Terry B
20-07-2007, 11:53 PM
Dear All
I had a go at imaging M83 last night and played with the image tonight. I still think that this image processing mullarchy is witchcraft and need lots of practice. I don't own photoshop and all the tutorials seem to use it. I can't justify the cost at present.
I decided to swap the camera and guider on my expensive VC200L scope and the cheap skyview 120mm "guider". The result is very well guided images and a wider field in the 120mm scope. It seems a bit silly to image through the cheap refractor but the result wasn't too bad. There is quite a bit of blue fringing so I had to sharpen the blue channel significantly to get rid of the blue ghosting.
The exposures are lum 3mins x 10, and 15 min total on each colour.
I still haven't work out the best way to add the subframes. Is a simple sum or a median stack better? The sum always results in saturated stars but seems to give more detail in the extended areas.
I had a go at imaging M83 last night and played with the image tonight. I still think that this image processing mullarchy is witchcraft and need lots of practice. I don't own photoshop and all the tutorials seem to use it. I can't justify the cost at present.
I decided to swap the camera and guider on my expensive VC200L scope and the cheap skyview 120mm "guider". The result is very well guided images and a wider field in the 120mm scope. It seems a bit silly to image through the cheap refractor but the result wasn't too bad. There is quite a bit of blue fringing so I had to sharpen the blue channel significantly to get rid of the blue ghosting.
The exposures are lum 3mins x 10, and 15 min total on each colour.
I still haven't work out the best way to add the subframes. Is a simple sum or a median stack better? The sum always results in saturated stars but seems to give more detail in the extended areas.