NGC 1566 a work in progress part 2

[muletopia]

Hello folks
Last night was the first night i could capture more data on this object. Despite the full moon 8 10 minute frames were captured before clouds stopped play. Even so star colours are starting to emerge


Camera QHY8l gain three 32 10 minute frames
Telescope Takahashi Mewlon 250 with corrected baffle tube
Mount Mesu Mount 200 Mk1

Mount control SIdereal technology servo 11 with 38 point mount model
Guiding PHD2
Chris

[xelasnave]

Your gear is really delivering the goods.
Nice image ...

Alex

[muletopia]

Thank you Alex, you are correct. By far the weakest link in the chain is my lack of processing skills.
Chris

[xelasnave]

What is your current approach to processing Chris?
Alex

[oska]

Good one Chris, I really like the images that scope takes ;)

[muletopia]

Thank you John, as I replied to Alex the problem is my processing.
Alex I am currently slowly learning to use AstroPixelProcessor. BTW capture is controlled by N.I.N.A..
Chris

[xelasnave]

Hi Chris
I have recently purchased Astro Pixel Processor but I only see it as a stacking tool...it can stack images from different set ups and given I now have fourcset upscthat really appeals to me.

I don't know how effective it is as a general processing tool how ever I do find StarTools is great...you have to do so little, at least that is my approach, and it seems just using the defaults produce a good result.

Martin here is also a big fan.

But I notice you seem to have a fair bit of noise which I am confident would disappear using StarTools and I really think at the money it is a great investment.

I tried it on the trial version and it did not impress me but I decided to buy it and stick with it and very glad that I did...but finally following the work flow Martin suggested ( and prior to I was still happy with my results) StarTools really seemed to work for me.

I often think to go to Pixinsite but I have used it on the trial but I could not produce a decent result and it is my impression that it takes a fair bit of instruction before the lights come on...

Anyways I think StarTools gets one up and running almost immediately.

But it is good to know who to turn to in the future with my questions on Astro Pixel Processor.

I do feel there is a lot in your data waiting to come out. If you get a trial of StarTools Post that you have and I can give you the work flow that if you follow I just know it will make you happy.

Alex

[muletopia]

Hello Alex,
I do have a licensed startools
I gave it the unstretched stack from APP and the attached picture is the unholy mess it produces with the standard process path.


So if you wold show me your Startools work flow I will follow it and see what the result is.
Thanks
Chris

[Dave882]

Hi Chris
Nice effort on a tricky target. Stars are nice and you’ve picked up some good detail as well. With regards to post processing, with a bit of time and patience you’ll find your groove and there’s plenty of people who get really nice results with startools. I really struggled with it which is why I’ve stuck with APP for the moment. APPs about as simple as it gets and with some trial and error you can get some pretty decent results with only a few clicks. As Alex mentioned Martin’s got a really nice process worked out for Startools and I’d be happy to help you if you needed any advice with APP.

Just a quick note on the data- you still seem to be having some issues with your flats calibrations. I looked back to your previous helix in November and unless I’m mistaken the dust motes showing in the same places. Are you taking fresh flats? If so it’ll pay dividends if you spend some time using different exposure settings to get this right. Even the best post-processing will hit a brick wall if calibrations aren’t working properly. Also just be careful with the saturation and/or exposure as it seems that you’ve blown out the bright core of the galaxy. APP saturation sliders need to be used lightly and then being the image into PS or GIMP to finish it off. Same goes for sharpening. I’ve found that any more than a light touch can cause problems.

Hope some of that helps.

[xelasnave]

Try this...stick with defaults and just run thru...if you have time hit the "?" Marks fur a run down of the feature.

[muletopia]

Thank you Dave and Alex.
I have not had time to take new darks and flatdarks, so...Attached are the pictures produced by Dave's and Alex's methods.
With 31 frames more are required, I did try but passing clouds ruined the night.
Alex, I tried your flow chart but may be I misconstrued something. At this stage I guess i will continue with APP.
Chris

[muletopia]

Now with 50 10 minute frame, attached, the colour is improved and it is less noisy. I could not see any improvement with sixty frames.
Comment and criticism welcomed.
Chris

[oska]

Nice one Chris, very nice.

[muletopia]

Thank you for your kind words John. Inspired by them I reprocessed the sixty frames Perhaps more detail.
Chris

[xelasnave]

Come on Chris the quality and the diffraction spikes give it away..clearly from James Web;)...you are doing really well:thumbsup:..And thinking about things processing for most of us is a great deal of trial and error so have multiple attempts is good business...

Please keep trying StarTools as it was ages before I was happy...but try and run the noise reduction thing as I think you may find it helpful.

Try this work flow..much reduced but I do this most times...

Auto develop.You can mark an "area of interest" dragging your mouse.

Bin. (50% for now maybe less or none if you crop more than half the image...which I do many times...

Crop. ( to remove stacking stuff which after auto dev. Will be easy to notice). And you can sortta use it to frame a little better.

Wipe. The result here is scarey but hang in there and do the next step. If it removes everything start again and skip it...you shouldn't but I have had images that were that bad...I don't know if that is allowed but for a lo g time I avoided wipe probably because my gain was over-the-top.

Next
Auto Develop. You can use the film develop but I think the auto is best..I don't know really.

Contrast. Default but look at each setting...Try each if you wish...70 % I like in that part.

