Low Key M20

[Peter Ward]

Armed with a few new processing tools, (thanks Martin :thumbsup: ) and being suitably motivated by recent posts, I figured...what the heck.. time to reprocess some old (about 3 years) data.

I know, the luminance layer registration is a tad off... and will be tweaked in time. I was more interested in the dynamics of the image. So...what do you think...dead end? ... or shows promise?

The link is here (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery18.html)

[alpal]

Very nice indeed.
Time to do some more re-processing on other pics!

[allan gould]

Nothing like new processing procedures on old data to show what advances have been made. Excellent image IMO and great detail.
Allan

[Mighty_oz]

Looks pretty good to me but i'm an amateur when it's processing skills :)

[Stevec35]

Nothing I can say except it looks like a pretty good Trifid to me so I guess it shows promise. Looks like you caught an asteroid going past.

Cheers

Steve

[h0ughy]

on the laptop screen this is very 3D - love the depth and colour Peter

[Peter Ward]

Thanks for the feedback guys... much appreciated. Looks like that processing flow has merit :)

[renormalised]

Great piccie there Peter, though the dark lanes and globs could be just a tad sharper. But that's just my preference :)

[astronobob]

Very inspiring Peter, always dig a closeup on the triffid, and yeah looks a 3D tunnel in there :thumbsup: Nicely done . .

[multiweb]

Text book M20. Dusted and back to the cool wall now. :thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

Thanks for the input.... but I like the stars to be sharp and the clouds to be somewhat softer ;)





Thanks guys. "text book" eh? I like that :)

[renormalised]

You've been flying that A380 of yours way too much :) :P

[AG Hybrid]

It looks 3d. neat.

[IanP]

Good old data – it’s a gold mine.
Very nicely reprocessed.
:thumbsup:

[Peter.M]

My only comments would be that the low signal areas of the image seem a little blotchy? Its sort of a weird mottled look. And did you desaturate a section to the right of the image? I would mask in the star colours in the desaturated section just so that it didn't stand out so much depending on the reason you did it. It looks like it could have had some weird green gradient or something? Great image on the whole, one I would be proud of for sure!

[Peter Ward]

Appreciate the feedback Pete, but not sure what you mean by blotchy.

Sure, there is some imperfect noise reduction (working on that) but the image has quite a high HDR (or should that be DR :question:) so there some light and shade within the reflection nebula and some (real) dust toward the edges that might look like processing artifacts.




Thanks guys. Ah..could be better...but good enough for now :)



Cumulus-granite is always a worry :)

[Peter.M]

ATM machine! :P

[Peter Ward]

As an aside Sydney airport has an number of signs that read: if you see FOD, pick it up!

FOD = foreign object damage .

Not sure how you go about picking up the damage.... I suspect they mean the objects that may damage turbines...

[SkyViking]

That looks very nice Peter, I like it! Did you use PixInsight?

[Peter Ward]

Indeed..much of the heavy lifting was done with PI....but I still need Photoshop for the gilt edges :)

[gregbradley]

Looks good Peter. I see you are going over to the dark side with PI!
You certainly got those core stars nicely tamed. Shorter exposures for them?

I am in the process of updating my PI to version 1.8 as well. I am sure there are some nice modules in there. My only comment about PI images very generally (not yours here) is they often look overprocessed. As I learn more about it I am sure there are ways to tame it but the Photoshop opacity slider in layers sure is useful and hard to beat.

Greg.

[Paul Haese]

Looks 3D to me. Maybe a little too low key, but still having the appearance of layers of cloud.

[Peter Ward]

Thanks Paul... I'll probably leave this data set alone....as frankly it needs a re-shoot, also I have no idea where the uncalibrated data...something PI can do magic with....happens to be.



Humm the dark side... :question: I don't think it's PI.... maybe FLI :lol:

I use different tools at different stages of capture/processing. I *still* use CCDops for data capture as the AG routines are sublime and you just can't kill it with a stick (your ST-i usage has not gone un-noticed :thumbsup:)

PI has superb reduction and registration routines. Photoshop however just flows with colour and contrast tweaks.

[gregbradley]

Humm the dark side... :question: I don't think it's PI.... maybe FLI :lol:

I use different tools at different stages of capture/processing. I *still* use CCDops for data capture as the AG routines are sublime and you just can't kill it with a stick (your ST-i usage has not gone un-noticed :thumbsup:)

PI has superb reduction and registration routines. Photoshop however just flows with colour and contrast tweaks.[/QUOTE]

Yes FLI is the work of the devil! I must say the latest incarnations of SBIG cameras are very nice and that AOX seems a really hot product. Its bit like Nikon versus Canon. Once you invest in glass its hard to change direction.

Yes you have mentioned that before about CCDOps. I should give it another go. I did use it when I very first used an ST2000XM. I'd like to see it in action compared to CCDsoft or TSX. STi is a superb guider and I really like it. Well built, the shutter is a godsend and besides I like the colour!

I am a bit unhappy with CCDStack in that it takes way too long to process a stack of 16803 images. It bogs down with more than about 10 1x1 images. Processing even 10 is super slow. Deconvolution takes ages.
Also I have trouble sometimes with callibration. Martin showed how PI gave the lowest FWHM increase over the average subs. So I intend checking it out for callibration, registration and RGB combine as well as gradient handling of which dynamic background extraction is a very good tool.

I'd love to see another epic Honders shot. Your Eta was divine.

Greg.