Date   

Re: M27 OSC and Mono combined

Robert Chozick <rchozick@...>
 

I would be glad to look at it. 

Robert 


On Jul 28, 2021, at 3:02 PM, Alex <alex@...> wrote:

Thanks for the links, very helpful and nice images. Also, thanks for the info on the camera sensors.
The difference between 14 and 16 bit is 16384 to 65536. Therefore, the 2600 does have an advantage over the 2400. Not sure how much difference this factor of 4 would make in an actual image but it would be fun to compare. Here is an image from the ZWO website that highlights the difference in smoothness and dynamic range of the two options:

<bit_comparison copy.jpg>


Last night I took some stacks of M27 with the longest exposure being 600s. Only had a second to glance at the results but will be working on the images tonight. Nice to have your image as a reference. I did notice some color difference in the center of the nebula with what seemed to be some gold tones but overall similar to your image in the above link. Once I get done processing the image (After several nights) I will send you a link to see what you think?

Alex


Re: Imaging in the Wind

Don Anderson
 

Very slick John and nice pic! Love my AP900 and AP portable pier.

Don Anderson


On Wednesday, July 28, 2021, 08:50:05 a.m. MDT, John Love <wd5ikx@...> wrote:


I have found my SkyBox to be a real "game changer" since I am often imaging at windy star parties after everyone else has given up and gone to bed.  Screen tarps would reduce wind loading on the structure but the frame is quite rigid when the tarps are installed and the tied downs keep the structure anchored to the ground.  I prefer the regular tarps to block stray light as well as wind.  During a recent trip to my dark site my 6x10x6H SkyBox withstood a 53 mph wind gust and sustained winds of about 45 mph.   The next night I took this image of NGC5033 with 25 mph wind with a 10" RC @ 2000mm on my AP900. 


Tutorials or manuals for pointing model?

Tom Blahovici
 

Hi
Are there any good tutorials for the pointing model software? What about manuals?
Thanks


Re: M27 OSC and Mono combined

Alex
 

Thanks for the links, very helpful and nice images. Also, thanks for the info on the camera sensors.
The difference between 14 and 16 bit is 16384 to 65536. Therefore, the 2600 does have an advantage over the 2400. Not sure how much difference this factor of 4 would make in an actual image but it would be fun to compare. Here is an image from the ZWO website that highlights the difference in smoothness and dynamic range of the two options:



Last night I took some stacks of M27 with the longest exposure being 600s. Only had a second to glance at the results but will be working on the images tonight. Nice to have your image as a reference. I did notice some color difference in the center of the nebula with what seemed to be some gold tones but overall similar to your image in the above link. Once I get done processing the image (After several nights) I will send you a link to see what you think?

Alex


Mgbox placement?

Tom Blahovici
 

Hi,
Where is the best location for an mgbox when used with an AP mount? On the scope? What if you are in an observatory? Won't the temperature and humidity be different?
Thanks, Tom


Re: Imaging in the Wind

jimwc@...
 

Google swap meet tent supply's

Jim

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io On Behalf Of W Hilmo
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 09:42 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Imaging in the Wind

 

So does anyone have a parts list and plan so that I can get a head start on building one of these?

 

I tried to source parts on Amazon, but finding the metal tubing and fittings has been a challenge.  The motorhome is going to be on the road for most of the time between now and mid-September, so I can’t continue to use it as a wind break.

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of John Love
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 7:50 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Imaging in the Wind

 

I have found my SkyBox to be a real "game changer" since I am often imaging at windy star parties after everyone else has given up and gone to bed.  Screen tarps would reduce wind loading on the structure but the frame is quite rigid when the tarps are installed and the tied downs keep the structure anchored to the ground.  I prefer the regular tarps to block stray light as well as wind.  During a recent trip to my dark site my 6x10x6H SkyBox withstood a 53 mph wind gust and sustained winds of about 45 mph.   The next night I took this image of NGC5033 with 25 mph wind with a 10" RC @ 2000mm on my AP900. 

Attachments:


Re: Imaging in the Wind

W Hilmo
 

So does anyone have a parts list and plan so that I can get a head start on building one of these?

 

I tried to source parts on Amazon, but finding the metal tubing and fittings has been a challenge.  The motorhome is going to be on the road for most of the time between now and mid-September, so I can’t continue to use it as a wind break.

 

From: main@ap-gto.groups.io <main@ap-gto.groups.io> On Behalf Of John Love
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 7:50 AM
To: main@ap-gto.groups.io
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] Imaging in the Wind

 

I have found my SkyBox to be a real "game changer" since I am often imaging at windy star parties after everyone else has given up and gone to bed.  Screen tarps would reduce wind loading on the structure but the frame is quite rigid when the tarps are installed and the tied downs keep the structure anchored to the ground.  I prefer the regular tarps to block stray light as well as wind.  During a recent trip to my dark site my 6x10x6H SkyBox withstood a 53 mph wind gust and sustained winds of about 45 mph.   The next night I took this image of NGC5033 with 25 mph wind with a 10" RC @ 2000mm on my AP900. 

Attachments:


Re: Imaging in the Wind

John Love
 
Edited

I have found my SkyBox to be a real "game changer" since I built the first one in 2008.  I am often imaging at windy star parties after everyone else has given up and gone to bed.  Screen tarps would reduce wind loading on the structure but the frame is quite rigid when the tarps are installed and the tied downs keep the structure anchored to the ground.  I prefer the regular tarps to block stray light as well as wind.  During a recent trip to my dark site my 6x10x6H SkyBox withstood a 53 mph wind gust and sustained winds of about 45 mph.   The next night I took this image of NGC5033 with 25 mph wind with a 10" RC @ 2000mm / ASI-533MCp on my AP900.


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@elemental.org> 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@gmail.com> 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=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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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=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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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=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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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=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@gmail.com> 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

4621 - 4640 of 84216