Date   

Re: Mach2 APCC/APPM model for multiple nights in a mobile setting

mindspringtsai@...
 

Based on the comments, I reviewed the PA elevation and azimuth correction terms for each of the three nights and indeed these values changed upwards of 10 arcmins over the course of three nights. 

Thanks for your all your help!

Cheers,
Curtis


Re: How to tighten Mach2 base

George
 

Yanzhe,

 

I shall await hearing from you.    Please use my Astro-Physics email address below.

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:51 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

George,

 

Thanks!

 

I did not get time to try the suggestion yet. I will let you know how it goes.

 

Yanzhe

 

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:31 AM George <george@...> wrote:

Yanzhe,

 

Contact me directly at email address below.   I’m sure that it is a simple solution.

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 1:14 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

 

 

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:43 AM George <george@...> wrote:

Yanzhe,

 

That is set to a foot/pound tightness.   I should be left as is.   If it is tightened too much, it will make azimuth adjustments difficult.   Instead, check that the both “captain’s wheels are snug on the polar forks.  

Yes, I belive so. 

Also there should be three knobs securing the Mach2 to the pier/tripod.   They must be at 120 degrees with respect to each other.   Hand tightening them will not give a secure mounting.   Use a hex key and give them an extra snugging.  

The problem I am seeing is without Tripd. I turn the mount up side down, and I can feel the backlash if I move the base back and forth.

Anything else should I check?

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 3:03 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

I came to notice some backlash when I moved my telescope back and forth. Initially I thought it must have been RA or DEC, but then I realized that it was the base.

 

I tried to tighten the bolt underneath the base, it got slightly better but did not fix the problem. The bolt is already very tight so I dont want to tighten it any further.

 

Does anyone see a similar issue? It probably wont affect the imaging but it may affect polar alignment if someone accidentally moves the mount between sessions.

 


Re: How to tighten Mach2 base

George
 

Yanzhe,

 

I will watch for your information.   Please use my Astro-Physics email below.

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:51 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

George,

 

Thanks!

 

I did not get time to try the suggestion yet. I will let you know how it goes.

 

Yanzhe

 

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:31 AM George <george@...> wrote:

Yanzhe,

 

Contact me directly at email address below.   I’m sure that it is a simple solution.

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 1:14 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

 

 

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:43 AM George <george@...> wrote:

Yanzhe,

 

That is set to a foot/pound tightness.   I should be left as is.   If it is tightened too much, it will make azimuth adjustments difficult.   Instead, check that the both “captain’s wheels are snug on the polar forks.  

Yes, I belive so. 

Also there should be three knobs securing the Mach2 to the pier/tripod.   They must be at 120 degrees with respect to each other.   Hand tightening them will not give a secure mounting.   Use a hex key and give them an extra snugging.  

The problem I am seeing is without Tripd. I turn the mount up side down, and I can feel the backlash if I move the base back and forth.

Anything else should I check?

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 3:03 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

I came to notice some backlash when I moved my telescope back and forth. Initially I thought it must have been RA or DEC, but then I realized that it was the base.

 

I tried to tighten the bolt underneath the base, it got slightly better but did not fix the problem. The bolt is already very tight so I dont want to tighten it any further.

 

Does anyone see a similar issue? It probably wont affect the imaging but it may affect polar alignment if someone accidentally moves the mount between sessions.

 


Re: How to tighten Mach2 base

yanzhe liu
 

George,

Thanks!

I did not get time to try the suggestion yet. I will let you know how it goes.

Yanzhe

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:31 AM George <george@...> wrote:

Yanzhe,

 

Contact me directly at email address below.   I’m sure that it is a simple solution.

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 1:14 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

 

 

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:43 AM George <george@...> wrote:

Yanzhe,

 

That is set to a foot/pound tightness.   I should be left as is.   If it is tightened too much, it will make azimuth adjustments difficult.   Instead, check that the both “captain’s wheels are snug on the polar forks.  

Yes, I belive so. 

