Pixel mining IC4628

[Peter Ward]

PixinSight's weird user interface, I suspect is causing me to drink more than usual...yet the unexpected results it delivers, simply stagger me (perhaps in too many ways :) )

So now I find myself going over old data that until now, hadn't presented well.

I simply needed better processing tools....with Pix being one of them. :thumbsup:

An example of what I'm on about is linked below:
IC4628 reprocessed here (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery272.html)

P.S.
Clearly substance abuse was going on during data capture, as I decided fishing line, placed in front of a sublime AP objective, was a good idea at the time :rolleyes:

[h0ughy]

so Mr Ward I take it you are liking PI? do you have the before processed shot to compare?

[Peter Ward]

Yes...and err, yes. :)

[h0ughy]

GReeeaat! so where is it?:thanx:

[LewisM]

So which PI routines did you use Peter?

Fishing line diffraction spikes... ACK!!! Substance abuse indeed...reckon you drank a little avtur with your scotch ;)

[marco]

Lovely lobster Peter ! I would prefer it without spikes, but as usual that a strick matter of personal taste (and I also add spikes time to time to some objects :D) :)

Clear skies
Marco

[multiweb]

Great details and dynamic range. Very sharp in the core area. Nicely done. :thumbsup:

[Peter Ward]

Thanks for the feedback guys... For David... old version here (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery273.html)

I still finding my way with PI, hence my processing is still scatter-gun, but I have found HDRmultiscale transform/ wavelets, masking and noise reduction to be very useful .

[h0ughy]

Massive difference with that data, not even chalk and cheese. I note the stars are tighter and smaller, the patterns and structures of the gas clouds are well defined and you have achieved a darker background whilst maintaining and increasing the gas cloud brightness. Impressed with what a difference PI makes…..:thumbsup:

[multiweb]

Looking at both side by side now I like the details in the repro but just realised its dynamic range is all scrwed up, like HDR gone wrong. Maybe a compromise in between is the way to go. Details + correct luminosity.

[Peter Ward]

Yep, I still need to get a better handle on PI.

.....as David would say: "respect the light". :)

[marc4darkskies]

Bah! I can do that kind of thing in PS - piece of cake! :P AND I don't need therapy afterwards because the PI interface induced uncontrollable facial ticks. :scared2: The question is, do I want images to look like that?

Agree with Marc. I can see why it might have mass appeal, but it's a tad overdone for me, especially if you're trying to achieve something resembling "correct" tonal relativities. Somewhere between the two might be the go to avoid the typical hyper-contrasty PI look.

Cheers, Marcus

[Peter Ward]

:lol:

I have a tic!? What itc? But Marcus, don't be too hasty, wait till you see the Las Vegas neon colour version :D

[renormalised]

That's the reason why your repro piccies are turning out so much better... the drink :) :P You're feeling loose and not so uptight, plus, the mojo is flowing :) :P :P

See what good software can do for you :P

[Peter Ward]

Yeah baby ! :D

[DavidTrap]

Overcooked IMHO - too contrasty and the wispy details at the edges of the nebulosity are lost. PI's a definite learning curve - I'm waiting for another tutorial session with Rick! Something to satisfy one's astronomy needs during the monsoon season.

Was wondering what you'd done to create the diffraction spikes - you should be forced to give up your scope for such sacrilegious behaviour!

DT

[Peter Ward]

Fair 'nuff. Frank and fearless. I like that!

Well...at least they were physical diffraction spikes...and not the Photoshop variety.