Many people have commented in the past that there was something wrong with my images. It seems I was not stretching correctly. The dark bits were too dark.
I used PixInsight to stretch this data. Two panels of the Lagoon and Trifid.
That's really wonderful Bert, a super image indeed! The stretch is very good for sure. I noticed that you've also got Terzan 9 in the frame - the small reddened globular near the dark dustlane in the upper right corner (here is a closeup of it).
So, do you find PixInsight is better, and did you follow any different steps when processing this image?
Interesting to do a numerical comparison on the upsized and standard resolution versions (although somewhat risky - it looks like there was some difference in processing, e.g. there is a noticeable variation in colouring).
The difference in SNR is about what theory would predict at 2.21 (1.5^2 = 2.25). The eccentricity of the stars is effectively the same (0.5428 vs 0.5427). FWHM is 4.796 pixels for the upsized version which scales down to 3.1973 pixels vs 3.745 for the standard resolution image.
Looks like a good investment Bert. Stop whatever you were doing before and stick with PI - that looks to be really doing justice to another set of wonderful data.
Beautiful Bert. I'm a total beginner, still waiting for my first scope, but I've already downloaded PI and been blown away by its capabilities. Your image further convinces me that it's as important as a good camera!
I was too polite before (and coming from Mr. Mediocrity himself - ME), with such wonderful data, but yes, the prior images were "odd" to use a single word.
Now... WOW! Keep going there Bert, looing GREAT!!!!
