Just recently upgraded to Startools V1.7 and glad I did ( another great version upgrade by Ivo , well done ! )
I selected NGC 2244 Rosette Nebula which I captured and processed back in January and was never happy with the final image so decided to perform a re process in Startools V1.7
About 2.5 hrs of data ( 5 minute dithered guided subs)
8” f5 newt on an EQ6-R mount
Camera ZWOASI2600MC set in Ascom to highest dynamic range ( Gain 0 ) cooled to -12C
Moon was up so used my ZWO 2” Duoband filter
EQMOD and Stellarium Goto and nav
APT frame focus and capture
PHD2 guiding
Stacked in DSS
Re processed in Startools V1.7
This new version 1.7 is fantastic , most modules have been improved with some changes to existing modules
Contrast module is so much better than previous
Super Structure has replaced Life module and is incredible
Star Masks are so much more precise
Shrink module ( Stars ) is now available before your final noise reduction
All in all V1.7 is so much more improved than V1.6 and V1.5
My only gripe is not having a Star Mask available in the HDR module as it tends to bloat your stars when you apply this algorithm ( Ivo may introduce this improvement in later versions, possibly V1.8 whenever it is released in the future )
Please ignore the coma in the corners as this image was captured in January and only recently rectified my coma issues a week or so ago with a 1mm spacer
Original frame version
Crop version to show fine detail and nebulosity clouds
Thanks All
I’m happy to stay in beginners section as I’m still wet behind the ears with AP ( only 4 years ) not my age (61) plus I only use a OSC.
Although if I nail a good galaxy this winter in my new Obs ( NexDome) I might post it in Deep Space and see if it’s worthy or not
Very happy with Startools V1.7 and only a hint that V1.8 may come out some time later this year
Thanks again
You need to move into the main forum in order to get more advanced criticism and assistance.
raymo
Raymo
In theory that’s true but in reality ( only my observations) the Deep Space section seems to have a certain benchmark or certain criteria for response ( I have no issue with that at all, great images deserve to be acknowledged)
Over the past few months quite a few Beginners posted in Deep Space with fairly good images and either received one response or didn’t get acknowledged, at all , so they jumped back into Beginners again
I suggested maybe they should have provided more information about their capture which might have raised more interest
Anyway , I understand what your saying Raymo and like I said if I snag a good image this Winter I’ll give it a shot in Deep Space , we have nothing to lose and much to gain ( you’ll never know until you try !! )
Cheers
Martin
Looking good Martin!
When I used to use Startools I recall getting star halos from one of the processes, (might have been decon or sharpening) if I pushed it too hard - unfortunately I can't even open Startools anymore on my mac 10.14.6 to check which it was.
Anyway, your bigger stars appear to have this same result.
That being said, apart from the aforementioned coma, it looks good, well done!
Looking good Martin!
When I used to use Startools I recall getting star halos from one of the processes, (might have been decon or sharpening) if I pushed it too hard - unfortunately I can't even open Startools anymore on my mac 10.14.6 to check which it was.
Anyway, your bigger stars appear to have this same result.
That being said, apart from the aforementioned coma, it looks good, well done!
Andy
Thank you for your comments
In Startools it’s only HDR that doesn’t have an Automask available as default
Sharpen and Decon do have Automasks and work extremely well , stars stay intact , although in Decon they do tighten which is an added benefit of the algorithm ( you can cheat a bit as they make your diffraction spikes narrower
Ivo Jager on the Startools forum mentioned that he may include an Automask in HDR in the next version ??
Exciting time for me at the moment , just finished building my NexDome ( interior fit out next week) with many phone calls back and forth to Diego
As these Domes are an injected moulded flat pack with very old installation documentation on their site , Diego was a wealth of knowledge and provided a few tips to assist , very grateful
The rotation is not very smooth in places, a bit bumpy and jumpy and at times gets stuck but I’m still working on a fix , obviously these are not precision made designs and are flexible due to using ABS which is the best material to use , it will last forever
Can’t wait to have it fully operational in a week or two , it may coincide with better weather which has been abysmal lately
Thanks again
It’s nice to be acknowledged by an experienced and well regarded Astrophotographer
All the best
Cheers
Martin
Looking good Martin and congrats on the NexDome! I'm happy to hear you are all getting along with ST 1.7.