Also there should be three knobs securing the Mach2 to the pier/tripod.   They must be at 120 degrees with respect to each other.   Hand tightening them will not give a secure mounting.   Use a hex key and give them an extra snugging.  

The problem I am seeing is without Tripd. I turn the mount up side down, and I can feel the backlash if I move the base back and forth.

Anything else should I check?

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 3:03 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

I came to notice some backlash when I moved my telescope back and forth. Initially I thought it must have been RA or DEC, but then I realized that it was the base.

 

I tried to tighten the bolt underneath the base, it got slightly better but did not fix the problem. The bolt is already very tight so I dont want to tighten it any further.

 

Does anyone see a similar issue? It probably wont affect the imaging but it may affect polar alignment if someone accidentally moves the mount between sessions.

 


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

I do the same thing. It’s sometimes works like deconvolution to help later sharpening. The DeNoise software is incredible on any images that have a lot of noise.

Robert

On Jul 27, 2021, at 1:03 PM, Dale Ghent <daleg@...> wrote:

I've played around with Topaz. I got acceptable results by not giving it free reign. I'd make an original and a Topaz'd layer in PS and brush in the Topaz'd layer with varying levels of opacity to bring out its effects in a more subtle manner and in the places I thought it would work the best. I found it a good way to give a hint of sharpened structure to the eye without it being too overbearing as the pure Topaz'd layer would feel.

On Jul 27, 2021, at 13:57, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
I am - i'm a longtime user of topaz and topaz AI.
They can be really good, but generally for me they tend to be a bit heavy-handed, especially the denoise algorithms.
I find Topaz clarity and detail are much better for teasing out details.
My hope is Topaz will start their AI training on astro images, which will make their algorithms much better suited for our work.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:01 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick@...> wrote:
Are you familiar with Topaz noise reduction and sharpening? It works wonders on some things, especially the DeNoise. It is available standalone or as a PS plugin.
Robert
On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!
Brian
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick@...> wrote:
I agree. I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies. I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.
Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be. I will play with the process.
Robert
On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
Hi Robert
For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work.
i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures
Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix
https://www.brianvalentephotography.com/astrophotography/i-NJN9nHb/A
(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick@...> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures. Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily. For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work.
Robert
On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:
Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution
The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv
Brian
--
Brian
Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com
--
Brian
Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com
--
Brian
Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com



Re: Mach2 APCC/APPM model for multiple nights in a mobile setting

Eric Claeys
 

The ground could have shifted, causing the error.  I found this to be the case in SW NM on hard desert dirt.


Re: How to tighten Mach2 base

George
 

Yanzhe,

 

Contact me directly at email address below.   I’m sure that it is a simple solution.

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 1:14 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

 

 

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 8:43 AM George <george@...> wrote:

Yanzhe,

 

That is set to a foot/pound tightness.   I should be left as is.   If it is tightened too much, it will make azimuth adjustments difficult.   Instead, check that the both “captain’s wheels are snug on the polar forks.  

Yes, I belive so. 

Also there should be three knobs securing the Mach2 to the pier/tripod.   They must be at 120 degrees with respect to each other.   Hand tightening them will not give a secure mounting.   Use a hex key and give them an extra snugging.  

The problem I am seeing is without Tripd. I turn the mount up side down, and I can feel the backlash if I move the base back and forth.

Anything else should I check?

 

Regards,

 

George

 

George Whitney

Astro-Physics, Inc.

Phone:  815-222-6538 (direct line)

Phone:  815-282-1513 (office)

Email:  george@...

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of yanzhe liu
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 3:03 PM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: [ap-gto] How to tighten Mach2 base

 

I came to notice some backlash when I moved my telescope back and forth. Initially I thought it must have been RA or DEC, but then I realized that it was the base.

 

I tried to tighten the bolt underneath the base, it got slightly better but did not fix the problem. The bolt is already very tight so I dont want to tighten it any further.

 

Does anyone see a similar issue? It probably wont affect the imaging but it may affect polar alignment if someone accidentally moves the mount between sessions.