HDR..just hit "All" and rely on default settings for now..make a small square then hitv"all" when it has done it's thing.

Sharp. Select create mask and accept result ( later on try more aggressive settings if you like but personally I think it is counter productive).

Deacon...accept generate a mask and default settings but change things later down the road when things are going nicely ..on your next image perhaps) or mark out a small square then all.

Colour. You need to play around here I guess but if things don't look great dial back saturation perhaps. I just try to get the lines on the graph to all line up..which does not all ways happen for me..

Shrink. Accept create mask and the result you get for now...

De Noise..On the first screen move the slider a little to right and smear the noise just a bit..not to much for now..go "next" and Mark a very small square and when complete just hit "all" ( later play with settings but just this much should shrprise you).

Now you will notice I have left out a quiet a few things but you can try them later but if you follow the above the final image should be rather decent...

AND if you don't understand a step please ask and we can try and sort it out for you.

Alex

[oska]

Definitely more to my eye, well done.

[muletopia]

On looking at my last image I thought that it was overexposed. So 32 frames at 5 minutes exposure were captured, previously ten minutes. After some trouble collecting darks to match these minute exposures the new data set was processed. Attached is the result.
Comments?
Chris

[Dave882]

Hi Chris I think that’s a big improvement. Background looks smoother too.
I still think the bright parts of the galaxy and also the stars are overblown, and it is possible that you might need to reduce your exposure time or gain some more to address this. Also, make sure you don’t overdo the contrast, saturation or sharpening in the Prost processing because a heavy hand here can also blow out these highlight areas. Making good progress though so well done!

[xelasnave]

Full marks for persistence.... that is what it takes.
Looks better but perhaps a touch up with the "burn" tool;) and of course a little "dodge".:lol:

Alex

[muletopia]

Dav, it took you seriously and tried sequences exposures at 150, 195 and 225 seconds.
Asfar ad ivon trll the 195 second set wins. The attached picture is from a stack of 30 195 second frames.Al processing in Astropixelprocessor.
What next to do? Comments and suggestions please
Chris

[By.Jove]

Put it through TOPAZ DENOISE and you get this, with the default settings... the difference is significant...

[muletopia]

Thank you Jove for taking the time to look and run Topaz. Yes it certainly does render a better background and perhaps a little improvement at the centre of the galaxy. I wonder how many frames are required to produce a smooth background without Topaz.. More frames would also improve the detail in the arms so I would rather go that way.
Chris

[By.Jove]

Ive tried putting a set of 15 frames through TOPAZ first before stacking vs putting the final stacked image through TOPAZ, the result looked much the same.

The one thing to watch out for though is that if the initial frames are really noisy TOPAZ can introduce gross artefacts of its own.

[oska]

It definitely keeps getting better Chris.
I know I don't pay enough attention, so don't quote me, but I think there might be a golden rule some thing like: More data - more better!
:)

[Dave882]

Mate it’s looking better and better. Keep it up and add some more data and it’ll definitely keep improving. I’m not sure what bortle sky you’re shooting in but for me (b7) I’ve got to get at least between 4-10hrs before I’m starting to get the derail through the noise. Topaz and other noise reducing software are always much more effective if you’ve got more data to work with as well.

[muletopia]

After some issues with processing attached is the final image produced, Threw away about 90 frames.
Chris

[muletopia]

I don't know if I am weak willed carrying on with this or jus unwilling to admit defeat.
Any wy I pondered on why I had to throw away so many frames. APP complained that they were monochrome and suggested a mismatch in the data types of exposure times as the reason. My thaught was that only the darks could be wrong, so I took 20 more darks at 195 seconds and 20 darks at 225 seconds, the exposure times of the lights.

That was it !!!
So the attached image is built from 160 frames, say nine and a half hours of integration.
Again thanks to those who have helped me with APP

Chris

[oska]

Pretty sure that's ticker mate ;) If you're enjoying the chase then that's all that matters. As far as I naively understand, at F/10 much much longer integrations will give you improvement on the background noise and make stretching easier. As it stands, an inverted luminance mask and curves adjustments (brightness) would subdue it some.

Fantastic effort and thanks heaps for sharing the journey!

[AstroViking]

The galaxy looks good, Chris. Plenty of colour and detail to be seen.

May I suggest taking flats as well, if you're not already doing them. There's a doughnut shaped shadow just to the left of centre.

Cheers,
V

[muletopia]

Thanks John & Steve,
John, if we ever get anothe clear night mod data will accumulate,
Steve, when I canI wil take new flats, and flat darks to be safe.
Anyway her is the same image as last entered but after a play with Gimp, Nebulosity can also produce this result but it takes much more fiddling.
Chris

[oska]

That's much better to my eye, well done.

[Dave882]

Hi Chris love your perseverance with this I think you’re getting there. I will re-emphasise what Steve said, flats need to be taken along with every data set unless there’s absolutely zero movement/adjustment of the camera or image train (or little bits of dust inside). The darks will last for many months.

Something that I do with APP is I stack different nights as individual data sets and then stack those sets together. It allows me more control over the quality of the data as some nights, even with the best intentions will end up in the bin due to atmospheric instability or high cloud etc. you will only hurt your final image by trying to include poor data.

It might be interesting if you posted a link to your raw unprocessed fits stack. I’d be interested to see what the raw data vs processed result looks like as I still think those brighter areas are either overexposed or perhaps it’s a function of processing?

Great work mate keep it up!!