(Embedded image moved to file: pic00123.gif)
Tony,
Does this change your mind about using 3x3 or 2x2 binned exposures for RGB?
Does it make you think that longer exposures than are usual for those
channels are in order?
Dave
Colt Bednorz
<colt@airmail.ne To: astro-photo@seds.org
t> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: [APML] more LRGB madness
owner-astro-phot
o@seds.org
05/03/2002 12:50
PM
Please respond
to astro-photo
Tony,
Keep up the good work and maybe some sort of new
breakthrough will develop. I've always maintained that
the rgb portion of the lrgb method was more important
than it was usually treated. I've just had neither the time nor
the conditions to do much about it.
This also reminds of the article someone posted about luminosity.
Colt Bednorz
Tony Hallas wrote:
Hello, More experiments... more madness... try this: Take any
regular RGB color shot... make it something that has a fair amount of
detail and range in it... look at the histogram. If it is typical,
the histogram will go across a fair amount of the graph. Now
either convert it to grayscale or go to saturation and delete all the
color information out of it... now look at the histogram... it
SHRANK! What does this mean for a good LRGB? It probably means
that if anything, the RGB information has to be MORE than the L
component for a good result... that is, the L histogram has to fit
INSIDE the RGB histogram by about 20%. THIS is why the RGB alone that
I printed came out so nice, and why the LRGB with more L than RGB was
such a disaster. Am I obsessed? Probably.... sorry....
Tony
