The Smokin' Hot Galaxy - M82 returns - this time properly smokin'

[powerlord]

8 hours ago, wimvb said:

@powerlord, I took the liberty of downloading the fits file you shared and processed two versions in PixInsight. The difference is that in one versioin I used BlurXTerminator, and in the other I used conventional deconvolution. No other sharpening processes were used, only stretching and colour saturation. I also refrained from using any masks in PixInsight to selectively do any processing. So no star reduction beyond what the deconvolution steps did.

In conventional deconvolution it's very easy to over do it and introduce artefacts, I tried to avoid that as much as possible, while still having noticable sharpening. It is obvious that BXT allows much stronger deconvolution than PixInsight's deconvolution process. It can sharpen the image much closer to the noise floor, and decreases stars much more. I used BXT with a strength of 0.70, and custom PSF size.

This image (saved as jpeg at highest quality) lacks the H-alpha, so not as smoking as your original.

Wow, that's miles better than I've been able to achieve. Both of them .

[ollypenrice]

9 hours ago, wimvb said:

@powerlord, I took the liberty of downloading the fits file you shared and processed two versions in PixInsight. The difference is that in one versioin I used BlurXTerminator, and in the other I used conventional deconvolution. No other sharpening processes were used, only stretching and colour saturation. I also refrained from using any masks in PixInsight to selectively do any processing. So no star reduction beyond what the deconvolution steps did.

In conventional deconvolution it's very easy to over do it and introduce artefacts, I tried to avoid that as much as possible, while still having noticable sharpening. It is obvious that BXT allows much stronger deconvolution than PixInsight's deconvolution process. It can sharpen the image much closer to the noise floor, and decreases stars much more. I used BXT with a strength of 0.70, and custom PSF size.

This image (saved as jpeg at highest quality) lacks the H-alpha, so not as smoking as your original.

If this isn't great amateur imaging I'm going to take up tiddlywinks instead.

1 hour ago, AMcD said:

Using “Blur Xterminator” on images of black holes 😂

 

I no longer watch this woman's videos. They prevent me from sleeping at night.  And, yes, she does it on purpose! 

lly

[powerlord]

Right.. v99 - I think I've got it this time 🥵

Went back to the start - background extracting, colour balancing. decon a bit, wavelet a bit. Plus, I made use of the 100 30 sec subs I'd not used before. Integrated they were quite a bit sharper than the longer exposures, so used them to sharpen it up a bit. But aligned hubble photo in a later in affinity and kept flicking back and forth to ensure I wasn't adding any detail.

The Ha was blended in as a lighten layer. It's not as in your face as before, but it is more genuine.

What do you reckon ? maybe a tiny bit less red needed in the blue ?

[wimvb]

Very nice. You even got the H-alpha arc (shock bow?)

Edited April 30, 2023 by wimvb

[SamAndrew]

On 29/04/2023 at 11:03, wimvb said:

@powerlord, I took the liberty of downloading the fits file you shared and processed two versions in PixInsight. The difference is that in one versioin I used BlurXTerminator, and in the other I used conventional deconvolution. No other sharpening processes were used, only stretching and colour saturation. I also refrained from using any masks in PixInsight to selectively do any processing. So no star reduction beyond what the deconvolution steps did.

In conventional deconvolution it's very easy to over do it and introduce artefacts, I tried to avoid that as much as possible, while still having noticable sharpening. It is obvious that BXT allows much stronger deconvolution than PixInsight's deconvolution process. It can sharpen the image much closer to the noise floor, and decreases stars much more. I used BXT with a strength of 0.70, and custom PSF size.

This image (saved as jpeg at highest quality) lacks the H-alpha, so not as smoking as your original.

 

How long did the BXT image take to process vs the conventional method? 

I find the time saving using BXT vs trying to find the right settings using conventional deconvolution is very significant

[wimvb]

4 hours ago, SamAndrew said:

How long did the BXT image take to process vs the conventional method? 

I find the time saving using BXT vs trying to find the right settings using conventional deconvolution is very significant

Finding the right parameters takes most of the time. For conventional deconvolution you also need to create a psf, a star mask and a strong luminance mask. BXT only needs a psf, after which it can sharpen detail much closer to the background/noise floor.

[powerlord]

well, never say never, but I think I'm done with this - last night I grabbed another 6 hours of Ha data. So I integrated that into the Ha I already had, bringing it up to 11 hours.

With that, it's been possible to being out the Ha a fair bit more.

So here we go. And I've added an updated (256 colour of course) animated gif comparing to hubble.

Man vs Hubble

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by powerlord
updated - again!!

[powerlord]

ive done it again havn't I - where's that ha at the bottom coming from..its not in hubble.. arggggg

update: nope - I've double checked - that's the data I got. hubble is clearly wrong 🙂

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by powerlord

[Smiller]

Not bad for a first attempt….

😉 JK.  Fantastic image, one I can only dream about getting!