Just got a camera back after it being modded, this is the result of the 2 cameras. It was a very very quick processing. All the setting were the same to process the 2 images. Both images were taken last night. 30 x 45 sec dark and bias used no flats, 800 iso. The seeing had very slightly reduced on the unmodded, but it was enough not to effect in the final picture.
I've never seen an image of M42 " that blue " , with a normal dSLR . The second picture looks more what I would expect from an unmodified dSLR . A modified dSLR would be redder. Perhaps it's in the processing?
Philip
Cameras are canon 1100d, and yes I've produced pictures of m42 from an unmodded 1100d like the modded one. But those 2 were taken at the same time and processed exactly the same, to show the difference. I think the cost of moding the camera was well worth it. The processing was very minimal just a little Histogram (the same setting for both).
Here are the untouched frames, 1 frame from each set.
Hi Simon, I have a feeling you ought to get more from your un-modded frames as well as your modded ones - this is my un-modded 4 x 5-minutes shot with a 60D. I would expect with a modded camera to get more of the reds around the main part of M42, but make little difference to the Running Man or the dust, as those areas are not strong in deep red H-alpha emission. Either way, I'm not convinced the processing of the un-modded image in your opening post was successful, especially seeing the raw frame you posted below? But good luck with the modded camera - if you get it working well, I'll definitely be jealous of the potential for the emission nebulae!
People, please for the 3 time. These pictures are NOT processed I've just put them up as a comparison between modded and unmodded. I intend to process them BUT THESE ARE NOT PROCESSED. REPEAT THESE ARE NOT PROCESSED.
I see where you're going with this but, in order to highlight the difference, perhaps it would have been more helpful to stretch each individually.
I hope you don't mind but I've just chucked your two images in PixInsight and done an auto stretch, with channels unlinked, to each. Of course this would be much better to do with the raws.
You can definitely see the much greater sensitivity to Ha that the modded camera has and even with just an auto stretch its colours are much closer to what we would consider 'correct'.
Nice one, I look forward to seeing how it performs with some other targets as you're getting some great detail out of your setup
Yes, can definitely see the data differences between the two shots. Would also be interested in seeing comparison shots of fainter DSOs Simon.
Cheers
Bo
Interesting stuff. My 1100D raws on this subject are much more like Hugh's unmodded from a colour palette point of view, more grey than blue. Good to see how modding changes the response.
Interesting stuff. My 1100D raws on this subject are much more like Hugh's unmodded from a colour palette point of view, more grey than blue. Good to see how modding changes the response.
Thanks, your one of the few that understood what the pictures were for.
Thanks, your one of the few that understood what the pictures were for.
I thought they were to highlight the difference in the data captured between identical exposures from a modded and an unmodded camera?
In which case processing one and then applying that same process to an image with completely different white and black points does not accomplish that. If you had processed the unmodded one to look reasonable and then applied that process to the modded one then the modded one would have looked worse. Please note that when I say process I'm refering to whatever you did to the first images you posted.
I know you think everyone missed your point but, having just reread the thread, I think everyone was just trying to highlight that the reason the unmodded image looked so much worse than the modded one was primarily because the processing on the unmodded image was inappropriate...?
I thought they were to highlight the difference in the data captured between identical exposures from a modded and an unmodded camera?
In which case processing one and then applying that same process to an image with completely different white and black points does not accomplish that. If you had processed the unmodded one to look reasonable and then applied that process to the modded one then the modded one would have looked worse. Please note that when I say process I'm refering to whatever you did to the first images you posted.
I know you think everyone missed your point but, having just reread the thread, I think everyone was just trying to highlight that the reason the unmodded image looked so much worse than the modded one was primarily because the processing on the unmodded image was inappropriate...?
Look at the later post of the pics no processing whatever just changed into jpg and reduced in size to get them on here
Simon, Hugh has demonstrated nicely how better to show the difference beteween the modded and un-modded camera shots. Your opening post didn't show that as the un-modded image was very poorly displayed (for whatever reason). That's proven by the fact that the single un-modded frame you put in post #7 shows much more detail and texture than the un-modded stack in post #1, which looked blown, blue and black clipped. That was all that I (and I think a few others) were getting at - that your opening post didn't quite show what you were after, and I think Hugh realised this. The modded frame in your post #7 shows a little more red detail and texture than the corresponding un-modded frame would come out further in a stack and with processing - which is great for you! So best of luck