Very Frustrated-please process this data

[dan_adi]

10 hours ago, Rodd said:

I have 3 refractors.  I use the C11 Edge for galaxies and PNs. When the nebulae come around again I will switch to the fsq or TOA.   Galaxies need aperture.  I like the resolution and fine details

Other reflector designs are more suited for this job. RCs, CDKs, Newts.

With regard to resolution, in average seeing, going above 8 inches in aperture won't improve things. This is why big scopes are built in Chile, and not in backyards. 

As an example your C11 has the same or slightly worse FWHM than my 8 inch, even though your bigger scope should provide more resolution. My best subs can reach an average of 1.8". The seeing imposes a limit.

In this case Aperture helps in getting to the desired SNR faster, in less time.

So, if resolution it's very important to you, you need better seeing along with aperture.

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, dan_adi said:

Other reflector designs are more suited for this job. RCs, CDKs, Newts.

With regard to resolution, in average seeing, going above 8 inches in aperture won't improve things. This is why big scopes are built in Chile, and not in backyards. 

As an example your C11 has the same or slightly worse FWHM than my 8 inch, even though your bigger scope should provide more resolution. My best subs can reach an average of 1.8". The seeing imposes a limit.

In this case Aperture helps in getting to the desired SNR faster, in less time.

So, if resolution it's very important to you, you need better seeing along with aperture.

Last night I was pulling down fwhm of 1.6.  My best. What you say is true.  Not much to do about seeing.  That is why I am looking  by to remote operations

[dan_adi]

21 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Last night I was pulling down fwhm of 1.6.  My best. What you say is true.  Not much to do about seeing.  That is why I am looking  by to remote operations

I'm curious if you tried going more towards the science part of the hobby. Astrophotography is harder than exoplanet detection or spectroscopy or photometry of asteroids etc. Sometimes I wonder if I wouldn't be more enthusiastic about confirming an exoplanet myself rather than imaging m42. 

After I finish my abell 2218 lensing adventure, I'll explore the science part. I have a feeling I'll more into it.

Anyways food for thought...

[Rodd]

5 hours ago, dan_adi said:

I'm curious if you tried going more towards the science part of the hobby. Astrophotography is harder than exoplanet detection or spectroscopy or photometry of asteroids etc. Sometimes I wonder if I wouldn't be more enthusiastic about confirming an exoplanet myself rather than imaging m42. 

After I finish my abell 2218 lensing adventure, I'll explore the science part. I have a feeling I'll more into it.

Anyways food for thought...

I am into planetary and lunar.  But an exoplanet? Not so much. It is interesting, but I like imaging the m42s of the galaxy.  The image of an exoplanet, or graph more likely, would not be too impressive above the mantle 

[tomato]

Hi Rodd,

I'm late to this thread, but here is my effort using your 'Best Lum' channel. I think it is great data, the only issue I had and it is a minor one, is that there appears to be a slight 'bloom' to the background even after using the LP removal tool in APP. This can be rendered almost undetectable by raising the black point a little bit more than I would normally, but you have some very tenuous outer arm nebulosity in your data and it would be a pity to lose this.

On the more philosophical issue that you raise, I really do admire your relentless pursuit of perfection in your images but in AP you have chosen an activity where that goal is IMHO unobtainable. The are so many variables on the data capture and processing, coupled with continuous development in the hardware and software technologies that we are always aiming at a moving target. I also get frustrated with the inadequacies of my data and processing and from time to time I find it rewarding to do something a little different with the kit, e.g. attempting to capture really distant objects (the images will always be of crude quality, but who cares?),  make a GIF of the JWST on it's way to the Lagrange point, or take a video of the pulsating neutron star in the Crab Nebula. These have nice clearly defined goals, and by achieving them help replenish my motivation to have another go at the infernal pastime that is AP.

[Rodd]

7 minutes ago, tomato said:

Hi Rodd,

I'm late to this thread, but here is my effort using your 'Best Lum' channel. I think it is great data, the only issue I had and it is a minor one, is that there appears to be a slight 'bloom' to the background even after using the LP removal tool in APP. This can be rendered almost undetectable by raising the black point a little bit more than I would normally, but you have some very tenuous outer arm nebulosity in your data and it would be a pity to lose this.

On the more philosophical issue that you raise, I really do admire your relentless pursuit of perfection in your images but in AP you have chosen an activity where that goal is IMHO unobtainable. The are so many variables on the data capture and processing, coupled with continuous development in the hardware and software technologies that we are always aiming at a moving target. I also get frustrated with the inadequacies of my data and processing and from time to time I find it rewarding to do something a little different with the kit, e.g. attempting to capture really distant objects (the images will always be of crude quality, but who cares?),  make a GIF of the JWST on it's way to the Lagrange point, or take a video of the pulsating neutron star in the Crab Nebula. These have nice clearly defined goals, and by achieving them help replenish my motivation to have another go at the infernal pastime that is AP.

