I like the right hand pic from the thumbnails Ken
Detail on keyhole/humunculous is better and those toucam stars look rounder.
Nice
Doug
Doug, the thumbnails don't give a good indication of the full-size images. Sometimes thumbnails look better than the full-size images just because the res is scaled down.
The right one Ken. Less star bloat, more contrast and detail, but with a very slight colour rebalance as attached, (the background was a bit blue ,but this is subjective of cause).
For what it is , the neb came out much better than the stars. Are the dark rings around the stars processing artifacts?.
I like the detail present in the right hand shot (Carina 2) But the stars are too crunchy, maybe try and soften the stars up a wee bit. The colour balance in Carina 2 is a bit off as well, more leaning into the blues, maybe try and adjust the balance so there isn't quite as much there. The contrast on both is extremely good, although Carina 2 is more contrasty. I can see more Neb in Carina 1 but if you stack more images or adjust the levels in Carina 2 I am guessing you could bring out more. Did you dark frame subtract? to me it doesn't look like it, maybe do a dark frame subtraction to remove those extra stars that are in both images, it will clean up a bit of the background noise too.
For what it is , the neb came out much better than the stars. Are the dark rings around the stars processing artifacts?.
Cheers
Yep, webcams do that on bright objects at long exposures. It's also called Black-eye.
The slightly 'blacker' sky helps too thanks Fred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astroman
I like the detail present in the right hand shot (Carina 2) But the stars are too crunchy, maybe try and soften the stars up a wee bit. The colour balance in Carina 2 is a bit off as well, more leaning into the blues, maybe try and adjust the balance so there isn't quite as much there. The contrast on both is extremely good, although Carina 2 is more contrasty. I can see more Neb in Carina 1 but if you stack more images or adjust the levels in Carina 2 I am guessing you could bring out more. Did you dark frame subtract? to me it doesn't look like it, maybe do a dark frame subtraction to remove those extra stars that are in both images, it will clean up a bit of the background noise too.
Stars are crunchy, colour is off, etc coz they aren't properly processed yet.
And No, no darks subtracted in either image. They are a wee bit noisy coz there are only 3 frames stacked in each image.
The Imaging differences:
The ONLY difference between the 2 images is that Number 1 was taken at 3x90 seconds with no filters. Just raw Toucam.
Number 2 was at 3x120 seconds (had to bump it up to see the nebula) with the Astronomiks IR/UV filter in place.
To get the nebula to show up with a filter equally as without a filter means the exposure time has to be increased, which introduces more Amp Glow.
The only processing done to them was 'Space Noise Removal' & 'Sharpen', then brightness down a tad, and contrast up a tad.
I agree with Mike, Ken. I like No 2 better but the colour is too blue (making the red nebulae go purple). I'd try correcting that with colour balance.
The stars in No2 show better resolution, but the usual ToUcam long exposure bloom. The bloomed stars in No1 have rounded off in some cases so it looks more natural than No 2... but then you realize how much detail has been lost. It think the detail in the nebula in No2 is better, even though the nebulae looks brighter in No 1. I'm pretty sure No 1 is a deeper image judging by the brightness of the faint parts of the nebula and the size of the star images (I am right, aren't I?) I just wonder if the contrast in the nebulae detail will drop when the colour balance is corrected?
The black rings around the stars are wavelet artifacts from sharpening the image I think... I assume they are not there on your captured frames...
Knowing what ToUcam blooming looks like I probably tolerate it a bit more than others might for the sake of the resolution in image 2.
Hi Ken. I must admit, I didnt think deep sky was even possible with a webby, your really pushing the envelope here. The stars arent flash, but the neb is certainly there. Id say with carefull processing, and good guiding what your doing is actually possible hehe. Sheesh, and with a $80 cam????, how about mutiplying that by 50 (at least) for an astro CCD ;-).
Its whole different worthy challenge get the max out of the minimum, I admire your persistance.
Sheesh Col, the UK, that brings back memories, spent the best 4 yrs of my life there, but oh, the weather. How many clear nights a month on average do you get?.
Sheesh Col, the UK, that brings back memories, spent the best 4 yrs of my life there, but oh, the weather. How many clear nights a month on average do you get?.
Cheers
well i must say recently i have had 2 nights in 60 days
but on average i wouls say 10 decent clear nights a month but i am including the 2-3 hr nights in that , not a full 6 hours i would like to have , but its better than none i suppose
I'm pretty sure No 1 is a deeper image judging by the brightness of the faint parts of the nebula and the size of the star images (I am right, aren't I?)
Nope. Number 2 is deeper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheeny
I just wonder if the contrast in the nebulae detail will drop when the colour balance is corrected?
Yep, It does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheeny
The black rings around the stars are wavelet artifacts from sharpening the image I think... I assume they are not there on your captured frames...
No, and Yes.
'No' they aren't from sharpening, coz 'Yes' they are on the original captured frames.
And I didn't touch the wavelets.
Hi Ken,
"Right thumbnail" meant I liked that full res pic , not just the thumbnail pic!
How good do you think my eyesight is?
You've seen my pics!!!
My eyesight's crap!!!!!
Looks like your poll backs up my first look.
All the best
Doug
Quote:
Originally Posted by ballaratdragons
Doug, the thumbnails don't give a good indication of the full-size images. Sometimes thumbnails look better than the full-size images just because the res is scaled down.
Hi Ken,
"Right thumbnail" meant I liked that full res pic , not just the thumbnail pic!
How good do you think my eyesight is?
You've seen my pics!!!
My eyesight's crap!!!!!
Well, you might have used a magnifying glass on the thumbnails
