I've been working on this for a while, gathering more data in the rare circumstances when the weather cooperates. Can't say I'm completely happy with it as the term "technicolor yawn" springs to mind but here it is anyway. I don't think that any more data is going to make too much difference.
I prefer this to the first version you posted. I like the colours here and the fainter nebulosity is starting to show up now. The luminosity is good too with a bit of a 3D look now. There is still a bit of back ground noise that could be controlled with software (use an inverted reveal mask which is cleaner) or you could collect more data to reduce it. Looking good Steve.
That's very cool Steve. Nice colors and details. Very smooth too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placidus
Hi, Steve,
You've got very fine detail there, including the scales over the dragon's eye.
Very fine.
Best,
Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Haese
I prefer this to the first version you posted. I like the colours here and the fainter nebulosity is starting to show up now. The luminosity is good too with a bit of a 3D look now. There is still a bit of back ground noise that could be controlled with software (use an inverted reveal mask which is cleaner) or you could collect more data to reduce it. Looking good Steve.
Thanks for the comments guys. I must admit I didn't like this image initially but I now think it's okay. I've just posted another version which is less noisy too. Paul, I may get extra Ha and OIII but bin it 2x2 to bring out the background a bit more cleanly. I wondered if you have ever experimented with this in some of your mega data exercises?
Thanks for the comments guys. I must admit I didn't like this image initially but I now think it's okay. I've just posted another version which is less noisy too. Paul, I may get extra Ha and OIII but bin it 2x2 to bring out the background a bit more cleanly. I wondered if you have ever experimented with this in some of your mega data exercises?
Since going to full automation I have not used binning at anything other than 1x1. I have had several conversations with various well known imagers and each has indicated they stick with 1x1. So my answer is I don't know specifically. I did experiment a few years back with 2x2 a lot and using 1x1 for luminance layering and found it to be ok. Although I prefer having everything at 1x1 purely for blending purposes. There are means of overcoming that problem though with software if that is what you really want to do.
I thought I could blend in the 2x2 data just for the background and mask out the rest but maybe I'll just take more 1x1 as the weather seems to have taken a sudden turn for the better.
One thing for sure is that 2x2 binning will make the stars larger. Check the FWHM of 1x1 versus 2x2. On the other hand if you only want to smooth out background where there is no real detail it seems the extra SNR of 2x2 could be useful.
Also binning is less of an issue with a smaller pixelled camera in terms of resolution loss.
All 1x1 though implies longer total exposure time for the same SNR. Something not everyone can get.
Yep - certainly all true. I guess this is largely an experiment and just in case I'm getting some more 1x1 data too. I seem to remember that Martin did something like this with one of his images once.