Very nice. It’s good to know it’s me and not the data. My sky is very poor, so I am not surprised there is some issue. I wonder how much data I would need to really bring out the dim stuff. Your image Izzy very sharp, and I like the color. While I think my latest version is my best. It doesn’t compare to yours.  I just figured out that my flats dong work because of mirror flop. The mirror is locked down and I focus with a crayford.  But the focus star still shifts when I focus. Flats will never work and this scope is doomed unless I fix it. Not sure how

[tomato]

Thanks Rodd, here is a link to a 32.5 hr image taken in Spain by folks whom  I regard as expert imagers, it gives a good idea on how much data is required from a less than ideal site.

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by tomato

[Rodd]

25 minutes ago, tomato said:

Thanks Rodd, here is a link to a 32.5 hr image taken in Spain by folks whom  I regard as expert imagers, it gives a good idea on how much data is required from a less than ideal site.

 

Ahhh….I’m doomed.  I’m thinking of Toni scope. It’s reasonable to belong to 3 piers and get data from 3 scopes.  Not the same though.  

[Dazzyt66]

I think this is a very interesting thread. It shows how much the AP subject is, well, subjective. 

For someone who lives on the outskirts of a (recently designated) city, with very modest equipment, I can only dream of making images this good.

I think it's crazy how our brains drive us sometimes. Even with my 'very poor' images (compared with yours @Rodd) I get frustrated but refuse to get sucked into the money pit that is AP.

Anyway, my point is, with all the variables involved with getting the 'perfect' image (from our own perspective, whatever that is), I think we may be too hard on ourselves sometimes... hobbies are meant to be enjoyable

Sorry, I know that probably didn't help!

Edited May 20, 2023 by Dazzyt66

[Rodd]

6 hours ago, Dazzyt66 said:

Sorry, I know that probably didn't help!

It is good to be recalibrated, so to speak.  In general, you are right.  I suppose it depends on how one looks at it.  For whatever reason I have decided that it is important for me to do astro photography.  I have wanted to since 7th grade (50 years ago!).  I see amazing images that flip the switch, ring the bell, clobber the noggin, what ever phrase works for you.  Long have I suspected that "I am missing something".  I do xy and z and you do x y and z and the results couldnt be more different.  In the end, hedonism drives me.  Why am I so bent on achieveing the "perfect" image....becuase it feels good.  Its amazing that we can do this at all, really, and to see an image of a nebula or galaxy that is clear and deep (without being overrly exposed in bright areas), and realistic looking, and far better than the images in the astronomy books I wore out when I was a kid, does something for me...to me.  I said I want, "must" do that.  So I spend an ungodly amount of money on gear, spend an ungodly amount of time collecting data, and an ungodly amount of time porocessing the data.....only to have the nebula look green?  Not acceptable....so I fixed that by spening an ungodly amount of time figuring out what to do.  At this point, there is only one course of action available to me.  Well, two...sell everything and find another  obsession, or see it through to the end.  I guess I have the mindset of "if its worth doing, its worth doing perfectly".  The feeling I get when I look at a truly great image is akin to what a moth must feel about a flame....I simply must make my image as good as the data can be rendered.  To truly find that line between ones skill and what the data can be without artifact or imballance.  I know.........GET A LIFE, right?

Edited May 20, 2023 by Rodd

[ONIKKINEN]

@Rodd what are you willing to change in your workflow or setup to make the perfect image happen? Many different imagers have offered their thoughts and advice and so far none of them have come to the conclusion that your data is bad so something has to change between the chair and the keyboard so to speak. I think your data is good, its not perfect but so far have not seen perfect data and im not sure that avenue even exists.

You mentioned that you dont want to do noise control measures and only stretch an image to where noise does not come visible. Well, to me this is the worst option with modern tools (especially noiseXterminator) and you are deliberately choosing to not get the best result. If you want to keep doing this then maybe aim for 300 hour integrations instead of 30? Or just apply some NR where applicable and you triple the amount of dynamic range you have to play with in the image to get the perfect result. This is a skill that has to be learned too, so its not like you just run the tool and the image improves. You need to know where to apply it by how much and at which point of the process. You keep moaning that other images look a way that your images do not, so what have YOU tried to do about it with your data? If you keep processing your images the same way and you are still not happy, why the surprise then?

Then there is the problem of your kit, if you consider it a problem. You know your skies give somewhere in the range of 2.5'' to 3'' fwhm data in the average to average bad range (based on your lum stack here). So does the C11 have to stay? You could get rid of it and get a wider scope that is capable of showing all the same detail. Here you have more option than days in a week. 8'', 10'' newtonians either f/4 or f/5 with a quality corrector, 8'' SCT, 8'' RC, 11'' RASA, 150mm triplet refractor? All with significantly less focal length but still much better for your seeing conditions.

Apologies, this comment is quite blunt. It just seems to me you're looking to complain but not do anything at all to improve while there are several avenues you could take to get closer to the image you have in mind.

