Quote:
Originally Posted by jase
What’s the point of having good data if you don’t have the expertise to maximise it.
|
I really don't find processing good data difficult. The point of my "extreme demo" was exactly that, given Hubble data (archived and squarely in the public domain I understand) it's pretty much a brain dead operation to create an image (in this case SII, OIII and synthetic green from these two) that blows any amateur scope image of the same field.
It's the seeing/tracking/focus/reflections/gradients etc that gives me grief.
Quote:
So in your presented image,
Did you have any say in how the data was acquired?
|
Of course not, but it's shade's a grey Jase. With pay per view you probably can't ask for CS/AstroDons/Schuller or Baader filters. Or tweak the collimination just that bit more.
With my own system I have *total* control, warts and all....hence when I do occasionally get all the elements to come together, there is a great deal of satisfaction in knowing the resulting image was all my own work.
It can also be argued, as processing software gets more sophisticated, it will simply be a one click operation in MaxIm Ver 12.0 to combine data collected from a metre class RCOS into a perfectly aligned, noise free, dynamically optimized, rip snort of an image. Or to paraphrase from the early space program: the monkey flicks the switch.
Nah...its simply not for me
