[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APML] Redo- Sagittarius - M8 to M17
Hey Juan,
--- Juan Conejero <pleiades2004@pleiades-astrophoto.com> wrote:
> I have to disagree with that.
I was simply stating my observations. The first two links you provide
are examples of what I was talking about. These are very 'grainy'. And
the colors are not right.
What I'd like to find out is what it is that causes these results.
Of course, user inexperience can lead
> to
> incorrect images processed with PixInsight. However, the same is true
> of
> other software tools. You'll find thousands of images poorly
> processed in Photoshop.
Most of mine are examples of this, I'm sure.
> Let me put a few examples of images that have been entirely processed
> with
> PixInsight:
>
> Wide field Orion by Carlos Milovic, on Provia 400F:
> http://astrosurf.com/cmilovic/astro/granc/orion50/33.jpg
>
> Another deep Orion, also by Carlos Milovic:
> http://astrosurf.com/cmilovic/astro/granc/orionsd/33.jpg
>
> The Pipe Nebula by Vicent Peris, modified Canon 300D:
> http://pteam.pleiades-astrophoto.com/Vicent/pipa/pipa900.jpg
>
> The Milky Way by Carlos Sonnenstein:
> http://www.astrosurf.com/astro35mm/galeria/vl/vl.htm
>
> M101 DSS image, processed by Vicent Peris:
>
http://pleiades-astrophoto.com/pixinsight/DSS_Gallery/M101_vperis_1200.html
>
> This is a Jupiter image by Anthony Wesley, entirely processed with
> PixInsight LE's wavelets and color separation tools. See the final
> version
> at the bottom-left corner of this screenshot:
> http://pixinsight.com/examples/jupiter-awesley/screen_A.jpg
>
> Here you have a couple recent CCD images by Jack Harvey from the Star
> Shadows Remote Observatory. I especially like these two images. PI's
> histograms, curves and wavelets have been used to produce them:
>
> A portion of the Veil Nebula:
> http://www.starshadows.com/NGC6992RGJT.html
>
> The Crescent Nebula:
> http://www.starshadows.com/NGC6888RGJHJT.html
> I could put a lot more examples of excellent film, DSLR and CCD
> images; the
> above ones are just a few, especially demonstrative ones, I think. Do
> you
> think these images are way off, or fuzzy?
Not all of them. As I stated, most of the images posted in the last
several months do look funny. That statement means that most of the
images posted here, which had major processing in PI LE, have a funny.
I do not monitor every list there is simply to find evidence to back
me. I'd guess that means maybe a dozen or a little more than a dozen
images posted on APML recently, have looked strange to me.
What I want to know is if anyone else sees this, and can possibly
explain it. The 2 Orion shots are not soft, they are the opposite.
Maybe over-sharpened? I can not be the only one who notices. I'm
basically going on 'gut' reactions from someone whose seen thousands of
images posted over the years.
> It is true that most leading astrophotographers use Adobe Photoshop.
> However, it is also true, IMHO, that many experienced and leading
> astrophotographers show a lot of resistance to changes. We are trying
> to put
> the best of our creativity and knowledge, as well as lots of efforts,
> to
> bring out a powerful, rigorously implemented and versatile image
> processing
> environment. This is an effort originated form the inside of
> astrophotography, and honestly I think we are achieving at least some
> of our goals quite well.
I use your program and like it a lot, thanks. I can only do DBE at this
stage though.
Alan
SCT Astrophotography: http://www.pbase.com/avoetsch/astrophotography
FS-102 G-11/Gemini: http://www.pbase.com/avoetsch12952/tak_fs102
& http://www.pbase.com/avoetsch12952/fs102
& http://www.pbase.com/avoetsch12952/takpf
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Astro-Photo mailing list
Astro-Photo@seds.org
http://seds.org/mailman/listinfo/astro-photo