StarTools

Hello, on 25 January I went out and imaged. The fruit of my labor is linked below. The lights are 4x6minutes captured through my TEC 140 APO ED refractor with TEC field flattener. The scope is carried on a Celestron CGE Pro and guided by an Orion Awesome Autoguider packge mounted side by side. The images are recorded on a Canon 60Da with Astronomik CLS clip in filter. The stack has the 4 lights, 20 darks, and 20 bias frames. I didn't capture lights because wind gusts were moving the scope so much I didn't think I had any data to process. After review I found the four light frames that are acceptable, though not too good.
Here's a link to the stack; https://www.dropbox.com/s/4dei2tvcis3z9 ... 20Fits.fts
I stack in DSS. The RAW/FITS Digital Development Process Settings are;
Raw Bayer Matrix Transformation is set to AHD interpolation.
Fits Files settings are monochrome and 16 bit FITS Files are RAW created by a DSLR or color CCD camera." The camera selected is Canon 60D.
The Bayer Matrix Transformation is set to AHD.

This brings me to my first question. I know this is not the DSS forum, but any suggestions on those DSS settings to make the result better for StarTools are welcome.
Also, with those settings, on loading the image in StarTools, should I select Bayered or Not Bayered?

On to the Image.
This is the what I did to this poor data; https://www.dropbox.com/s/jvtk9rgqhg8j5 ... Tools.tiff
The image is M81 and M82, and I'm sure you know from the date than SN2014J is hiding in there. In processing I seem to have reversed time a bit because the SN is largely gone. I think I got rid of it somewhere in the process when I was making rugby balls into stars.
I also noted that in the initial AutoDev I could see much more information in M81 than you can see in my final image. I did not do a good job of teasing out those details.
So have at it with processing. Below my signature I'll post the log from my process so you can see where I went awry. Any observations about the capture are welcome, but I'm really seeking processing feedback here. And Ivo, use any monitor you want to, create the best image that you can with this data.
Thank you all in advance for your help
Mike

