Mike - Curiosity has got the better of me. Please draws some arrows on Rod's image to show where the wiggly lines or tiny uniform dot are created by the deconvolution processing.
Thanks
Rob
We cant discount Mike's experienced eye, he has correctly identified the techniques I applied to the data. Lets look at what he is referring to for the benefit of the thread.
Below are three 100% crop sections of the synthetic Luminance data extracted from the RGB channels. Decon was only applied the synthetic luminance.
Image 1: Before deconvolution
Image 2: After deconvolution (applied to linear data)
Image 3: After decon and wavelet sharpening (applied to non linear data with star mask active)
I normally include decon in my workflow but try and keep the iterations quite low so not to introduce unwanted artifacts. Also remember I was cheeky and re sampled the 100% full res to 50% and posted that image to Astrobin. This will make it harder but not impossible, to spot any deficiencies.
The backlash slop in RA is evident in the images, if I can adjust this out a little mechanically, then the data will benefit and the detail will tighter at integration.
For me, its about (hopefully) producing pretty pictures. Do what ever you need to to get them and share them with your friends.
We cant discount Mike's experienced eye, he has correctly identified the techniques I applied to the data. Lets look at what he is referring to for the benefit of the thread.
Glad you did that Rod, better than drawing arrows on your image and thanks for revealing my (apparently) invisible jet, after many years of processing images, little flies under my radar now ...wonder if I should start calling out the growing and rather obvious use of Russ Cromans Star Shrink tool
Quote:
For me, its about (hopefully) producing pretty pictures. Do what ever you need to to get them and share them with your friends.
And that is the way it should be and hey, looking at what you started with, mate, you used clever processing - a fine job indeed
We cant discount Mike's experienced eye, he has correctly identified the techniques I applied to the data. Lets look at what he is referring to for the benefit of the thread.
Below are three 100% crop sections of the synthetic Luminance data extracted from the RGB channels. Decon was only applied the synthetic luminance.
Image 1: Before deconvolution
Image 2: After deconvolution (applied to linear data)
Image 3: After decon and wavelet sharpening (applied to non linear data with star mask active)
I normally include decon in my workflow but try and keep the iterations quite low so not to introduce unwanted artifacts. Also remember I was cheeky and re sampled the 100% full res to 50% and posted that image to Astrobin. This will make it harder but not impossible, to spot any deficiencies.
The backlash slop in RA is evident in the images, if I can adjust this out a little mechanically, then the data will benefit and the detail will tighter at integration.
For me, its about (hopefully) producing pretty pictures. Do what ever you need to to get them and share them with your friends.
Rod,
Thanks for posting the images showing your enhancement methodology. I have been really impressed with the last few images you have posted and wondered how you were achieving the detail and clarity in your images . Now I know.
I am a newbie at this , but no where can I see any evidence of manufactured data with your enhanced image. These images highlight the power and intelligent application of the PI tools you are using.
I still don't see a problem with anything you have produced here Rod. The sharpening is not over done as I see in quite a few images. Like you, my aim is for pretty pictures and this is a very nice image. The use of deconvolution has enhanced the image and not degraded it in my opinion. I personally don't use decon and use other sharpening routines but see its merits. It's use is not obvious at all in this image and I respectfully don't agree that it should be pointed out when it is not obvious. There are no worms or dots visible in the image. Hence my comment.
I am a newbie at this , but no where can I see any evidence of manufactured data with your enhanced image.
Well, I actually said "manufacture pseudo detail" which is not quite the same and Rod just showed us exactly how he used PI to manufacture this pseudo detail ...and it always imparts the same tell-tale "look" to details that is easy to spot.. I could be wrong but I recon Rod would be very happy to remove the RA backlash and like us all, place his scope under arc sec seeing, so the detail would be raw and not need as much enhancement by complex but imperfect algorithms that approximate the real detail.
None of this makes it a bad image, it is just easy going processing small talk
Well, I actually said "manufacture pseudo detail" which is not quite the same and Rod just showed us exactly how he used PI to manufacture this pseudo detail ...and it always imparts the same tell-tale "look" to details that is easy to spot.. I could be wrong but I recon Rod would be very happy to remove the RA backlash and like us all, place his scope under arc sec seeing, so the detail would be raw and not need as much enhancement by complex but imperfect algorithms that approximate the real detail.
None of this makes it a bad image, it is just easy going processing small talk
Mike
Mike,
I really don't know what you are on about trying to discredit PI's deconvolution procedures. There are many schools of image enhancement. You have yours , and there are many others. None has the insight to know how an object should appear so there are many interpretations. To imply one interpretation is false is nonsense.
