NGC6729 Corona Australis - Page 2

Paul Haese · #21 27-06-2011, 03:29 PM

Thanks Greg. I will now have go off and see which one I like best or which ones will work best for me.

Thanks all for the advice.

SkyViking (Rolf) · #22 28-06-2011, 06:54 AM

That's an amazing image Paul. The composition is great and the colours very balanced and smooth. It looks very intriguing. Excellent processing too and again it's great to see such top images coming from the QSI. I can't wait to get my own

I noticed there are some black 'double dots' in a few places, just wondering what they were? I have highlighted them on the attachment.

Paul Haese · #23 28-06-2011, 10:19 AM

Thanks for highlighting those Rolf. Those look like hot pixels that got missed. I think my luminence darks need doing again. It has been over 6 months and the errant pixels are starting to show again. I recently did the coloured ones again but thought the Lum dark was ok. Clearly not.

Tom Davis (Tom) · #24 28-06-2011, 02:55 PM

Very, very nice!

Tom

multiweb (Marc) · #25 28-06-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Thanks for highlighting those Rolf. Those look like hot pixels that got missed. I think my luminence darks need doing again. It has been over 6 months and the errant pixels are starting to show again. I recently did the coloured ones again but thought the Lum dark was ok. Clearly not.

CCDStack -> Reject Range <0 >-100000 -> Interpolate rejected pixels 1px 3 iterations. Gone

John Hothersall · #26 28-06-2011, 05:30 PM

Gosh that is an amazing area of sky like rho Oph especially with the big glob. Lovely image

Paul Haese · #27 28-06-2011, 08:35 PM

Thanks guys.

Marc, thanks will give that a try too. Pesky hot pixels.

Paul Haese · #28 28-06-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by multiweb

CCDStack -> Reject Range <0 >-100000 -> Interpolate rejected pixels 1px 3 iterations. Gone

Sorry cannot find reject range? Which menu is that located?

Paul Haese · #29 28-06-2011, 08:40 PM

Ah don't worry I found it.

edit wrong again. found reject range indata reject but cannot find interpolate rejected pixels. Maybe on another edition of CCDstack?

Paul Haese · #30 30-06-2011, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by multiweb

CCDStack -> Reject Range <0 >-100000 -> Interpolate rejected pixels 1px 3 iterations. Gone

Marc I found the reject range, but could not find how to interpolate rejected pixels? Could you explain?

wysiwyg (Mark) · #31 30-06-2011, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Marc I found the reject range, but could not find how to interpolate rejected pixels? Could you explain?

Select "Impute Rejected Pixels" from the drop down list.

ving (David) · #32 30-06-2011, 10:57 AM

great shooting paul.

Paul Haese · #33 30-06-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wysiwyg

Select "Impute Rejected Pixels" from the drop down list.

That does not seem to work Mark. the black pixels are still there.

I first did the reject range as suggested. The I next go to impute rejected pixels and apply. Then I close that and the pixels are still there. What am I doing wrong?

wysiwyg (Mark) · #34 30-06-2011, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

That does not seem to work Mark. the black pixels are still there.

I first did the reject range as suggested. The I next go to impute rejected pixels and apply. Then I close that and the pixels are still there. What am I doing wrong?

Paul,

I'm not sure if they are hot pixels or not, cold I would say as they are black.
I had this problem with my STL, and it came down to the fact that I was using old dark frames.
Dark frames need to be updated regularly as the characteristics of the chip change over time, same with flat libraries.

It solved the problem for me.
In the mean time just remove them in PS, there aren't that many.

Cheers
Mark

Paul Haese · #35 30-06-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wysiwyg

Paul,

I'm not sure if they are hot pixels or not, cold I would say as they are black.
I had this problem with my STL, and it came down to the fact that I was using old dark frames.
Dark frames need to be updated regularly as the characteristics of the chip change over time, same with flat libraries.

It solved the problem for me.
In the mean time just remove them in PS, there aren't that many.

Cheers
Mark

Yeah I think you're right Mark. I have just done a new battery of darks this last week. I suspect these are from my luminence darks which I only redid two nights ago after imaging until 4 am. I have not seen any pixels like this in the newer work I am processing. So I will undergo another reprocess and see if I can eliminate them.

gregbradley · #36 30-06-2011, 05:37 PM

CCDs deteriorate over time. They get radiation damage.

My 16803 developed a vertical line which many have when you get them but mine had none.

This is usual. Darks need to be updated from time to time. That reminds me to update mine.

Greg.

TheDecepticon · #37 30-06-2011, 07:51 PM

That is a very lovely image, Paul!

Great colour in the dust lane and the reflection nebulosity, with the globular resolved very well.

Paul Haese · #38 02-07-2011, 11:18 AM

Thank Grey. I really like the globe but wish I had turned the camera 90 degrees before I started the image.

Was good to catch up last night. Next time when I get together with Jim you should come along too.

Stevec35 (Steve) · #39 02-07-2011, 11:53 AM

Nicely done Paul. Everything looks pretty good to me.

Cheers

Steve