 


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

Dale Ghent
 

I've played around with Topaz. I got acceptable results by not giving it free reign. I'd make an original and a Topaz'd layer in PS and brush in the Topaz'd layer with varying levels of opacity to bring out its effects in a more subtle manner and in the places I thought it would work the best. I found it a good way to give a hint of sharpened structure to the eye without it being too overbearing as the pure Topaz'd layer would feel.

On Jul 27, 2021, at 13:57, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

I am - i'm a longtime user of topaz and topaz AI.

They can be really good, but generally for me they tend to be a bit heavy-handed, especially the denoise algorithms.

I find Topaz clarity and detail are much better for teasing out details.

My hope is Topaz will start their AI training on astro images, which will make their algorithms much better suited for our work.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:01 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick@...> wrote:
Are you familiar with Topaz noise reduction and sharpening? It works wonders on some things, especially the DeNoise. It is available standalone or as a PS plugin.

Robert

On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!

Brian

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick@...> wrote:
I agree. I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies. I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be. I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work.
i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix

https://www.brianvalentephotography.com/astrophotography/i-NJN9nHb/A

(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick@...> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures. Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily. For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian



--
Brian



Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com





--
Brian



Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com





--
Brian



Brian Valente
portfolio brianvalentephotography.com


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

 

I am - i'm a longtime user of topaz and topaz AI. 

They can be really good, but generally for me they tend to be a bit heavy-handed, especially the denoise algorithms.

I find Topaz clarity and detail are much better for teasing out details. 

My hope is Topaz  will start their AI training on astro images, which will make their algorithms much better suited for our work.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 10:01 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Are you familiar with Topaz noise reduction and sharpening?  It works wonders on some things, especially the DeNoise.  It is available standalone or as a PS plugin.

Robert

On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!

Brian

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I agree.  I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies.   I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be.  I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian




-- 
Brian 



Brian Valente





-- 
Brian 



Brian Valente



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

Are you familiar with Topaz noise reduction and sharpening?  It works wonders on some things, especially the DeNoise.  It is available standalone or as a PS plugin.

Robert

On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:46 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!

Brian

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I agree.  I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies.   I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be.  I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian




-- 
Brian 



Brian Valente





-- 
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

 

Yeah it's interesting to see how processing techniques are evolving. Starnet was a curiosity a couple years ago, and now it's front and center!

Brian

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
I agree.  I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies.   I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be.  I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian




--
Brian 



Brian Valente



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

I agree.  I meant that my method of masking out the target for processing, leaving the stars and background alone, does not work on extended nebula and large galaxies.   I am excited for the possibilities of the new method.

Really nice image but the stars are not as pronounced as they would be.  I will play with the process.

Robert


On Jul 27, 2021, at 11:15 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian




--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

 

Hi Robert

>>>For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

i think it works exceptionally well for extended nebulas, where enhancing the nebulosity without hurting the stars can really bring out structures 

Although this image could certainly be improved, I used this approach to pull out nebulosity and blend back with the "regular version". IIRC i did this going between PS and Pix


(can't speak to galaxies because I use other techniques for those)


On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:09 AM Robert Chozick via groups.io <rchozick=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian



--
Brian 



Brian Valente


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

Thanks. This sounds like a very useful tool. As you all know, destruction of the stars is so easy with all the processes we do to make our pretty pictures.   Around a small target in Photoshop I can bring back the original background and stars easily.   For extended nebula or large galaxies this does not work. 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Brian Valente <bvalente@...> wrote:

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

 

Starnet only works on stretched images and is now part of regular PixInsight distribution



The "starmask" version produces a color version of the stars, which is good for blending back, but this approach can have some artifacting around the stars. A typical application is to use starnet to create the starless version for enhancing the nebulosity, then blending back into the "regular" image version using something like Screen blend mode (PS or PixInsight). ymmv

Brian


Re: The Elephant Trunk Nebula in the Hubble palette

Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

Thanks Glenn. I will check out the application. I’ve been lazy and not downloaded the newer version of Pixinsight.  Wouldn’t the star mask only be a gray representation of where the stars were and not the actual image of the stars themselves? 