[Rodd]

Just now, ONIKKINEN said:

You mentioned that you dont want to do noise control measures

I use noise control--but the smallest amount I can get away with.  I use noise Xterminator.  Its not a panacea.  No doubt I could learn to use it more effectively.  As far as a new scope.......I have an FSQ 106, TOA 130 and an NP101is.  None are as good on galaxies as the C11Edge.  I got the C11Edge for galaxies and planatary/lunar.  I am not after widefiled with this.  My sky is not good enough for a OSC I have been told--so a RASA is out.  Besides, major gear changes would require selling stuff first.  Besides 2, yall have shown me that the problem is me, not the data, so my efforts would be better spent on my skill than  starting over with a new scope.  If I could buy a new scope, I would be very interested in a RiFast scope (long focal length and short focal ratio).  A new scope is not in the cards.  I need a new camera (2600).  maybe someday.  Bottom line, I would be willing to bet, as you have shown me, that my gear is good enough to render nice images.  I think the last thing I need to do is change scopes.  

[Elp]

How bad is your sky, surely it cant be worse than mine. Bortle 7, surrounded by led lights only like 10-20M away and industrial lights immediately behind that lighting the sky up. Its one the main reasons I image narrowband more, RGB is extremely difficult for me though not impossible, anything around 15 degrees altitude presents me issues though.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Elp

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, Elp said:

How bad is your sky, surely it cant be worse than mine. Bortle 7, surrounded by led lights only like 10-20M away and industrial lights immediately behind that lighting the sky up. Its one the main reasons I image narrowband more, RGB is extremely difficult for me though not impossible, anything around 15 degrees altitude presents me issues though.

LP is not the only issue--transparency nis key.  Sometimes I can hardly see constellations, like Ursa Major.  Soupy sky.  The differece between those nights and dark nights where the stars are clear as day is huge.  I dont get those types of nights very often.

[vlaiv]

So what is the conclusion here?

I think that data is good. I think it is even very good as this can be rendered from L400 without any noise reduction what so ever:

There is enough signal to tease out very fine structure in central part of the galaxy.

Only thing that I did was to bin data x3 as x2 is just still over sampling.

[vlaiv]

Btw, this is the first time I see this particular feature in M101:

There is whole another arm that I haven't seen before:

I think that it is real feature as it is present in the image linked above as well.

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

There is whole another arm that I haven't seen before:

Wiow--thanks Vlad.  Your processing skills are amazing.  More afirmation that its me and not the data. That is encouraging.  Now I ust have to fix the flats issue I am having and I will be on track.  There is another thread of mine....at first thought it was mirror flop, but now suspecting the focuser.  Not sure though

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

There is whole another arm that I haven't seen before:

maybe I should collect a bunch more lum on this target and bring these arms out more strongly

[vlaiv]

17 minutes ago, Rodd said:

maybe I should collect a bunch more lum on this target and bring these arms out more strongly

Not sure how much more exposure would be enough.

Here is a little experiment. I further binned x3 (thus making it equivalent to x9 more exposure length) lum:

Feature is there as a string of stars in very faint arm - but it seems to be very very faint (no wonder it is missed on 99% images out there).

[Rodd]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I further binned x3 (thus making it equivalent to x9 more exposure length)

Yeah, I guess more data would not be that effective.  maybe I could shoot it with the FSQ and register the data to this and combine just in teh faintb spiral arm--unless teh act of registering to a data set of smaller pixel scale erases any gain in speed afforded by the FSQ at F3.  

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Yeah, I guess more data would not be that effective.  maybe I could shoot it with the FSQ and register the data to this and combine just in teh faintb spiral arm--unless teh act of registering to a data set of smaller pixel scale erases any gain in speed afforded by the FSQ at F3.  

Not sure how F/3 is relevant for speed.

It is after all 11" vs 4" of aperture - if you match the pixel scale between the two then only aperture dictates the speed. In any case - you can always outperform 4" with 11" for given pixel scale if the whole target can fit in the FOV.

Btw, feature is more interesting then I first thought. Here is image of it that I found online:

On your image I suspected it was splitting in several "streams" - but could not be sure due to calibration artifacts on the edge of the image. Here we can see that it is indeed several "branches".

[Rodd]

3 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

It is after all 11" vs 4" of aperture - if you match the pixel scale between the two then only aperture dictates the speed. In any case - you can always outperform 4" with 11" for given pixel scale if the whole target can fit in the FOV.

I knew you would catch me on that one.  yes indeed.  Maybe at a Bortle one site more data would be useful.  Until then, I guess I need to learn how to process.  

[Dazzyt66]

3 hours ago, Rodd said:

"if its worth doing, its worth doing perfectly".

Everyone’s obsessive about something so there is no judgement here at all. If you enjoy it then that’s all that matters 👍

ps Perfect is the enemy of good enough 😊