Finally had things fall into place last night; got 4hrs of the sharpest luminance I've managed to date... and this time I actually remembered to turn cooling on ;-)
Was planning on getting more lum tonight but I'm pretty happy with this, so I might just jump straight to RGB.
Edit: Added colour image.
Last edited by codemonkey; 06-10-2015 at 03:47 PM.
Lee this is looking like a good lum process. The image is a bit smaller to really see well but it does look very good already. I am keen to see the image once you have the colour too.
Very nice mate. I'm still fraught with calibration problems. Just can't get flats looking right. I got the better but still not right.
Good to see you got some solid data for the long weekend.
Cheers mate
I saw your post about the flats. Sounds like a royal pain in the nether region. Have you considered stopping down a bit? I know it's throwing away light, but better to have some usable, darker stuff than unusable lighter stuff, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
Lee this is looking like a good lum process. The image is a bit smaller to really see well but it does look very good already. I am keen to see the image once you have the colour too.
Cheers Paul :-)
I got some RGB data last night but I'm having trouble with it; guiding was quite poor compared to previous nights and I've got some annoying halos. I might just try and get new RGB tonight. At the least new B.
Anyway, in the meantime I've reprocessed the lum using drizzle integration as I noticed my stars were a bit square originally. I've attached a 100% crop. Looks to me like the minute guiding errors are enough for drizzle, without dithering.
Hey that crop looks bloody excellent Lee, heaps of detail with no decon or wavelets pseudo detail/artefacts in the galaxies, nice gotta stamp out thin bright worms and dot detail...(like Smallpox )
Hey that crop looks bloody excellent Lee, heaps of detail with no decon or wavelets pseudo detail/artefacts in the galaxies, nice gotta stamp out thin bright worms and dot detail...(like Smallpox )
Mike
Thanks Mike! :-)
Funny thing, this is the "most deconned" image I've ever done as well. Not sure if I'm just getting better at it, or if the better data helped, maybe both.
Definitely some hot pixels still floating around; cosmetic correction didn't pick them all up, but I'll manually clean up on the final processing attempt (is there ever a final one?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eden
Excellent work, Lee. Nice and sharp with no signs of noise. Very interested to see the final product, bring on the colour! :-D
Thanks Brett! :-) Definitely still a bit of noise there; I was careful in processing to keep it to a minimum.
Good to see you back... seemed to disappear for a while!
Thanks Mike! :-)
Funny thing, this is the "most deconned" image I've ever done as well. Not sure if I'm just getting better at it, or if the better data helped, maybe both.
Oh yes, like most filters, it is very possible to use decon to great advantage to reveal details but without its use being noticeable or even detectable... and that's exactly what you have done here, so most excellent And hey, I am not anti-decon, just an MDAD (maniac decon artefact detector) sniff, sniff, so if you use decon to sharpen the details in an image and I can't see it, then you have nailed it I recon
More data helps most filters, often decon it is only able to be done well in the brighter areas of the image.
lol. Bad wording there on my part. I accidentally lost the lum attachment in the original post, not the data. I also overwrote the original lum jpeg, so that exact one is gone, but the important stuff remains.
Have you tried reducing the star sizes in the blue channel to reduce halos?
Thanks Alex! :-)
Good thinking, I should probably revisit that.
I very, very briefly tried to reduce the star sizes in the red channel, since most of the halos are actually magenta. I didn't try very hard and ended up with cyan borders instead, then I went on to try doing a contour mask and then reducing the saturation... which I also didn't spend much effort on before giving up, exporting it and trying to reduce the magenta in PS.
I think the issue is that the green data is the sharpest, blue the worst and red in the middle. I could also try bloating the green channel a touch as well I guess.
Your recent work on this group is the best I've seen; if mine turns out half as good I'll be stoked.
gotta stamp out thin bright worms and dot detail...(like Smallpox 
)
