Is it the processing or the equipment?

strongmanmike (Michael) · #1 04-09-2008, 10:41 PM

I was flipping about my web site tonight and came across an old image of Centaurus A I did some time ago. It was taken with the 6" Starfire and my fantastic little sensitive, fine pixel and noisless StarlightXpress mono SXV-H9 on the Takahashi NJP mount so you'd expect it to be pretty ok ...right?

Weeeell ok it's not in colour buuuut this is what happens if the seeing is crap, focus is off, too little exposure is taken and you use slack processing:

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...30883/original

When you have the same gear (well, new camera but essentially the same) and imager but with lots of exposure, steady seeing and careful processing...you get this:

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...20688/original

Like Jase will tell you (good man, him)..before you blame your (or others) equipment, think about your approach and methods first

Mike

AlexN · #2 04-09-2008, 11:10 PM

Processing/equipment/a touch of artistic flare in my opinion...

oh, and experience too... Nothing beats good old fashioned know how.

Peter Ward · #3 04-09-2008, 11:14 PM

The two are inexorably linked IMHO.

It sometimes takes you a while to recognize questionable data, and make the hard call to put it in the trashcan.

That said once you have good data much can be gleaned from it.

eg: http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/images/gx/centAdeep2.jpg

is the "deep" version of the same data here

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery5.html

strongmanmike (Michael) · #4 04-09-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

That said once you have good data much can be gleaned from it.

Yep, totally agree Peter! This is a super close up from the same data set:

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...14931/original

If you have lots you can do lots. Of couse having a permanent set-up really helps too...

..

...

Mike

Peter Ward · #5 04-09-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Of couse having a permanent set-up really helps too...

..

...

Mike

Careful what you wish for

...I live next to an a**hole who switches on 2nd storey mounted, 250 watt floodlights, 24/7

AlexN · #6 04-09-2008, 11:46 PM

my neighbors do that every time I set up in my yard.. its like they say "ooh.. whats he doing... its dark.. best I flip the lights on and have a sticky beak..." Bane of my existance...

Hagar (Doug) · #7 05-09-2008, 12:20 AM

Looks like a 2 kilowatt green laser for astronomy use is required Peter. Or a 30-06.

AlexN · #8 05-09-2008, 12:23 AM

6mm ball bearing from a slingshot does the trick

(not that I know.)

Alchemy (Clive) · #9 05-09-2008, 05:58 AM

its amazing what progress is made over a period of time, its nice when you think its not going just right, to see how far you have come.

so what you doing for next years DM mike????

jjjnettie (Jeanette) · #10 05-09-2008, 07:26 AM

How long between exposures Mike?
Do you still have the original data from the first pic? I'm wondering how it would turn out if you processed it today?

h0ughy (David) · #11 05-09-2008, 07:38 AM

I thnk itis both - oh and of course the operator.......

multiweb (Marc) · #12 05-09-2008, 07:58 AM

Processing knowledge and experience make 90% of the picture IMHO. You can always get the most out of your existing gear. If your gear is that bad then you work around it and you get better at processing. It's a win-win situation. I still use the same cheap scope to image to date. I used to blame it and curse at it in the past until I got a couple of good shots. That clarified a few things: the weakest link in my imaging train was still me, not the gear and I still have a long way to go.

marc4darkskies (Marcus) · #13 05-09-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

....buuuut this is what happens if the seeing is crap, focus is off, too little exposure is taken and you use slack processing...When you have the same gear (well, new camera but essentially the same) and imager but with lots of exposure, steady seeing and careful processing...you get this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

The two are inexorably linked IMHO.

It sometimes takes you a while to recognize questionable data, and make the hard call to put it in the trashcan.

Relative to you wise old men, I've only been in the game for a relatively short time (20 months actually). So with me it's mostly experience that is slowly improving my images.

Getting plenty of data is key. Knowledge of how to use the tools optimally is critical too so you can tease out the hidden beauty from the murky depths. I also find that as the quality of images in the amateur arena gets better I try harder - I can spend many days processing an image - even when the data is good!! Equipment-wise, I know I haven't yet reached the full potential of my Tak - give me another year or two!

