Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Help with removing trees from stack


Recommended Posts

I shot 7822  wed night, but it was lower than I though, and the bottom half was in and out of trees. Not wanting to admit defeat, I integrated it anyway, and then in APP and SIril tried my best to scrub out as much of the banding as possible with background extraction.

I can now at least see the bubble now, but no idea how to strip the remaining tree banding out or even if it's possible to be honest..

example sub:

example.thumb.jpg.9d80c958b6c2461318a16ba02b931ee1.jpg

the best I can do so far with the stack:

stack.thumb.jpg.c2fe220329517156af348b20ad7f86fc.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Increase the rejection for stacking and add weighing of the subs? The tree-visible subs will be given lower weights and should contribute less for the final image and the strict rejection would reject the rest in theory. If there are more subs with the tree visible than without, then its a problem because they would not be outliers in that case and you might want to scrap the worst ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks, but yeh I considered that - but most of the subs have trees in them tbh. probably 80%. I mean I pretty much consider it a lost cause, but thought I'd ask in case someone has a particular magic spell that works. It's one of those things that in some ways you'd think should be possible - each sub has areas which should be ignored, areas which shouldn't. add em all up - voila - no trees. But that'd probably need a neural net trained about what bits are trees and what bits arn't - obvious as it is to us, it's not so obvious to the stacker.

thinking about it, one way would be to kinda cheat, and find a reference image, use it to make a mask representing the actual background, then deleting it from my data. Obviously I'd still have trees in the nebula data itself, but it'd be far less obvious... might try that and update thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I havn't - but that would just ignore all the trees bit. I don't want that. It's no biggy - I just thought I'd ask. It's my own fault for trusting my 360 pano view on stellarium too much and thinking i could miss the trees!

stu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.