Rosette Nebula in Narrow Band - Now with RGB data

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by cazza132

Wow! that is outstanding!!! One of the best I have ever seen of Rosette. Nice differentiation with narrowband - something that cannot be done with a DSLR. An inspiration for me to finally pull the trigger on a genuine imaging scope some day

Thanks Troy. I wanted to produce an outstanding image of this object myself. There are still some niggling things to me but overall I am pretty happy with the image.

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

You should be happy Paul! Excellent detail and very pleasing colours.

Cheers, Marcus

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

You should be happy Paul! Excellent detail and very pleasing colours.

Cheers, Marcus

Thanks Marcus. Yes quite happy with the image now.

[Leonardo70 (Leonardo Orazi)]

Excellent result Paul. Congrats.

All the best,
Leo

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by Leonardo70

Excellent result Paul. Congrats.

All the best,
Leo

Thanks Leo.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

A fantastic view of this fine nebula Paul, the level of detail and colouring is impressive and the 3D look is very obvious. Great work .
With RGB stars it'll be an amazing image, looking forward to see that!

it might be the monitor on my tired old imac, but I'm with Rolf on this point... the stars would look better if they were rendered with more intensity and a stronger blue channel.

In saying that, the number of images I have seen employing the hubble pallet (or some variation of it) that look aesthetically pleasing to my eye, I could count on one hand with two fingers spare. This is one of them.

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by clive milne

it might be the monitor on my tired old imac, but I'm with Rolf on this point... the stars would look better if they were rendered with more intensity and a stronger blue channel.

In saying that, the number of images I have seen employing the hubble pallet (or some variation of it) that look aesthetically pleasing to my eye, I could count on one hand with two fingers spare. This is one of them.

Thanks Clive. I am going to take another look at the RGB star saturation at some point soon. It is a little pale as pointed out. The rest I am happy with.

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Since I don't use noise control anymore I prefer to control the noise with mega data. It is just a personal preference, but I think it leads to better results.

Too right. Software correction of acquisition or hardware deficiencies can never compete with good data.
Stunning image. The level of detail is amazing.
Geoff

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

Too right. Software correction of acquisition or hardware deficiencies can never compete with good data.
.......
Geoff

Yes exactly, if you can afford the time get the data; it makes processing enjoyable and gives anyone the potential to produce a lovely image.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

Too right. Software correction of acquisition or hardware deficiencies can never compete with good data.
Stunning image. The level of detail is amazing.
Geoff

Whoa, id disagree with that absolutely. Data and processing are equally important at least. Ive seen (and done) great data and standard processing for an ordinary result, and conversely, subs that were so bad the object was almost invisible, buried in noise, and with vast time and carefull processing produced a better result. . Astrophotography is all about noise reduction. This can be done in many ways. Yes, good data is always a better start, but not always possible which makes processing more than competitive.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Bassnut

Whoa, id disagree with that absolutely. Data and processing are equally important at least. Ive seen (and done) great data and standard processing for an ordinary result, and conversely, subs that were so bad the object was almost invisible, buried in noise, and with vast time and carefull processing produced a better result. . Astrophotography is all about noise reduction. This can be done in many ways. Yes, good data is always a better start, but not always possible which makes processing more than competitive.

+1 Crappy data will make you better at processing. A good astro photo is 80% processing.

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

+1 Crappy data will make you better at processing. A good astro photo is 80% processing.

+1 from me as well. With the right tools and experience you can polish a turd. Or you can just roll it in sparkles

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by RickS

+1 from me as well. With the right tools and experience you can polish a turd. Or you can just roll it in sparkles

Aah yes but still a turd none the less.

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by RickS

+1 from me as well. With the right tools and experience you can polish a turd. Or you can just roll it in sparkles

Yes you can polish a turd. I've done it many times. But if you start with something better than a turd you'll end up with something better than a polished turd.
Come on guys (Fred, Marc and Rick) are you really suggesting it doesn't matter how crappy your data is because you can hide all the crap with processing?
Geoff

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

Come on guys (Fred, Marc and Rick) are you really suggesting it doesn't matter how crappy your data is because you can hide all the crap with processing?

Speaking for myself, that's not what I'm saying. Given the option I'll take good data any time and I'm prepared to work hard to get it. However, I think that weak data with good processing will usually produce a better result than good data with weak processing.

