Orion_Rockstar wrote:I do bump up the dark anomaly filter to about 5 pixels. An example can be seen on what what happens in the pics above in the leo galaxies. It goes from large blotches to a more uniform multi-colored pixel set.
Thank you for uploading. I have to admit, I'm not seeing anything problematic here....
Perhaps the problem lies in a misunderstanding what the Wipe module (and the in-built AutoDev) does and how the processing engine in StarTools works?
In general, you may be interested in
the tutorials and videos here. In particular,
you may find this older (but still relevant) video on an M42 dataset very similar to yours enlightening.
Wipe operates on the linear data. It uses an exaggerated AutoDev stretch of the linear data to help you visualise any remaining issues. In a way, it is meant to look "hideous", as it is used here as a diagnostics tool to show all warts in your data. After running Wipe, you will need to re-stretch your dataset. That is because the previous stretch is pretty much guaranteed to be no longer be valid/desirable, as gradients have been removed and now no longer take up precious dynamic range. Dynamic range can now be allocated much more effectively to show detail, instead of artifacts and gradients. As a matter of fact, as of version 1.5, you are
forced to re-stretch your image; when you close Wipe in 1.5+, it will revert back to the wiped, linear state, ready for re-stretch.
-
- StarTools_125.jpg (336.58 KiB) Viewed 6064 times
AutoDev serves two purposes; it serves as a diagnostics tool and it serves as a highly sophisticated global stretching tool. AutoDev is usually the first thing you'd do to inspect the data you're working with. It will bring out any issues that need your attention. Once you have addressed the issue that AutoDev brought out (or, at the very least are now aware of these issues), re-running AutoDev is usually the first thing you do after running Wipe.
-
- StarTools_126.jpg (186.98 KiB) Viewed 6064 times
AutoDev should already yield much better results now that you have fixed (or at least mitigated) the issues it brought to your attention first (for example, you may wish to seriously consider binning your datasets before proceeding!). If your dataset is exceptionally noisy, you may wish to make AutoDev 'blind' to fine noise grain, so that it no longer brings it out (use the 'Ignore Fine Detail <' parameter). As of 1.5+ AutoDev will re-use the Dark Anomaly setting for this value, so, chanches are you don't even have to change it.
One other important thing to do if your image contains one or multiple objects on an 'empty' background (your images do!) is to specify (click & drag) a Region of Interest for AutoDev to optimize for. This is exactly what it sounds like; a region that is a good sample of the interesting detail in your image. Without an RoI AutoDev will assume that everything in your image is equally as 'interesting' and should be brought out. However that is definitely not the case if you have lots of 'uninteresting' background in your image.
happy-kat wrote: I always do a manual dev as my next step and don't see what auto dev does.
Please note that a manual Develop is a fairly crude tool that was specifically designed to emulate photographic film. For example, it blows out (or 'enhances', depending on whether your like the effect!) stellar profiles in the exact same way film does, while dynamic range allocation is precisely as 'dumb' (or pretty!
) as photographic film.
AutoDev on the other hand will solve for a stretch that shows all detail in the RoI as well as possible and should/will yield tight stars.
With all the above in mind, it should be straightforward to quickly progress to results like these;
-
- orion(1).jpg (358.95 KiB) Viewed 6064 times
-
- Autosave001(5).jpg (119.5 KiB) Viewed 6064 times
(only Decon, and Color applied before switching Tracking off)
As a side note, try the latest DSS version that allows white-balancing to be turned off. You can then import the dataset using the second option (when you use 'open'). This should yield a small but useful signal boost and may also help a litle with color artifacts in the highlights. (note that this separates luminance and color and you will be processing the luminance, which is of course mono, until you hit the Color module).
You may also wish to change your stacking method for the bias/flats/darks from median to something else (e.g. 'average' of some other outlier rejection algorithm). For lower amounts of
light frames, median will yield good results, though if you shoot more you may also wish to try other outlier algorithms (they typically require more frames to be successful).
I hope this helps. Any further trouble, questions, do let us know!