Re: [APML] Astronomical Image Enhancement Trial

[Juan Conejero <skycad@ctv.es>]

Dave,

Welcome to image processing software. Do you know the LIBTIFF library? It's 
the best tool out there for TIFF format handling and it's completely free. 
You can get it at:

http://www.libtiff.org/

Similarly, the best FITS software is the FITSIO library. You'll find it at 
NASA's HEASARC:

http://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/fitsio/fitsio.html

These libraries are in C, but I think it should be not too difficult to 
interface with them from VB.
Regards,
______________________________________
Juan Conejero, Pleiades Astrophoto
skycad@ctv.es
http://www.pleiades-astrophoto.com/en.html

At 12:11 05/06/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Bert, Robert, Chris,
>
>Thanks for your replies.
>
>I wrote the software using Visual Basic and the algorithms are my own.  At 
>the moment the human interface to my program is really poor.  When I 
>improve it a bit I'll post a version of the program that you can play 
>with.  Currently the program can only read .jpg and .bmp files, and can 
>only output .bmp.  I'm no software whiz, so it may stay this way.  Reading 
>.tif files looks like a real pain...  Bmp files are lossless and photoshop 
>handles them, so all is not lost.
>
>Right now I'm trying various methods to improve the look of 
>stars.  Suggestions for other image enhancement techniques are welcome.
>
>Bert:  The algorithms were written specifically for color image 
>enhancement, but work with monochrome images as well.  I'd love to try the 
>algorithms on one of your images.  I can handle anything up to a couple of 
>megabytes.  Send one along and I'll give it a try.  I've fooled around 
>quite a bit with Tony's recently posted horsehead CCD image.  It's a 
>wonderful image the way it is, of course, but the enhancements are interesting.
>
>Our cabin in the Mojave is coming along quite well.  We now have a flush 
>toilet.  What a luxury!
>
>Robert:  I was very gentle on Richard's image.  The user can "turn up" the 
>sharpening and noise reduction algorithms way beyond any sensible value 
>and easily make a big mess of an image.
>
>Chris:  The dark artifacts around the stars over the Lagoon were indeed 
>enhanced by the sharpening algorithm.  They were present in the original 
>image that I worked from.  On unprocessed images the algorithm does not 
>produce these artifacts.  The sharpening technique is based more on 
>deconvolution than USM, although it has elements of both (and some new stuff).
>
>Dave Rowe
>
>Bert wrote:
> > Subtle but very significant improvements! The detail in M8 and the star
> > definition are both considerably better. I don't know how much more
> > improvement you can produce, but it looks mighty good right now. Have you
> > tried any CCD images? I have tons of poor ones that could use considerable
> > improvement! Let me know if you would like some and what image size is best
> > for your modem speed. Or I can send a CD with lots on it.
> > PS: How's that Mojave observatory coming?
> > Bert
>
>Robert wrote:
> > I agree.  You gotta look, but there is enough difference between the two to
> > make it well worthwhile to have done the extra processing.
>
> > Are these programs you wrote or applications of existing programs?
>
>Chris wrote:
> > To me, it almost looks like a very mild USM was applied.  All of original
> > nebulosity seems to be there but the image looks like the contrast has been
> > boosted.  I also notice some slight dark artifacts around stars with the
> > Lagoon Nebula.  Maybe this was because you applied it to an existing 
> web res
> > JPG image, as you mentioned?
>
> > Interesting stuff!  I look forward to seeing more.


_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo