Reprocess of lum data to M65 and M66

[Paul Haese]

I have been comparing notes with Martin Pugh about processing of my images and he thought I had a few bad subs in my Lum data on M65 & M66 project. I have seen a recent image of his of the same target and all I can say is WOOOOW.

So I did a reprocess and was more particular with the data I used, trying to keep FWHM to 2.4" at most (seeing has been ratty for months which I put down to moisture content in the atmosphere). Then I used a few new tricks and think the data looks a lot sharper. I will have to collect a bit more data yet to control the back ground noise but overall I think this is starting to work for me.

Colour data is being collected at present when the damn clouds stay away long enough.

Click here for higher resolution image

[allan gould]

Paul
What program were you using to process your data as it looks exceptionally clean. It looks as if it will be a beautiful image as is Martin's.
Was this with the 12" GSO?
Allan

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by allan gould

Paul
What program were you using to process your data as it looks exceptionally clean. It looks as if it will be a beautiful image as is Martin's.
Was this with the 12" GSO?
Allan

Allan I am using CCDstack for calibration, stacking and deconvolution. I use Photoshop 6 for further processing. No noise control at present.

Yes this is with the GSO RC 12". It gives you an idea of what can be achieved with these scopes after a bit of tinkering.

[alistairsam]

That looks amazingly sharp Paul. Look forward to the colour version.

Are you able to post what you started with, will be good to see the difference processing makes.

Cheers
Alistair

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by alistairsam

That looks amazingly sharp Paul. Look forward to the colour version.

Are you able to post what you started with, will be good to see the difference processing makes.

Cheers
Alistair

Here is a crop of a single sub. Does that help?

[alistairsam]

Thanks Paul, it sure does.
is it just the sheer amount of data that provides all the details to go from that to your result?
Do you sharpen in PS as well after the deconvolve in CCDStack?


Cheers
Alistair

[astronobob (Bob)]

Very impressive Paul. Had to check out CCDStack, quite some intellegent software and you have come to grips with it real well even tho it appears you do more processing in PS, that said, one needs particular attention as to what comes off CCDStack to go further, lacking data at this point would surely make dire straits if not done well for PS
Looking forward to the final, weather permitting

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by alistairsam

Thanks Paul, it sure does.
is it just the sheer amount of data that provides all the details to go from that to your result?
Do you sharpen in PS as well after the deconvolve in CCDStack?


Cheers
Alistair

Signal certainly helps to get the detail out but lots of signal and no noise allows a greater degree of sharpening. Too little data and the sharpening can take its toll.

I use deconvolution in CCDstack and then I do a series of sharpening masks in PS.

Originally Posted by astronobob

Very impressive Paul. Had to check out CCDStack, quite some intellegent software and you have come to grips with it real well even tho it appears you do more processing in PS, that said, one needs particular attention as to what comes off CCDStack to go further, lacking data at this point would surely make dire straits if not done well for PS
Looking forward to the final, weather permitting

Yes each step of the processing requires careful viewing to make sure that I am not overstepping and adding noise. I tend to do this via what I think looks right and I don't work to a set regime. In this way each image tends to have its own unique look, which is good and bad I suppose.

There is still many things I am yet to learn about CCDstack. I intend to go through Adam Block's tutorials on it at some point and pick up some more.