To produce a great result you need both, of course, and that's what we're all aiming for. A really good image is the result of good data and every small aspect of your processing being just right. A few percent better here and a few more there and eventually you're talking a big difference.

Cheers,
Rick.

[Geoff45 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by RickS

Speaking for myself, that's not what I'm saying. Given the option I'll take good data any time and I'm prepared to work hard to get it. However, I think that weak data with good processing will usually produce a better result than good data with weak processing.
Cheers,
Rick.

No problems with that Rick. In my original post I was assuming a single competent processor and my original statement was simply stating that he/she would produce a better image with better data, reinforcing what Paul posted concerning noise. Sure if someone has eggy stars they can resort to star rounding in Photoshop but the final result they produce is never going to be as good as getting round stars in the first place.
Geoff

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by ghsmith45

No problems with that Rick. In my original post I was assuming a single competent processor and my original statement was simply stating that he/she would produce a better image with better data, reinforcing what Paul posted concerning noise. Sure if someone has eggy stars they can resort to star rounding in Photoshop but the final result they produce is never going to be as good as getting round stars in the first place.
Geoff

I didn't think we were really disagreeing, Geoff

Noise is an interesting topic, though. It's always there no matter how much data you collect (damn Physics!) We just do our best to hide it in the background by not stretching our data too hard.

Cheers,
Rick.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

I think the word Turd is a rather exaggerated and perhaps more of a self justifying term really, there are plenty of amazing images out there that weren't compiled from mega data (check some of Leo and Marco Lorenzi's work for example) and may have had some noise reduction or other processing applied, there is a point of diminishing returns here too. To me mega data's real benefit is in surfacing very faint features, so really comes to the for when imaging galaxies or faint nebulae that have otherwise invisible features and perhaps the finest example of this type of work is that by Rolf Olsen, the king of mega data, he has revealed some hither too unseen features with the greatest exposure times of anyone yet he still has some noise in his images.

Mike

[Rod771 (Rod)]

Excellent image Paul!

Great detail and colour. Very inspiring!

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by RickS

I didn't think we were really disagreeing, Geoff

Noise is an interesting topic, though. It's always there no matter how much data you collect (damn Physics!) We just do our best to hide it in the background by not stretching our data too hard.

Cheers,
Rick.

Yes noise can never be totally eliminated but it can be reduced effectively as you know. Your point here about stretching is certainly why I do long subs and then lots of them to reduce the appearance of noise in each filter set.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

I think the word Turd is a rather exaggerated and perhaps more of a self justifying term really, there are plenty of amazing images out there that weren't compiled from mega data (check some of Leo and Marco Lorenzi's work for example) and may have had some noise reduction or other processing applied, there is a point of diminishing returns here too. To me mega data's real benefit is in surfacing very faint features, so really comes to the for when imaging galaxies or faint nebulae that have otherwise invisible features and perhaps the finest example of this type of work is that by Rolf Olsen, the king of mega data, he has revealed some hither too unseen features with the greatest exposure times of anyone yet he still has some noise in his images.

Mike

You have a few basic misunderstandings here Mike. Rolf images still contain noise despite 75 hours simply due to sub length and stacking methods. Faint objects need extended subs to collect enough photons to build the signal. You cannot effectively manage noise given a certain size aperture by doing lots of short subs. It is a complicated equation to managing noise for any given system and any given object. Aperture plays a big part as does calibration. However general a 30 minute exposure will have greater signal by large margins over 5 minute or 10 minute subs despite the aperture size. The signal will beat down the noise level and when combined in a mega data set that noise will be nearly unapparent after a certain amount of subs for each filter set. It will be different for every object and every filter set. You cannot simply point to one persons results and suggest it is the same over the entire board.

With regard to noise reduction ideas: if you don't have the time to collect the data then you will most likely need to employ noise reduction to varying levels of success. I don't use noise reduction at all anymore as I can and do collect vast amounts of data simply because I can. I have expended the money and time to allow me to collect mega data. This is my personal choice and I understand that not all people have the time to stay up all night after night to collect the data needed to reduce the noise.

Everything in the end boils down to your individual ambitions and budget, but ultimately this is not a job but an adventure in producing art and showing the night sky as I see it.