StarTools 1.3.5.279
Sat Feb 01 07:29:15 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------
File loaded [C:\Users\Michael\Desktop\Projects\2014_01_25 Bodes\DSS Out\V8\2014_01_25 Bodes V8.fts].
---
--- Auto Develop
Parameter [Ignore Fine Detail <] set to [Off]
Parameter [Outside ROI Influence] set to [15 %]
--- Crop
Parameter [X1] set to [20 pixels]
Parameter [Y1] set to [26 pixels]
Parameter [X2] set to [5134 pixels (-68)]
Parameter [Y2] set to [3374 pixels (-91)]
--- Wipe
Parameter [Mode] set to [Correct Color & Brightness]
Parameter [UNKNOWN] set to [No]
Parameter [Precision] set to [256 x 256 pixels]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [1 pixels]
Parameter [Drop Off Point] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Corner Aggressiveness] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Aggressiveness] set to [75 %]
Undo.
--- Wipe
Parameter [Mode] set to [Correct Color Only]
Parameter [UNKNOWN] set to [No]
Parameter [Precision] set to [128 x 128 pixels]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [1 pixels]
Parameter [Drop Off Point] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Corner Aggressiveness] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Aggressiveness] set to [0 %]
--- Develop
Parameter [White Calibration] set to [Use Stars]
Parameter [Gamma] set to [1.00]
Parameter [Skyglow] set to [0 %]
Parameter [Digital Development] set to [71.30 %]
Parameter [Blue Luminance Contrib.] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Green Luminance Contrib.] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Red Luminance Contrib.] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Headroom] set to [5 %]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [Off]
--- Contrast
Parameter [Expose Dark Areas] set to [No]
Parameter [Compensate Gamma] set to [No]
Parameter [Precision] set to [256 x 256 pixels]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [1 pixels]
Parameter [Aggressiveness] set to [75 %]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Headroom] set to [15 %]
--- Contrast
Parameter [Expose Dark Areas] set to [No]
Parameter [Compensate Gamma] set to [No]
Parameter [Precision] set to [256 x 256 pixels]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [1 pixels]
Parameter [Aggressiveness] set to [75 %]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Headroom] set to [15 %]
--- HDR
Parameter [Small Detail Precision] set to [Max]
Parameter [Channels] set to [Brightness & Color]
Parameter [Algorithm] set to [Optimize Soft]
Parameter [Dark/Bright Response] set to [Full]
Parameter [Detail Size Range] set to [21 pixels]
Parameter [Noise Suppression] set to [13 %]
--- Wavelet Sharpen
Parameter [Intelligent Enhance] set to [Yes]
Parameter [Scale 1] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Scale 2] set to [78 %]
Parameter [Scale 3] set to [61 %]
Parameter [Scale 4] set to [46 %]
Parameter [Scale 5] set to [43 %]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [10.3 pixels]
Parameter [Amount] set to [182 %]
Parameter [Small Detail Bias] set to [75 %]
--- Life
Parameter [Detail Preservation] set to [Linear Brightness Mask]
Parameter [Compositing Algorithm] set to [Multiply, Gamma Correct]
Parameter [Inherit Brightness, Color] set to [Off]
Parameter [Output Glow Only] set to [No]
Parameter [Airy Disk Sampling] set to [128 x 128 pixels]
Parameter [Airy Disk Radius] set to [9 pixels]
Parameter [Glow Threshold] set to [4 %]
Parameter [Detail Preservation Radius] set to [20.0 pixels]
Parameter [Saturation] set to [50 %]
Parameter [Strength] set to [50 %]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [1.0 pixels]
--- Wavelet De-Noise
Parameter [Scale 1] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 2] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 3] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 4] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 5] set to [0 %]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [1.0 pixels]
Parameter [Scale Correlation] set to [3]
Parameter [Color Detail Loss] set to [12 %]
Parameter [Brightness Detail Loss] set to [12 %]
Parameter [Redistribution Kernel] set to [4.5 pixels]
Parameter [Read Noise Compensation] set to [2.49 %]
Parameter [Smoothness] set to [75 %]
--- Repair
Parameter [Radial Samples] set to [32]
Parameter [Sub Sampling] set to [4x]
Parameter [Algorithm] set to [Redistribute, Core Is Brightest Pixel]
Parameter [Grow Mask] set to [0 pixels]
--- Color
Parameter [Cap Green] set to [No]
Parameter [Bias Slider Mode] set to [Sliders Reduce Color Bias]
Parameter [Style] set to [Scientific (Color Constancy)]
Parameter [LRGB Method Emulation] set to [Straight CIELab Luminance Retention]
Parameter [Dark Saturation] set to [Full]
Parameter [Bright Saturation] set to [Full]
Parameter [Saturation Amount] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Blue Bias Reduce] set to [1.00]
Parameter [Green Bias Reduce] set to [1.03]
Parameter [Red Bias Reduce] set to [1.07]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [1.0 pixels]
File saved [C:\Users\Michael\Desktop\Projects\2014_01_25 Bodes\ST Out\2014_01_25 Bodes V8 ST V1.tiff].

Mike,

I tried your data in Star Tools and PixInsight. I usually do a lot better in Star Tools, but in this case, PI did a better job of taming the noise.

There's definitely some detail in the image. But I think with just four subs, it's tough to dig it out. Here's the Star Tools version with the log file at the bottom.
Here's the PI version. I followed a simple workflow detailed at http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixinsig ... ewbie.html
As for the SN, I have seen comments at CN that it appears much brighter in individual subs than in the processed final image. That was my experience also.