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Of couse having a permanent set-up really helps too...

..

...

Mike

C'mon Mike - get with the program!!! Win the lottery, quit your job, buy that 10 hectare mountain property and build that robotic observatory (with a 32" RCOS) so jase doesn't have to telecommute so far to do his imaging

and you can both win prizes for the same images by calling them collaborations

(as long as you don't take his money - that would make you a professional

).

Cheers, Marcus

sjastro · #14 05-09-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Like Jase will tell you (good man, him)..before you blame your (or others) equipment, think about your approach and methods first

Mike

It all depends on the nature of the raw data.

If you have horrendous optics and a CCD that light contaminates the images through an errant LED, all the data in the world won't make any difference.

Its Garbage In Garbage Out. I know from first hand experience.

Regards

Steven

gregbradley · #15 05-09-2008, 04:55 PM

I agree its both. Having had both crap gear and super gear. Both still required me to have my act together and basics done well.

The super image really is the result of lots of little actions done really thoroughly and well plus megadata. The pro does all those little things well that makes the final image so good. Look at Rob Gendler. I am sure he is past polar alignment and eggy stars.

Greg.

strongmanmike (Michael) · #16 05-09-2008, 11:26 PM

Quote:

its amazing what progress is made over a period of time, its nice when you think its not going just right, to see how far you have come.

Yes....mid 2003 was the start of it all

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...00338/original

Quote:

so what you doing for next years DM mike????

...

..I'll have to do a bit of

be a bit of a

and a bit of a

and do a bit of

and

then be totally

so have a few

then do some more

and

and lots more

....then..?...I will be totally

Oh well..we keep doing it huh?

Mike

strongmanmike (Michael) · #17 05-09-2008, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjnettie

How long between exposures Mike?
Do you still have the original data from the first pic? I'm wondering how it would turn out if you processed it today?

Well Jeanette the bad shot was taken in the early hours of the morning of 10 Dec 2005 and the good shot was taken over 3 nights 2 - 4 May 2008, so nearly 2.5 years between exposures. I didn't take enough data for the bad one, it was something like 3 X 2min I think? I didn't record it properly in my imaging journal because it was so bad - the page has the date and equipment but just reads "Crap"

...so I don't think I could do much with it even today?

Mike

strongmanmike (Michael) · #18 05-09-2008, 11:56 PM

Quote:

C'mon Mike - get with the program!!! Win the lottery, quit your job, buy that 10 hectare mountain property and build that robotic observatory (with a 32" RCOS) so jase doesn't have to telecommute so far to do his imaging

and you can both win prizes for the same images by calling them collaborations

(as long as you don't take his money - that would make you a professional

).

Cheers, Marcus

Yeh right!

Ah sigh...The rise and Fall of Mt Campbell Observatory

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...rvatorygeneral

Paramount · #19 06-09-2008, 06:35 AM

Hi Mike
I think I prefer the first image (just kidding

)
You have a point but I think it is a combination of both, good equipment will hopefully make the acquisition process easier, and at the end of the day you can only successfully process good data (like they say you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear) or another way of putting it garbage in-garbage out. I think your example shows clearly what happens when we become a bit sloppy with processing though
Best wishes
Gordon

Bassnut (Fred) · #20 06-09-2008, 01:45 PM

Mike

I just went to see the DM winners at the Sydney observatory, my, that was an education. The quality of all the images in A3 print was extraordinary, its a whole different ball game compared to viewing on an LCD. Your deep NGC5128 especially was much more impressive in large print. And Peters M104 looks far better too (well, they were all impressive, I cant mention them all).

The "hanging in space" effect of mild widefield is hard to capture on an LCD, as the object res cant be appreciated without zooming in, and then you lose the "hanging in space effect". In print its all there in one view.

This (in print) is where optical and megapixel cam resolution really shows up. Everyone who can, should make the effort to go and see the exibitition to appreciate the level of quailty the winners produce.