Quote:
Originally Posted by LostInSp_ce
Alex I don't think I've seen M42 like this sometimes it's fun to break the rules. Go with the flow and see what happens. Maybe do a starless version just for kicks. Have you settled on a preferred drizzle setting yet or are you still experimenting? Personally I find 2x to be the magic number.
|
It's the others who break the rules
I have merely tried to wring the most out of the small part of the EMS (Electro Magnetic Spectrum) we are privileged to observe with perhaps additional colour that would be apparent to a mantis shrimp a creature who sees so much more colour than we humans can imagine. I expect that a mantis shrimp would consider my image as perhaps under saturated.
I can't get my head around the concept of capturing an astronomy image and then removing "the stars" ...who knows how many solar systems are placed in a box of non recognition...I would certainly not be happy if some distant astrophotographer when shooting subs in the region of our Sun at the point of processing casually wiped out Sun and therefore us out of the picture....I would not take it personally but certainly would not be impressed.
Excessive colour is not beyond what the EMS will deliver but to anialate Suns and world's smacks of a preoccupation on altering an image to reflect only that which the capturer deems important to his narrow focus of what is important and although dust clouds are perhaps important to provide material for a solar system to form I feel, somewhat passionately, that it is what those dust clouds finally become..stars..that are important... I sometimes worry my stars are too big but if you could see them as I see them ..bubbles at any distance you can observe them...imagine you orbited a star at many light years..it scribes out a bubble..I hope you can see what I see here..we see a pin point of light but that pin point appears at many points at various radius such you can scribe spheres all over...try to think what is there not just and only what you see..our perception is so limited and worse still is that we have not idea just how limited...
My preferred drizzle is 3x it is just so much better that 2x because 3 is greater than 2.
I think there is an advantage that others do not see.
I feel that drizzle perhaps can be seen as an averaging event...and one would hope the more stuff and the more averaging the greater opportunity to find a detail that can only be found by essentially a piece of equipment that just can't produce the resolution the averaging may deliver.
Averaging in any situation seems distasteful but usually the more you average things the closer you get to the core that comprises that particular reality.
I feel that with lots of data and a 10 "X drizzle one could produce a resolution way past the theoretical limits of a particular scope...or maybe not.
Alex
