Thank you Jove for taking the time to look and run Topaz. Yes it certainly does render a better background and perhaps a little improvement at the centre of the galaxy. I wonder how many frames are required to produce a smooth background without Topaz.. More frames would also improve the detail in the arms so I would rather go that way.
Chris
Ive tried putting a set of 15 frames through TOPAZ first before stacking vs putting the final stacked image through TOPAZ, the result looked much the same.
The one thing to watch out for though is that if the initial frames are really noisy TOPAZ can introduce gross artefacts of its own.
It definitely keeps getting better Chris.
I know I don't pay enough attention, so don't quote me, but I think there might be a golden rule some thing like: More data - more better!
Mate it’s looking better and better. Keep it up and add some more data and it’ll definitely keep improving. I’m not sure what bortle sky you’re shooting in but for me (b7) I’ve got to get at least between 4-10hrs before I’m starting to get the derail through the noise. Topaz and other noise reducing software are always much more effective if you’ve got more data to work with as well.
I don't know if I am weak willed carrying on with this or jus unwilling to admit defeat.
Any wy I pondered on why I had to throw away so many frames. APP complained that they were monochrome and suggested a mismatch in the data types of exposure times as the reason. My thaught was that only the darks could be wrong, so I took 20 more darks at 195 seconds and 20 darks at 225 seconds, the exposure times of the lights.
That was it !!!
So the attached image is built from 160 frames, say nine and a half hours of integration.
Again thanks to those who have helped me with APP
Pretty sure that's ticker mate If you're enjoying the chase then that's all that matters. As far as I naively understand, at F/10 much much longer integrations will give you improvement on the background noise and make stretching easier. As it stands, an inverted luminance mask and curves adjustments (brightness) would subdue it some.
Fantastic effort and thanks heaps for sharing the journey!
Thanks John & Steve,
John, if we ever get anothe clear night mod data will accumulate,
Steve, when I canI wil take new flats, and flat darks to be safe.
Anyway her is the same image as last entered but after a play with Gimp, Nebulosity can also produce this result but it takes much more fiddling.
Chris
Hi Chris love your perseverance with this I think you’re getting there. I will re-emphasise what Steve said, flats need to be taken along with every data set unless there’s absolutely zero movement/adjustment of the camera or image train (or little bits of dust inside). The darks will last for many months.
Something that I do with APP is I stack different nights as individual data sets and then stack those sets together. It allows me more control over the quality of the data as some nights, even with the best intentions will end up in the bin due to atmospheric instability or high cloud etc. you will only hurt your final image by trying to include poor data.
It might be interesting if you posted a link to your raw unprocessed fits stack. I’d be interested to see what the raw data vs processed result looks like as I still think those brighter areas are either overexposed or perhaps it’s a function of processing?
If you're enjoying the chase then that's all that matters. As far as I naively understand, at F/10 much much longer integrations will give you improvement on the background noise and make stretching easier. As it stands, an inverted luminance mask and curves adjustments (brightness) would subdue it some.
