Somethings off here... really struggled to balance the colors after adding Ha and Lum data...
I would appreciate any and all criticism
I dont think its a BAD image... just somethings off...
https://www.astrobin.com/5l783v/ |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
I completed this same object recently (https://astrob.in/5olbsv/0/) but in narrowband. Looking at your image in broadband, I agree it is not bad, color is good with tight, round stars. I think what is "off" to me is simply the detail is missing, especially given the 30 hrs of data. However, you did not state your Bortle scale in which this image was taken, which could account for part of the lack of depth in the details. Besides that, I think you might be able to stretch the channels further to pull more details out of the data. It just looks to me that it is there, but you need to reveal it further. Since you are using PI, you might want to try GHS, assuming you did not use this stretching tool, and see if that helps reveal more information.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Somethings off here... really struggled to balance the colors after adding Ha and Lum data...
I would appreciate any and all criticism
I dont think its a BAD image... just somethings off...
https://www.astrobin.com/5l783v/
Hello there. You surely got good quality data. For what I see, you have more than 20 hours of Ha and significantly less in other channels. I understand that you planned to get the color in RGB and use the Ha as the luminance but I am not sure how you managed to combine the L subs with UVIR filter. Did you average Ha and UVIR? If you use the Ha as luminance, and RGB for coloring the image, it should be fine. Yet, it seems to me that somehow the overwhelmingly long relative integration time in Ha impedes getting anything different from red. Did you mix the Ha with the RGB palette? If so, just use the Ha for luminance. Cheers
Guy
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Somethings off here... really struggled to balance the colors after adding Ha and Lum data...
How do the Ha and Lum look like individually? It looks like there is a difference in signal strength between the two. What are mean ADU values of each? If you are using Pixinsight, perhaps you can try to apply LinearFit from one to the other.
What are you trying to achieve by adding luminance to an Ha-only image (assuming RGB are for the stars)? Probably anything you would like to do to process your luminance, you can also do to Ha on its own.
With all the effort of selecting just 3.5nm of Ha bandwidth out of the sky, would a lot of that not be watered down by adding a broadband luminance? Unless the luminance shows other details of course...
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Guy:
Somethings off here... really struggled to balance the colors after adding Ha and Lum data...
I would appreciate any and all criticism
I dont think its a BAD image... just somethings off...
https://www.astrobin.com/5l783v/
Hello there. You surely got good quality data. For what I see, you have more than 20 hours of Ha and significantly less in other channels. I understand that you planned to get the color in RGB and use the Ha as the luminance but I am not sure how you managed to combine the L subs with UVIR filter. Did you average Ha and UVIR? If you use the Ha as luminance, and RGB for coloring the image, it should be fine. Yet, it seems to me that somehow the overwhelmingly long relative integration time in Ha impedes getting anything different from red. Did you mix the Ha with the RGB palette? If so, just use the Ha for luminance. Cheers
Guy
I used the UV/IR and Ha together as the lum with RGB data. This flushes out the color. Unfortunately it isnt "best" to just use ha as lum bc of this, but im not sure what else to do
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bruce Donzanti:
I completed this same object recently (https://astrob.in/5olbsv/0/) but in narrowband. Looking at your image in broadband, I agree it is not bad, color is good with tight, round stars. I think what is "off" to me is simply the detail is missing, especially given the 30 hrs of data. However, you did not state your Bortle scale in which this image was taken, which could account for part of the lack of depth in the details. Besides that, I think you might be able to stretch the channels further to pull more details out of the data. It just looks to me that it is there, but you need to reveal it further. Since you are using PI, you might want to try GHS, assuming you did not use this stretching tool, and see if that helps reveal more information.
*never tried GHS... def going to look into that. Its a bortle 5/6. I agree on ur point about the detail... seeing conditions have also been subpar. Average night where I live is "below average seeing"
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Willem Jan Drijfhout:
Somethings off here... really struggled to balance the colors after adding Ha and Lum data...
How do the Ha and Lum look like individually? It looks like there is a difference in signal strength between the two. What are mean ADU values of each? If you are using Pixinsight, perhaps you can try to apply LinearFit from one to the other.
What are you trying to achieve by adding luminance to an Ha-only image (assuming RGB are for the stars)? Probably anything you would like to do to process your luminance, you can also do to Ha on its own.
With all the effort of selecting just 3.5nm of Ha bandwidth out of the sky, would a lot of that not be watered down by adding a broadband luminance? Unless the luminance shows other details of course...
Theres some dark nebulae around this target that doesnt show up in the Ha data. Or at least it seems that way to me
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Willem Jan Drijfhout:
Somethings off here... really struggled to balance the colors after adding Ha and Lum data...
How do the Ha and Lum look like individually? It looks like there is a difference in signal strength between the two. What are mean ADU values of each? If you are using Pixinsight, perhaps you can try to apply LinearFit from one to the other.
What are you trying to achieve by adding luminance to an Ha-only image (assuming RGB are for the stars)? Probably anything you would like to do to process your luminance, you can also do to Ha on its own.
With all the effort of selecting just 3.5nm of Ha bandwidth out of the sky, would a lot of that not be watered down by adding a broadband luminance? Unless the luminance shows other details of course...
Theres some dark nebulae around this target that doesnt show up in the Ha data. Or at least it seems that way to me
Any option to make a mask from your Ha, and apply this when you add the Lum? Then the lum may only add the darker nebulae without blowing out the Ha signal?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
1.20
12.64
1.91
4.29
