Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy01
Thanks Andrew, really appreciate the nice feedback & endorsement! So you’re Certainly producing amazing results and well on the fast track to consistent imaging success!
At this point you can take either the safe well trodden path or the risky one with Your processing, but while not guaranteed, only the bold stand out in the crowd!
Great image, well done! 
Thanks Andy  , you know that I love your work.
Edit: Ps- learn from Mike & Marcus’ comments, I’ve learned a lot from them �� |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placidus
I'm convinced that producing a starless version as an intermediate step is necessary, and yours is excellent.
Bravo!
But I'd like to see the stars put back. One reason is that it's very difficult to be sure that you've revealed the true nebulosity "behind" the brightest stars. Imagine you place a coin over some writing. A human (one of the very best AI's there is) can take a guess what words might be under the coin, but the author might have written just about anything.
It's easy to add the stars (or just the H-alpha stars) back again as white, or to have a go at guessing the star colours from the OIII/{Ha+OIII} ratio, or best of all, to add RGB stars to the starless image.
Best,
Mike
|
Thanks for that Mike.
I will have to think about that "true nebulosity" behind the stars concept vs what Starnett++ does or even what a deconvolution algorithm does when it reduces the star size.
Cheers Andrew
