Go Back   IceInSpace > Images > Deep Space
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 09-12-2008, 02:27 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Bojan it was taken months ago. I would have to check.

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-12-2008, 03:21 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,112
No worries..
It is a stunning image, BTW.. sorry for not mentioning this before, I am sort of in "nova detective mood" at the moment :-)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-12-2008, 04:17 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Bojan here is your image superimposed on a crop with Registar. If you would like your whole image done this way just PM me and send me you email address.

Bert
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (Comb.jpg)
56.5 KB17 views
Click for full-size image (Combine29.jpg)
174.8 KB16 views
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-12-2008, 03:43 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
Here is a version where the stars are not as square! If you wonder how I did it lookup Niquist Theorem.

15MB image
http://avandonkbl.bigblog.com.au/dat...1211143753.jpg


Bert
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-12-2008, 04:10 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,112
:-)
Bandwidth rules...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-12-2008, 09:40 AM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
It took me a while to figure it out. It is obvious when you think about it. In a typical digital image the image is sampled at the pixel spacing p vertically and horizontally. At 45 degrees the image is sampled at 1.414p or root two times p. So round stars will tend to look square if the sampling per star is low. Especially after stacking to enhance signal to noise.

How to fix this? My Canon 5DH images are 4358x2912 pixels and each pixel is 8.2 micron which is larger than most DSLR's. Rotate the image by 45 degrees CW in Photo Shop. Then REDUCE the size of the image from about 5k pixels wide to 3k pixels wide this has the effect of resampling the original horizontal and vertical to about 1.4p. Then increase the image to 7k across which now resamples the entire image with more pixels per star than the original. Then rotate 45 degrees CCW and again increase the size to 7k across. You now have an image that is sampled the same in any direction. A tiny bit of star size reduction and RL enhancement in Images Plus. At this 7k size the image is a 190MB tiff. When you are happy with levels etc reducing to about the original size gives an image with nice round stars.

I did this to the four images that made up the mosaic. And then put them together with Registar.

It is obvious when you think about it. The result proves it. I am sure a better protocol could be worked out. I would be interested if any others have had this problem.

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-12-2008, 08:10 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk View Post
My Canon 5DH images are 4358x2912 pixels and each pixel is 8.2 micron
I'd suggest there is more to it. While each photosite is 8.2 micron, they are part of a 16.4 micron Bayer matrix.

De-bayering is never kind to point sources. While one can post -process in a number of ways, if the image is undersampled (eg square stars) no real increase in resolution can be made unless the focal length is increased (ie oversampled)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-12-2008, 09:14 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
You are correct Peter but this does not and cannot increase 'resolution'. All I have done is make the sampling quasi isotropic and at about the level of the diagonal sampling. Bayer interpolation and anti aliasing filters make the evaluation of resolution from first principles vague.

The last image if you are viewing it at 100% on a typical LCD monitor is about 1.4 meters wide.

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 13-12-2008, 11:42 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by avandonk View Post
You are correct Peter but this does not and cannot increase 'resolution'. .......

Bert
Depends whether we are talking about resolution on the sky. With a 300mm lens and 16 odd micron Bayer matrix, then the system will resolve around 11 arc sec per pixel. eg you could not split say a 4 arc second double.

Going to 3000mm you will have 1.1 arc seconds of sky on the same Bayer group. Our double star from before is within easy reach.

Peter

Last edited by Peter Ward; 13-12-2008 at 12:35 PM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 14-12-2008, 08:22 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward View Post
Depends whether we are talking about resolution on the sky. With a 300mm lens and 16 odd micron Bayer matrix, then the system will resolve around 11 arc sec per pixel. eg you could not split say a 4 arc second double.

Going to 3000mm you will have 1.1 arc seconds of sky on the same Bayer group. Our double star from before is within easy reach.

Peter
Do you really have to cover the whole Byer group?
I think individual pixel sizes are the resolution limitation for luminance. The whole Byer group is resolution limit for chrominance.. not much different from analogue TV stuff (where BW for chrominance signal is 1/3 of that of luminance). De-Byering process should take care of that...
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 14-12-2008, 10:17 AM
Hagar (Doug)
Registered User

Hagar is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,646
Hi Bert Your new method sounds interesting but it also sounds somewhat complex and could lay traps for the inexperienced . namely me.
Nicely processed though with a nice overall aspect.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 14-12-2008, 10:35 AM
Barrykgerdes
Registered User

Barrykgerdes is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Beaumont Hills NSW
Posts: 2,900
Hi

I don't care what anyone else says.

Bert's two great High resolution images, LMC and Eta-Carina suited my use better than anything I have ever had before.

I was looking for two textures to add to the display in Stellarium that could blend in perfectly with the star background. I had previously tried many smaller angle pictures but they always looked like added photos and not part of the sky scene.

I did have to process them into squares at a size of 3072 pixels square to get the maximum detail I then tried the resulting picture in Stellarium but alas it was too much for my computer. I reduced the size to 2048 x 2048 this did load but the field was too big to accurately position it. I could get the corners right but the middle was out too far.

I then had the idea of converting back to a mosaic so I carefully cut the picture into four squares 1024 x 1024. This was a great improvement. I think I could have got better results if I made a mosaic of nine from the original 3072 x 3072 pic. I will do this sometime.

I eventually reduced the sizes to 512 x 512 because loading all textures into the program started to take up too much memory but they still look great and the lower resolution is not noticeable except in deep zooms into the display.

The roundness of stars at this resolution is not a problem as when zooming in on a display the stars in the program sit very nicely on the background of the texture.

I have a couple of screen shots on my Stellarium web site
www.geocities.com/wendygblyde These are from a screen resolution of 1680 x 1050. This should give some idea as to how good textures can be blended into stellarium.

Barry
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 14-12-2008, 11:32 AM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 8,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
Do you really have to cover the whole Byer group?
I think individual pixel sizes are the resolution limitation for luminance...............
I don't think so. While there are many De-bayering routines, some better than others, and they all rely upon extrapolating or interpolating both the brightness and colour from G-R-B-G matrix.

With smooth gradient "daylight" type images the process works very well, but with point sources, less so.

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/tutorials/astro_newt.html

Is an example of sections two images taken with similar pixel size, aperture and focal length telescopes (ie similarly oversampled). If you look closely at the small and closely spaced stars particularly at top right, you can see the loss of resolution due the Bayer matrix.

Hardly severe, but present just the same.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 14-12-2008, 02:05 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,112
Peter,
Thanks for this clarification :-)
Yes, the effect is there but as far as I am concerned, negligible :-)
Actually, I have noticed that on hot pixels. One would expect only one pixel light up, which is true, but there are also surrounding pixels visible, only at much lower intensity.
However, as I said, not important at all for what I am trying to do.

Last edited by bojan; 14-12-2008 at 02:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement