The Pavo Galaxy

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

Verrrry nice Mike! A bit of noise? Maybe, but it doesn't detract from the impact of the image.

Funny, you beat me to the punch - we must have been imaging the same subject at the same time . Only just started processing my version though.

Cheers, Marcus

Thanks Marcus, yeh I recon some get just a bit hung up on noise at times (Err like I do on not losing faint smudges ) and generally this results in a kind of forced or panic induced plastic look or over smoothed look etc which I think looks much worse than the noise. I have always been ok with a small amount of noise as long, as you say, it doesn't detract from the overall imapct of the image, I am sure it is just a thing I have...like the propensity of a blue bias in my images too

So your gear is back, that's great, we imaged the Orion Nebula around the same time remember so I am sure your rendition of 6744 will be pretty awesome too

Originally Posted by seeker372011

late to join the appreciative chorus...but I did enjoy looking at this fine image

Thanks narayan, it is a beautiful galaxy, reminds me of a dream catcher.

Mike

[gregbradley]

Mike have you ever tried Noise Ninja? You can lassoo out the areas you don't want handled by it, even the stars if you were really tricky with Photoshop.

It does a good job and minimal smoothing.

There is a free trial. I think its a great plug in so you get the best of both worlds, keep your faint smudgies (or is that budgies?) and your noise is reduced (to some degree it is not an ultimate solution).

I did that on your image and it got rid of the noise at a slight cost of some of the dimmer stars colour saturation but not the brighter ones (that could be improved by careful masking of all the stars rather than the brighter ones that I did). It turned out well.I can post it if you wish. It didn't lose any faint fuzzies.

Greg.

[Jen]

WOW what a pic, lots to look at there Mike well done

[avandonk]

We used to have a saying in CSIRO that one mans noise is another mans signal.

There are a few things happening here. In any system the noise will modulate any signal that is at about the same magnitude. Colour noise is far more visible even at lower levels. There are evolutionary reasons for this. If your superior colour vision allows you to see your prey or predator before they see you, a meal or survival was the result.

Mike's system is exquisitely sensitive and for ground based optics about as good as it gets for real resolution which is generally limited by the seeing.

Here is an animated gif I made from Mikes images. 3MB.
Click on the image to see it full size at that position.

http://d1355990.i49.quadrahosting.co...10_08/ms1g.gif

Image one is from the B&W image.
Image two from the full size colour image
Image three from the full size colour image stretched to emphasise the background 'noise'.

The jpg compression would have added noise to the images I used. I also upsized the images to get back a bit of the original resolution.
See image below which was also enhanced. This also enhances the 'noise'.

If you look carefully you will see obvious signal in the B&W image that then looks like noise in the colour images.

There is noise there as there is in any image. If I cannot see noise in an image then a bit of clipping has been done and real faint signal lost.

So in the end there is no real argument just semantics as to what is noise in an image.

In order to improve our images we need to sort real signal from real noise. Not just eliminate 'noise' and lose faint signal that is real.

Oh yeah very nice image Mike.

Bert

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

We used to have a saying in CSIRO that one mans noise is another mans signal.

<snip>

There is noise there as there is in any image. If I cannot see noise in an image then a bit of clipping has been done and real faint signal lost.

So in the end there is no real argument just semantics as to what is noise in an image.

In order to improve our images we need to sort real signal from real noise. Not just eliminate 'noise' and lose faint signal that is real.

Oh yeah very nice image Mike.

Bert

Thankyou Bert, finally, some soothing clasical music is injected into this noise issue

Noise aversion in processing is significantly mediated by trends in how images "should" look from a popularist, conformist as well as aesthetic perspective. In the end it is often just trendy popular opinion that can prevail. A smooth image for a smooth images sake is often prefered over one that reveals faint details and structures that has a little noise. I try to run the gauntlet between the two as I like elements of both approaches

NOISY MIKE

[gregbradley]

I like the latest version Mike. It seems you achieved a good compromise there and is a superb image.

Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Cheers Greg

Ya won't beleive it but I finished off a repro Tuesday morning right before we left for the Eureka Prize's and here is a hi res crop

To repro, or not to repro...that is the question

Mike

[h0ughy (David)]

nice shot and repro Mike

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Cheers Greg

Ya won't beleive it but I finished off a repro Tuesday morning right before we left for the Eureka Prize's and here is a hi res crop

To repro, or not to repro...that is the question

Mike

Very nice Mike and I think you've maxed that one out. Thats a wrap!
I personally think repros are a normal part of the game. To get it perfect first time out is a target but a repro having looked at it several more times and others noticing things you didn't is really part of the process isn't it?

Oh and by the way congrats on your runner up win in the Eureka Prize. I am sure the judging was very subjective
as you were competing against totally different types of images.

Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Very nice Mike and I think you've maxed that one out. Thats a wrap!
I personally think repros are a normal part of the game. To get it perfect first time out is a target but a repro having looked at it several more times and others noticing things you didn't is really part of the process isn't it?

Yes agreed, repro to your hearts content I say. There is faint galactic cirrus all over this field too so while some would clip it out in the quest for a blacker background, I have left it in

Oh and by the way congrats on your runner up win in the Eureka Prize. I am sure the judging was very subjective
as you were competing against totally different types of images.
Greg.

Thank ya kindly, the awards will be featured on Catalyst tonight 8pm.

Mike

[Chancellor (Jeff)]

As said several times above, absolutely stunning.
Images like yours are what inspire many people to get into imaging.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Chancellor

As said several times above, absolutely stunning.
Images like yours are what inspire many people to get into imaging.

Gee thanks a lot Jeff, I'm glad if that is the case . Plenty of people inspired me along the way too, in the early days it was David Malin (the quintessential astroimaging rock star really) and amateurs like Evered Kraimer then later Tony Hallas and Philip Perkins onto more modern gurus like Wolfgang Promper and Tom Davis or even our very own Marcus Davies and Eddie Trimarchi etc (there are many more). If we can all inspire each other it is a good thing I recon

Cheers mate

Mike

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Not bad Mike.

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Fantastic image Mike, I really like the colours, the details, the smoothness - it looks so natural and well balanced, yet there is exquisite detail and colouring all over, everything is just perfect. Very well done!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Thanks Rolf, very glad you like it it is a reasonably tough galaxy to image and process actually.

Mike