I imaged this using a Orion 8" Astrograph, Celestron CgemDX, Baader MPCC, SSAG (PHD2), and a Canon 60Da.
PixInsight: This image was very difficult to get the MT working right, and it took me 2 months of sitting on data and re-editing to get the stars looking less like the dog's breakfast. I'd love to sound technical and smart - but here I found the simple, straight forward Erosion MT function (varying Amounts and iterations) yielded a better result. Truth: Editing / re-editing / overcomplicating things for 2 months. In the end I started from scratch and finished it within 2 hours. Possibly due to being fed up, but also spending the time learning on what DIDN'T look right.
Every time I edit I learn more and more about PI. There is no better software that compares - but damn..... it's a steep learning curve! But more rewarding when successful.
Thanks all for producing such great software.
FYI: this is generally the tutorial I refer to when doing a Morphological Transformation in PI. by Rogelio Bernal Andreo: Star size reduction via Morphological Transformations http://www.deepskycolors.com/archive...ological-.html
Hi Tanja that's a stunning image! I've been very impressed with what the 60Da can do.
Have you tried mounting the 8" astrograph on the Celestron AVX and imaging with that? Are you able to obtain long subs or is it too much for the mount?
Very nice Tanja. I too am loving PI, yeah a pretty steep learning curve, but satisfying as you achieve more each time.
I'm interested in the Morphological Trans function - what is its use? As I'm a beginner, I like to keep my images natural, I don't see any reason to change the size of stars, but as I say, I'm a beginner so i'm pretty ignorant! Does it improve look of nebulosity? or it's just an aesthetic thing?
Out of interest, has this been cropped at all?
Which version of the MPCC are you using and what spacing? Straight onto the T-ring?
I have the MPCC mk III and still have excessive coma in the corners of my 60Da.
Your image is showing coma but it is much much tamer than mine.
I'm interested in the Morphological Trans function - what is its use?
Ta
MT is a very useful tool in PI. It is used for Star Reduction. When editing nebula in a rich star field, you don't want to also bring out more stars - but rather focus on nebulosity. Masking only helps so much... It's inevitable having them dominate the image. Using star reduction on small sized stars will leave the more notable stars in tact.
I've attached what my stacked image looked like. Stars all over the place
Out of interest, has this been cropped at all?
Which version of the MPCC are you using and what spacing? Straight onto the T-ring?
I have the MPCC mk III and still have excessive coma in the corners of my 60Da.
Your image is showing coma but it is much much tamer than mine.
Using the MPCC mkIII straight on to the Tring. Just works fine. Which OTA you using?
And no rotation / minimal cropping - just due to integration...
Thanks Tanja, just tried it and yes, definitely improves the look, when judiciously applied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroTanja
MT is a very useful tool in PI. It is used for Star Reduction. When editing nebula in a rich star field, you don't want to also bring out more stars - but rather focus on nebulosity. Masking only helps so much... It's inevitable having them dominate the image. Using star reduction on small sized stars will leave the more notable stars in tact.
I've attached what my stacked image looked like. Stars all over the place
I just used that same procedure (once I worked out how you apply the mask, a step left out in the tutorial (set working mode to overlay)
I found it seemed to wash out saturation generally in the image. Perhaps that is a refinement needed in the settings.
On the other hand I spent 1 minute in Photoshop, made a star mask, lowered curves, then made a mask from the star selection, inverted it and boosted the nebulas (not the stars) with curves and got a 500% better result. Time - 2 minutes.
I just used that same procedure (once I worked out how you apply the mask, a step left out in the tutorial (set working mode to overlay)
I found it seemed to wash out saturation generally in the image. Perhaps that is a refinement needed in the settings.
On the other hand I spent 1 minute in Photoshop, made a star mask, lowered curves, then made a mask from the star selection, inverted it and boosted the nebulas (not the stars) with curves and got a 500% better result. Time - 2 minutes.
It's always easier to get good results with the software you know. I struggle with contrast, so I generally take my once finished PI images in LightRoom. Applying "Clarity" in LR is damn amazing - So I can't even finish things off properly using PI only.
Comes down to what works for you. It's the end result that counts
It's always easier to get good results with the software you know. I struggle with contrast, so I generally take my once finished PI images in LightRoom. Applying "Clarity" in LR is damn amazing - So I can't even finish things off properly using PI only.
Comes down to what works for you. It's the end result that counts
Yes true. I have started using LR for some actions as well. It does some very well.
ix Insight & PhotoShop
