange things to the stars. I don't think that I'll be buying this.

 

[Stuart1971]

1 hour ago, PeterCPC said:

I did a quick capture of M1 to be able to try BX before my trial ends. Two images here - one before BX and one after. BX seems to have done strange things to the stars. I don't think that I'll be buying this.

 

You seem to have some astigmatism in your stars in the first image, so using BluX will just make them worse, as it does not work well with many types of astigmatism…I found this out too with my tak corner stars, which have some astigmatism…

[Stuart1971]

1 hour ago, PeterCPC said:

I did a quick capture of M1 to be able to try BX before my trial ends. Two images here - one before BX and one after. BX seems to have done strange things to the stars. I don't think that I'll be buying this.

 

Here is an example from your first image, see the flat sides to the star shape….I tried to point out the flat sides with the yellow lines…but not very well ☹️

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Stuart1971

[PeterCPC]

15 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

Here is an example from your first image, see the flat sides to the star shape….I tried to point out the flat sides with the yellow lines…but not very well ☹️

 

What causes that?

[Stuart1971]

5 minutes ago, PeterCPC said:

What causes that?

Well, there are many reasons, poorly aligned optics, pinched optics, too much field curvature, incorrect distances if flatteners or reducers used….mis matched correctors….

What scope and camera are you using…?

[PeterCPC]

1 minute ago, Stuart1971 said:

Well, there are many reasons, poorly aligned optics, pinched optics, too much field curvature, incorrect distances if flatteners or reducers used….mis matched correctors….

What scope and camera are you using…?

Esprit 100 with ZWO ASI533.

[Stuart1971]

7 minutes ago, PeterCPC said:

Esprit 100 with ZWO ASI533.

Then I would look at pinched optics, and or collimation, and or if you are using a flattener, then correct backspace…

Do a star test with a low powered eyepiece and see what they look like when slightly defocussed, see what the doughnut shape looks like..

Edited January 20, 2023 by Stuart1971

[PeterCPC]

Just now, Stuart1971 said:

Then I would look at pinched optics, and or collimation, and or if you are using a flattener, then correct backspace…

I used the scope last night but with a ASI294 - there are other issues here because I knocked the scope - but what do you think the stars are like in the middle?

[Stuart1971]

9 minutes ago, PeterCPC said:

Esprit 100 with ZWO ASI533.

The issue seems to be the same all across the image you posted, also I don’t think you quite nailed the focus, and all the stars look slightly elongated too, sorry I am not tryi to criticise, but BlurX is not a miracle tool, the date has to be pretty good to start with, better data in better data out…

I too have been through all this with my FSQ85 and bad stars, and BlurX made them worse..

[Stuart1971]

4 minutes ago, PeterCPC said:

I used the scope last night but with a ASI294 - there are other issues here because I knocked the scope - but what do you think the stars are like in the middle?

Some odd things going on there too, just off centre, and again focus is a bit off too, but hard to see as the image is largely compressed, check the raw stacks..

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Stuart1971

[PeterCPC]

32 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

The issue seems to be the same all across the image you posted, also I don’t think you quite nailed the focus, and all the stars look slightly elongated too, sorry I am not tryi to criticise, but BlurX is not a miracle tool, the date has to be pretty good to start with, better data in better data out…

I too have been through all this with my FSQ85 and bad stars, and BlurX made them worse..

Thanks for your input. I don't see how I can change anything really. I am not going to try to adjust the Esprit. I got focus with a Bahtinov mask so I can't really do anymore. I think that I will just have to accept it as is but forget about BX. I suppose I could change the IR filter and see if that helps.

[Stuart1971]

1 hour ago, PeterCPC said:

Thanks for your input. I don't see how I can change anything really. I am not going to try to adjust the Esprit. I got focus with a Bahtinov mask so I can't really do anymore. I think that I will just have to accept it as is but forget about BX. I suppose I could change the IR filter and see if that helps.