I can't quite place Andy's comment though about the halos in this particular image; the stars are very well resolved to their - presumably overexposed - cores (as far as I can tell of course). Some operation may mildly accentuate them if no (or an unsuitable) mask is used, but they are nevertheless real, important features of your dataset.
Stars should readily show their diffraction patterns and definitely not look like blown out fuzzy blobs, smudges or featureless discs. Their over-exposed cores should not grow or bleed into neighbouring pixels when being stretched from their linear state and should always be well defined. Just like black clipping is a no-no to many of our peers, so is white clipping.
Diffraction patterns serve a few purposes to the viewer and person processing the data;
They serve as a good indicator as to what instrument was used, they serve as color balancing tool and star temperature indicator (in case of a visual spectrum dataset), they serve as a deconvolution calibration target and they serve as a proof/authentication of detail fidelity. The latter two are because they always constitute high SNR areas in your image (even in poor SNR datasets!). This makes it easy for deconvolution to do its thing and thus provide an ideal target to gauge how well the algorithm is doing. And due to to the intricacies of their patterns, they show up any artifacts much easier as well, giving a more experienced viewer a good idea of how an image was processed and where it might fall on the astro "art" vs documentary astrpphotography continuum if that is a concern.
Lastly, to get StarTools to launch on later versions of macOS, you may have to "unquarantine" the application (simple instructions with screenshots here). Any license will allow you to evaluate 1.7 in full if that is of interest. Any trouble, do let me know!
Looking good Martin and congrats on the NexDome! I'm happy to hear you are all getting along with ST 1.7.
I can't quite place Andy's comment though about the halos in this particular image; the stars are very well resolved to their - presumably overexposed - cores (as far as I can tell of course). Some operation may mildly accentuate them if no (or an unsuitable) mask is used, but they are nevertheless real, important features of your dataset.
Stars should readily show their diffraction patterns and definitely not look like blown out fuzzy blobs, smudges or featureless discs. Their over-exposed cores should not grow or bleed into neighbouring pixels when being stretched from their linear state and should always be well defined. Just like black clipping is a no-no to many of our peers, so is white clipping.
Diffraction patterns serve a few purposes to the viewer and person processing the data;
They serve as a good indicator as to what instrument was used, they serve as color balancing tool and star temperature indicator (in case of a visual spectrum dataset), they serve as a deconvolution calibration target and they serve as a proof/authentication of detail fidelity. The latter two are because they always constitute high SNR areas in your image (even in poor SNR datasets!). This makes it easy for deconvolution to do its thing and thus provide an ideal target to gauge how well the algorithm is doing. And due to to the intricacies of their patterns, they show up any artifacts much easier as well, giving a more experienced viewer a good idea of how an image was processed and where it might fall on the astro "art" vs documentary astrpphotography continuum if that is a concern.
Lastly, to get StarTools to launch on later versions of macOS, you may have to "unquarantine" the application (simple instructions with screenshots here). Any license will allow you to evaluate 1.7 in full if that is of interest. Any trouble, do let me know!
Ivo,
Thanks for your kind comment regarding my image
Looking forward to capturing some decent images in the Dome later this month and putting ST 1.7 through its paces , it’s certainly been a struggle with the weather of late ( mostly east coast of the Continent to the great divide )
Hopefully Andy reads your post regarding using Startools 1.7 on a Mac
Cheers
Martin
Ivo's comments go to the heart of processing and why stars matter. This is exactly how it's done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irwjager
Stars should readily show their diffraction patterns and definitely not look like blown out fuzzy blobs, smudges or featureless discs. Their over-exposed cores should not grow or bleed into neighbouring pixels when being stretched from their linear state and should always be well defined. Just like black clipping is a no-no to many of our peers, so is white clipping.
Diffraction patterns serve a few purposes to the viewer and person processing the data;
They serve as a good indicator as to what instrument was used, they serve as color balancing tool and star temperature indicator (in case of a visual spectrum dataset), they serve as a deconvolution calibration target and they serve as a proof/authentication of detail fidelity. The latter two are because they always constitute high SNR areas in your image (even in poor SNR datasets!). This makes it easy for deconvolution to do its thing and thus provide an ideal target to gauge how well the algorithm is doing. And due to to the intricacies of their patterns, they show up any artifacts much easier as well, giving a more experienced viewer a good idea of how an image was processed and where it might fall on the astro "art" vs documentary astrpphotography continuum if that is a concern.