Robert 


On Jul 27, 2021, at 9:43 AM, Glenn <public@...> wrote:

I forgot to mention that once you have a starless image, you can import it into Photoshop and do whatever you want with it. 

Best,

Glenn


Re: Mach2 APCC/APPM model for multiple nights in a mobile setting

Joseph Beyer
 

The process of covering and uncovering my equipment combined with ground movements, +/- tripod dynamics (it’s a Berlebach) changes my PA every night.  Once I correct the PA each night my model works fine for at least a week.  That’s on a Mach1 unguided.  


Re: Mach2 APCC/APPM model for multiple nights in a mobile setting

David Johnson
 

I often leave my equipment set up over multiple nights when the weather is favorable (as it is right now). I always do a quick polar alignment and redo mapping each night.  I don’t know if this is necessary, especially at shorter focal lengths, but I have seen issues, which I believe might be due to the tripod settling into the soil. It’s generally possible to finish both polar alignment and mapping before it’s dark enough to do serious imaging, so there’s little or no time lost. I understand that if the polar alignment is correct that I theoretically don’t need to remap, but polar alignment is never perfect, and mapping with APPM is quick and automated and accounts for PA errors. When I eventually get a permanent setup, I don’t think this will be necessary. 


Re: Mach2 APCC/APPM model for multiple nights in a mobile setting

Bill Long
 

Something is changing day over day that is enough to invalidate the mount model. You could try fixing the PA before each run and see if that has any effect. Maybe something is getting disturbed when you cover and uncover the gear? 


From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> on behalf of mindspringtsai@... <mindspringtsai@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:42 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io>
Subject: [ap-gto] Mach2 APCC/APPM model for multiple nights in a mobile setting
 
I'm seeking advice on a multiple night mobile workflow to reuse an APCC/APPM pointing/tracking model created on the first for subsequent nights. 

Here are my observations from the most recent new moon:
Night 1:  Created 50pt model. Successfully imaged unguided throughout the night on a two objects in different parts of the sky.  Powered down mount and covered it during the day.

Night 2:  Powered up mount, ran APPM verify with 30pts and found pretty large pointing deltas, greater than several arcmin.  A quick test exposure seemed to show a little bit of star trailing, but I didn't not spend time to quantify or debugging it.  Since the object I was shooting had a limited window, I just ran another 50pt model and successfully imaged throughout the night again.  Powered down mount and covered it during the day.

Night 3:  Ran 50pt model and successfully imaged throughout the night. 

Running a 50pt model every night isn't a deal breaker for me because it only takes about 20min, but I'm interested in the experience of other mobile imagers. 

Other details that may or may not be relevant:  OTA is OS RH200 and camera is ASI6200.  

Cheers,
Curtis


Mach2 APCC/APPM model for multiple nights in a mobile setting

mindspringtsai@...
 

I'm seeking advice on a multiple night mobile workflow to reuse an APCC/APPM pointing/tracking model created on the first for subsequent nights. 

Here are my observations from the most recent new moon:
Night 1:  Created 50pt model. Successfully imaged unguided throughout the night on a two objects in different parts of the sky.  Powered down mount and covered it during the day.

Night 2:  Powered up mount, ran APPM verify with 30pts and found pretty large pointing deltas, greater than several arcmin.  A quick test exposure seemed to show a little bit of star trailing, but I didn't not spend time to quantify or debugging it.  Since the object I was shooting had a limited window, I just ran another 50pt model and successfully imaged throughout the night again.  Powered down mount and covered it during the day.

Night 3:  Ran 50pt model and successfully imaged throughout the night. 

Running a 50pt model every night isn't a deal breaker for me because it only takes about 20min, but I'm interested in the experience of other mobile imagers. 

Other details that may or may not be relevant:  OTA is OS RH200 and camera is ASI6200.  

Cheers,
Curtis

7301 - 7320 of 86888