Well low quality IR filters will make a difference…and a better one will control the bloat much better

[drjolo]

Since the weather is a joke here (as usual in January) I decided to test Xterminators on my old stacks, and probably I will invest to this tool. All the comparisons below were made by applying BlurXTerminator and then NoiseXTerminator. All data was collected under my suburban LP sky with average brightness 19.50, sometimes close to 20.00 mag/arcsec2. Left image is raw calibrated stack, sometimes with DBE applied to remove gradient. Right is the same with terminators applied.

M16 fragment with 90mm refractor and QHY268M camera:

NGC7380 fragment with 90mm refractor and QHY268M camera

NGC7380 with Meade ACF 10" telescope and QHY163M camera

Sh2-132 with 90mm refractor and QHY268M camera - HSO palette

Sh2-171 with 90mm refractor and QHY268M camera - HSO palette

Tadpoles with 90mm refractor and QHY247C camera

NGC1333 with Samyang 135 lens and QHY247C camera

M63 with Meade ACF 10" and QHY163M camera

NGC3718 with Meade ACF 10" telescope and QHY163M camera:

Abell 1185 cluster with Meade ACF 10" and QHY163M camera:

 

I am quite impressed with the results 🤩

[Magnum]

On 20/01/2023 at 13:24, Stuart1971 said:

Here is an example from your first image, see the flat sides to the star shape….I tried to point out the flat sides with the yellow lines…but not very well ☹️

 

I had this issue on my Meade series 5000 127 F7.5 triplet for over a year and it wasn't the reducer /flattener as I don't use one on this scope. I eventually fixed after 3 attempts at removing the lens cell, loosening the front element, rotating the front element, slightly backing off the collimation grub screws so they are only just touching the elements. Was only on the 3rd time messing around with it that the stars eventually went nice and round, so not sure which of those things fixed it but I think the last thing that I did was remove the front element and put it back again, while watching the a live view of the stars.

I dont want to  hijac the thread, so if Peter is interested he can PM me about it.

Lee

[ONIKKINEN]

Russ Croman interview about BlurXT, found it interesting and answered some questions i didn't know i had:

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by ONIKKINEN

[tomato]

Thanks for posting this, I learnt quite a bit. 
Early on, Russ Croman refers to an article by Patrick Cosgrove which the AI sceptics might find interesting. It provides an introduction into neural networks and for me provided an understanding as to why most of the concerns put forward about this processing tool are unfounded.

https://cosgrovescosmos.com/tips-n-techniques/blurxtermintor-a-breakthrough-for-decon

 

[teoria_del_big_bang]

On 06/02/2023 at 08:55, tomato said:

Thanks for posting this, I learnt quite a bit. 
Early on, Russ Croman refers to an article by Patrick Cosgrove which the AI sceptics might find interesting. It provides an introduction into neural networks and for me provided an understanding as to why most of the concerns put forward about this processing tool are unfounded.

https://cosgrovescosmos.com/tips-n-techniques/blurxtermintor-a-breakthrough-for-decon

 

Yes I agree a great insight into how the tool works and I hope puts some of the mis founded ideas to bed.

I too have been quite confused to some of the comments flying about lately and some people seem very opposed to all of Russ Croman's tools with comments like processed without any Exterminators so I started to wonder myself if these were actually cheating or not.

I mean in a way aren't all of the tools some form of cheat anyway as we are transforming what is actually on out camera sensors, nearly all imagers will remove noise to some extent and yes you can overdo it, most will do some sort of deconvolution or sharpening, and again these can all be overdone, to achieve any decent image of most DSO's we will all change the ratios of brightness's, and these days we nearly all mess about with the colours. Technically cheating I would think but all acceptable if not done to extremes.

The biggest issue people seem to have is with the so called AI, neural Networks etc and even some suggestion it adds info from learned images to your data which I think this video firmly puts to bed, Well I believe it convinced me anyway 🙂 

I think I am quite happy to use this along with the other XT tools and realise that like many other PI tools it can be over used, also it may not work so great on all images, it is not a way to turn bad data into great images, at the heart of a great image it is still down to great data, but used properly can enhance your images.

Steve

Edited February 7, 2023 by teoria_del_big_bang

[scotty38]

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... 😀