Lagoon and Trifid with ImagesPlus

[avandonk]

Reprocessed some old data with Imagesplus. Only used a flat correction and then stacked with RegiStar and then digitally developed with ImagesPlus.

Details Canon 5DH,300mm@F2.8,16X120s, ISO 800, LPR filter.
2MB
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trlee8/LAGTRIF_ip_dd_m.jpg

Details Canon 5DH. Hutech LPR filter,100ED with Astro Physics focal reducer working at a reduction of 0.71, so 640mm FL and F6.4, ISO 800,11x120sec.
2MB
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trlee8/LAGTRIF_100ed_dd_m.jpg

I think it is a vast improvement on what I can get from Photoshop.

I still have a lot to learn. Next imaging means getting flats,darks and bias frames. And some actual images if the clouds go away.

Bert

[Striker]

Really impresive Bert...it sure has made a huge difference.

All the fun and excitement of learning new stuff...nicely done Bert.

[EzyStyles]

very nice bert! hmm the photoshop pic looks nicer from point of view. I think because it is clearer. :)

[Lester]

Thanks for sharing those shots Bert, absolutely marvelous.

[Itchy]

Hi Bert,

Really nice results. I'm not sure about the pink star clouds. I guess that is a result of the mod.

Also, a hint when working with ImagesPlus: Stacking images usually leaves an artifact of a dark border on one or two sides of the image. It is best to remove this before applying any digital development so that those dark pixels don't interfere with the process. This can be easily done by using the green toolbar button, "Copy A Portion Of An Image" to duplicate the image without the border (by selection of what you want to keep).

Cheers

[avandonk]

Here's another.
Carina. Canon 5DH, 300mm@F2.8,30X120s, ISO 800, LPR filter in cam noise reduction on. Also the case with the previous pictures.
Only used a flat correction and then stacked with RegiStar and then digitally developed with ImagesPlus.
I did not adjust colours independantly on any images. Tried a bit of adaptive Richardson-Lucy to tighten up the stars slightly on this one.
3.3MB
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trlee8/CAR_300.jpg

Bert

[tornado33]

Hi Bert
Nice, large images there. Ive been clouded out last few nights :(
Also try doing some manual dark frames with noise reduction off in the camera, that way it saves time. With Iris software, its adaptive dark thing mens you can get away with using darks taken at different temperatures on different nights, or even different lengths. Ive seen the Digital Development tool in IP and its a very powerful one for bringing out the faint detail.
Scott

[avandonk]

Thanks all.
I will make a prediction that the in camera noise reduction will beat any amount of bias and darks no matter how carefully taken. I think Canon apply the noise reduction at the Bayer level ie pixel for pixel in the cmos chip. Not the derived pixels which we see as some calculated value from a pixel and the pixels around it to simulate a colour. I am just going on the results I am getting for frames with in camera noise reduction on and just correcting for flats.
This is a crop from the original Tiff (70+MB) from the Lagoon+Trifid with the 100ED from the picture in this thread. Its had five cycles of adaptive Richardson-Lucy.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trlee8/LAGTRIF_100ed_dd_m_crop.jpg

And here is a crop of a jpg (high quality) from a 73MB tiff of a single frame. I have circled the some of the residual noise with the in camera noise reduction on.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~trlee8/Image_1511_crop.jpg

As you can see it is minimal and when stacking disappears if images are dithered or drift slightly due to even slight error in polar alignment and output of final stack as a median rather than average in RegiStar.

Bert

[tornado33]

Yes I guess Canon have the in camera dark subtraction fully optomised for their image sensors.
Scott

[ving]

pretty darn impressive :)

[avandonk]

Scott next chance I get to image I will collect two data sets from the same target one with in camera noise reduction on, another with it off. Will also get sets of bias,darks and flats. Then process both sets with ImagesPlus and see which is better. Might even try for ISO1600 and ISO400 on both.

Bert

[Itchy]

Bert,

When you do, make sure you use the CFA no WB option to convert the RAW files. This way, ImagesPlus does work with the preybayered Colour Filter Array files to perform calibration. After calibration, they are then bayer interpolated.

This can be done very easily in 2.75, using the auto image set processing.

Cheers

[avandonk]

Thanks for that Itchy I had not even noticed IP could do that. Too busy trying to cope with the steep learning curve. I did have five poor images taken with in cam noise off and the relevant darks,bias and flats taken at the same time. These were taken through varying interfering thin cloud and I had to stop as real cloud rolled in.
Processing with colour fits produced 'Coloured spots&holes'. Processing with CFA fits was much better.

Bert

[Itchy]

No Worries Bert!


I really like the results I have been getting since using the CFA RAW conversion. The other feature that makes life easier in IP2.75 is the "auto dark matching" feature (you can turn it on either with manual calibration or in the Auto Image Set feature). This is not the same as "adaptive dark frame subtraction" that Scott mentioned. This feature adjusts the master dark to match each individual light frame before dark subtraction occurs. The intention of this feature was to make allowance for temperature variation over an imaging session. It has also been found suitable to use to match darks with different length exposures and even different ISO. I recently calibrated an image set taken at ISO800 with a master dark made from ISO1600 darks (accidently of course). IP did the job beautifully. This doesn't mean that you never have to take darks again, but it certainly allows you to use a small library of darks for a variety of circumstances.

I guess the thing that I don't like about Canon's "in camera noise reduction" (apart from the double time at the scope) is that no one really knows what it is actually doing. It could be a simple dark frame subtraction, but I suspect that Canon are doing something else besides.

In any case, I look forward to your comparison.


Cheers

[avandonk]

Ok here is the final result of five crappy pictures processed with IP all 16B uncompressed CFA Fit. The compressed are not as good.I used the auto dark matching.

Details Canon 5DH,100ED 640mm F6.4,ISO1600,Hutech LPR filter,5x300sec.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~avandonk2/Combine1_dd1.jpg
IP looks like a real goer!

Bert