I really don't know what you are on about trying to discredit PI's deconvolution procedures.
Huh? wha tha? I'm not sorry if you have misinterpreted this Rob, that was not my intention, it is mostly just the amount/settings that get used, or how it is blended in with unfiltered data, same as for any filter in any piece of software.
Quote:
There are many schools of image enhancement. You have yours , and there are many others. None has the insight to know how an object should appear so there are many interpretations. To imply one interpretation is false is nonsense.
I am not implying that an interpretation is "false" just that the detail can be manufactured from essentially corrupted data and this is inherent in the whole sharpening deal no matter what the software. It's just that some filters/processing techniques can be a bit obvious if not careful and usually we try to avoid this or it looks unnatural. The only way to really completely avoid unnatural looking sharpening routines is to have perfect optics under perfect seeing. If the filters used on an image can be identified then that is probably a sign that they may have been applied a little too hard, that's all.
I am not implying that an interpretation is "false" just that the detail can be manufactured from essentially corrupted data and this is inherent in the whole sharpening deal no matter what the software. It's just that some filters/processing techniques can be a bit obvious if not careful and usually we try to avoid this or it looks unnatural. The only way to really completely avoid unnatural looking sharpening routines is to have perfect optics under perfect seeing. If the filters used on an image can be identified then that is probably a sign that they may have been applied a little too hard, that's all.
Mike
Oh C'mon mate! You never sharpen your shots? Of course you do. We all do. Perfect optics on a perfect mount under perfect seeing? Never gonna happen. I thought Rod did a sterling job at enhancing his shot. TBH I can't even see any sharpening defects. And if he wanted to deconvolve the buggery out of it then go for it. Dealer's choice. Storm in a tea cup.
The backlash slop in RA is evident in the images, if I can adjust this out a little mechanically, then the data will benefit and the detail will tighter at integration.
Try Startools Star Healing algo on your oblong stars. It will make them perfectly round without touching the rest of your image.
Oh C'mon mate! You never sharpen your shots? Of course you do. We all do. Perfect optics on a perfect mount under perfect seeing? Never gonna happen. I thought Rod did a sterling job at enhancing his shot. TBH I can't even see any sharpening defects. And if he wanted to deconvolve the buggery out of it then go for it. Dealer's choice. Storm in a tea cup.
Point and missed..? storm in a tea cup is right, so why add more wind Marc? The OP 100% gets my comments but onlookers don't and get narky, funny game this
Point and missed..? storm in a tea cup is right, so why add more wind Marc? The OP 100% gets my comments but onlookers don't and get narky, funny game this
Thanks for posting the images showing your enhancement methodology. I have been really impressed with the last few images you have posted and wondered how you were achieving the detail and clarity in your images . Now I know.
I am a newbie at this , but no where can I see any evidence of manufactured data with your enhanced image. These images highlight the power and intelligent application of the PI tools you are using.
Keep the images coming.
Cheers
Rob
No problems Rob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis
That's a beauty Rod so much detail!
Hey thanks Dunk! I'm happy with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Try Startools Star Healing algo on your oblong stars. It will make them perfectly round without touching the rest of your image.
That's called Morphological Transformation in PI land Marc. I did use it in the work flow but at a later stage when the luminance had been combined with RGB. So the cropped images above do not have it applied.
That's called Morphological Transformation in PI land Marc. I did use it in the work flow but at a later stage when the luminance had been combined with RGB. So the cropped images above do not have it applied.
Thanks for the tip though.
Here you go. Just learnt another PI process. The names are much harder to remember than the actual functionality. At least this one is human readable and not some weirdass acronym.
I'm just waiting for the transmogrification button, then I won't have to worry about which functions to use in my processing
I reckon they're all made up names lost in translation. Aren't the original buttons in Spanish anyway? Like Ole! Hasta La vista! and other interjections.
I always appreciate any feedback and definitely enjoy your humor 
. I think we're on the same page there. 
and thanks for revealing my (apparently) invisible jet, after many years of processing images, little flies under my radar now 
...wonder if I should start calling out the growing and rather obvious use of Russ Cromans Star Shrink tool 
...and it always imparts the same tell-tale "look" to details that is easy to spot.. I could be wrong but I recon Rod would be very happy to remove the RA backlash and like us all, place his scope under arc sec seeing, so the detail would be raw and not need as much enhancement by complex but imperfect algorithms that approximate the real detail.
