[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] A little M31 & M45
Juan, for sure at first blush it looks too smooth but when you go back and forth over and over you
begin to realize that the sharpness you think you are losing was not really there at all. Just the
noise is gone. I had to go back and forth about 10 times before I got comfortable with it - now I
would say it is not too smooth. At first I would have jumped to conclude that it WAS too smooth.
This is an interesting test!
Stuart
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Conejero" <pleiades2004@pleiades-astrophoto.com>
To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [APML] A little M31 & M45
> Hi Chris,
>
> > [...] how much smoothing is the limit or
> > considered acceptable in film shots?
>
> IMO the limit of noise reduction is always imposed by the necessary
> preservation of significant structures. When significant details start to
> fade out, then one is definitely going too far. Obviously, the main problem
> is being able to distinguish what is significant and what's not, and being
> able to make such decisions in a consistent way. This can be a matter of
> personal preferences, as usually happens in astrophotography. However I
> think there are reasonable limits, which one must discover with practice and
> by a critical perspective of one's own work. It is also very important to
> use the correct processing techniques, in order to avoid artifacts and
> uncontrolled destruction of image data.
>
> I agree there is a certain level of "comfort noise" that most people hope to
> find in astrophotos. There is a strong trend to identify smoothness (or
> absence of noise at high spatial frequencies) with lack of resolution, when
> actually this is not necessarily the case.
>
> Regarding Scott's M45, I don't think it's too smooth, but to make sure I
> would need to see larger versions of the image before and after noise
> reduction.
>
> Look at this example. This is a crop of a raw film image:
> http://pleiades-astrophoto.com/tmp/nr-tests/nr_test_1.jpg
>
> And this is the same crop processed with development versions of SGBNR and
> multiscale noise reduction (wavelets) algorithms:
> http://pleiades-astrophoto.com/tmp/nr-tests/nr_test_2.jpg
>
> I am very interested in knowing the opinions of the people here. Is the
> image above too smoothed?
>
> Regards,
>
> Juan
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Juan Conejero, Pleiades Astrophoto Team
> PixInsight Home Page: http://pleiades-astrophoto.com/pixinsight/
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Schur" <comets133@yahoo.com>
> To: "Discussion of Film Astrophotography" <astro-photo@seds.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [APML] A little M31 & M45
>
>
> > Scott, I like both images alot. I am intruiged by C.
> > Cooks comment on the smoothing. How much is too much?
> > I agree if the image looks like its made of plastic,
> > thats too far. In your case it does not, but lacks
> > any grain at all. Thats the way the true sky is! Of
> > course there is no "grain" in the real nebula. But
> > years of fast grainy films have hardened many of us to
> > expect SOME grain in every image, even if its not
> > really there in space. As I have found by similar
> > comments on my images, I can satisfy most people if I
> > leave a small but visible amount of noise in the
> > picture after the grain smoothing process. Can anyone
> > add to this, how much smoothing is the limit or
> > considered acceptable in film shots?
> >
> > Chris Schur (the other chris...)
> > --- Scott Hammonds <shammonds@creatorsview.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Here are two more shots from my trip to New Mexico
> >> in October, I'm almost
> >> through posting these, I promise.
> >> Both were taken with my 4" Tele Vue refractor using
> >> hypered RG200 select.
> >> Although not spectacular compared to some of the
> >> past posts here, they are
> >> probably my personal best on these targets. I used a
> >> mask blur technique
> >> from Jerry's book to help reduce the grain, which
> >> wasn't terrible with this
> >> film.
> >>
> >>
> > http://www.creatorsview.com/astrophoto/nms04/andromeda.html
> >>
> >>
> > http://www.creatorsview.com/astrophoto/nms04/pleiades.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Comments, criticism and observations welcome,
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Scott Hammonds
> >> www.creatorsview.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Astro-Photo mailing list
> Astro-Photo@seds.org
> http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo