M31 processed with BlurXTerminator

[ParallaxPete]

Thought I would give BlurXTerminator a go having seen a few images processed with it, have to say I'm happy as a pig in poo and very impressed with the results. My attempts at using deconvolution in Pixinsight have been average at best (more than likely operator error) so I don't really do it anymore as I find it too slow and tedious. The results using BlurXTerminator are fantastic (imho anyway) so just wanted to show my M31 data as I am very pleased with it. I'll shut up now as this is starting to sound like a sales pitch. This is around 3 hours of data taken with my Esprit 100 and ASI2600MC from a Bortle 6/7 zone.

Edit: A before/after comparison for a bit of context.

Edited December 20, 2022 by ParallaxPete

[kirkster501]

It's really nice and I love the detail in the dust lanes, especially on the far side of the galaxy.  The stars look a bit odd though, like you used too much deconvolution perhaps?  Just my eye though, others may disagree.  All the same,  love it.  Bravo.

[ParallaxPete]

2 minutes ago, kirkster501 said:

It's really nice and I love the detail in the dust lanes, especially on the far side of the galaxy.  The stars look a bit odd though, like you used too much deconvolution perhaps?  Just my eye though, others may disagree.  All the same,  love it.  Bravo.

It's probably just my processing, I tend to like quite soft images so I make stars a bit 'soft' which certainly won't be to everyone's taste. I just used BlurXTerminator in it's default settings which does actually reduce the stars quite substantially, but I really like the end result.

[tomato]

That's a great result, your experiences are very similar to my own with previous deconvolution tools, so BXT is a real step forward in my processing workflow. Here is my BXT'ed M31, a combination of RASA8/Esprit150/RC10 data so my stars look a bit strange at 200%. Maybe we can get a thread of BXT M31 images going?

 

[ParallaxPete]

1 minute ago, tomato said:

That's a great result, your experiences are very similar to my own with previous deconvolution tools, so BXT is a real step forward in my processing workflow. Here is my BXT'ed M31, a combination of RASA8/Esprit150/RC10 data so my stars look a bit strange at 200%. Maybe we can get a thread of BXT M31 images going?

 

That's a cracking image. BlurXTerminator seems to be a bit of a hit/miss with people depending on their point of view (and I can see both sides of the argument), but I really like it as it enables me to achieve a much better result even if it is 'cheating'. I've just taken delivery of a SharpStar 76EDPH with matching reducer as I wan't to start getting some much wider field images. At 334mm focal length it will likely be very close your field of view so looking forward to using it in anger🙂. It'll also be setup in a Bortle 4 zone rather than the 6/7 that the above image was taken in.

[ollypenrice]

Great result. In my view, Blur X gives you noiseless sharpening and finds the same fine details that emerge from unsharp masking, except that they are finer still and don't introduce the severe noise of USM, which can only be used on bright regions where there is enough signal to resist this noise.

I'm also persuaded (or very nearly persuaded) that BlurX improves the smoothness and contrast of faint signal just above the background.

Olly

[Knight of Clear Skies]

That's a lovely rendition, full of detail and unforced colours. I like the slightly soft stars myself.

[kirkster501]

17 hours ago, ParallaxPete said:

It's probably just my processing, I tend to like quite soft images so I make stars a bit 'soft' which certainly won't be to everyone's taste. I just used BlurXTerminator in it's default settings which does actually reduce the stars quite substantially, but I really like the end result.

..and at the end of the day that is what matters Pete  

[ollypenrice]

On 20/12/2022 at 21:42, ParallaxPete said:

It's probably just my processing, I tend to like quite soft images so I make stars a bit 'soft' which certainly won't be to everyone's taste. I just used BlurXTerminator in it's default settings which does actually reduce the stars quite substantially, but I really like the end result.

I think that the nice thing about BlurX is that it sharpens mostly on the finest scales and still allows the imager to give a soft-touch overall look. Unsharp masking  inevitably introduces the hard look in my experience.

Olly