-----------------------------------------------------------
StarTools 1.3.5.270
-----------------------------------------------------------
File loaded [C:\Users\Gary\Downloads\2014_01_25 Bodes DSS Fits.fts].
---
--- Bin
Parameter [Scale] set to [(scale/noise reduction 50.00%)/(400.00%)/(+2.00 bits)]
--- Auto Develop
Parameter [Ignore Fine Detail <] set to [Off]
Parameter [Outside ROI Influence] set to [15 %]
--- Crop
Parameter [X1] set to [81 pixels]
Parameter [Y1] set to [76 pixels]
Parameter [X2] set to [2503 pixels (-98)]
Parameter [Y2] set to [1627 pixels (-105)]
--- Wipe
Parameter [Mode] set to [Correct Color & Brightness]
Parameter [UNKNOWN] set to [No]
Parameter [Precision] set to [256 x 256 pixels]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [1 pixels]
Parameter [Drop Off Point] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Corner Aggressiveness] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Aggressiveness] set to [75 %]
--- Develop
Parameter [White Calibration] set to [Use Stars]
Parameter [Gamma] set to [1.00]
Parameter [Skyglow] set to [0 %]
Parameter [Digital Development] set to [88.18 %]
Parameter [Blue Luminance Contrib.] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Green Luminance Contrib.] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Red Luminance Contrib.] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Headroom] set to [5 %]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [1.7 pixels]
--- Wipe
Parameter [Mode] set to [Correct Color Only]
Parameter [UNKNOWN] set to [No]
Parameter [Precision] set to [128 x 128 pixels]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [1 pixels]
Parameter [Drop Off Point] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Corner Aggressiveness] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Aggressiveness] set to [0 %]
--- Deconvolution
Parameter [Image Type] set to [Deep Space]
Parameter [Mask Behavior] set to [De-ring Mask Gaps, Hide Result]
Parameter [Radius] set to [1.5 pixels]
Parameter [Iterations] set to [6]
Parameter [Regularization] set to [1.00 (optimal noise and detail)]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [8.0 pixels]
--- Wavelet Sharpen
Parameter [Intelligent Enhance] set to [Yes]
Parameter [Scale 1] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Scale 2] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Scale 3] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Scale 4] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Scale 5] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [8.0 pixels]
Parameter [Amount] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Small Detail Bias] set to [75 %]
Undo.
--- HDR
Parameter [Small Detail Precision] set to [Max]
Parameter [Channels] set to [Brightness Only]
Parameter [Algorithm] set to [Reveal DSO Core]
Parameter [Dark/Bright Response] set to [1.00]
Parameter [Detail Size Range] set to [51 pixels]
Parameter [Noise Suppression] set to [Off]
--- Life
Parameter [Detail Preservation] set to [Linear Brightness Mask]
Parameter [Compositing Algorithm] set to [Multiply, Gamma Correct]
Parameter [Inherit Brightness, Color] set to [Off]
Parameter [Output Glow Only] set to [No]
Parameter [Airy Disk Sampling] set to [128 x 128 pixels]
Parameter [Airy Disk Radius] set to [8 pixels]
Parameter [Glow Threshold] set to [0 %]
Parameter [Detail Preservation Radius] set to [20.0 pixels]
Parameter [Saturation] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Strength] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [1.0 pixels]
--- Color
Parameter [Cap Green] set to [To Yellow]
Parameter [Bias Slider Mode] set to [Sliders Reduce Color Bias]
Parameter [Style] set to [Scientific (Color Constancy)]
Parameter [LRGB Method Emulation] set to [Straight CIELab Luminance Retention]
Parameter [Dark Saturation] set to [2.00]
Parameter [Bright Saturation] set to [Full]
Parameter [Saturation Amount] set to [200 %]
Parameter [Blue Bias Reduce] set to [1.76]
Parameter [Green Bias Reduce] set to [1.37]
Parameter [Red Bias Reduce] set to [3.26]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [1.0 pixels]
--- Wavelet De-Noise
Parameter [Scale 1] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 2] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 3] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 4] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 5] set to [0 %]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [1.0 pixels]
Parameter [Scale Correlation] set to [3]
Parameter [Color Detail Loss] set to [12 %]
Parameter [Brightness Detail Loss] set to [12 %]
Parameter [Redistribution Kernel] set to [4.5 pixels]
Parameter [Read Noise Compensation] set to [1.00 %]
Parameter [Smoothness] set to [75 %]
File saved [C:\Users\Gary\Downloads\2014_01_25 Bodes DSS Fits.tiff].

Wow nice result! Thanks for processing the data. I knew there was more detail in M81. I see you Binned, as recommended in the tutorials. You also used Decon which I have yet to get figured out. Looks like I need to watch more tutorials. I'll process using your settings so I can see the changes happen. Thanks again.
Mike

ML7087373 wrote:Wow nice result! Thanks for processing the data. I knew there was more detail in M81. I see you Binned, as recommended in the tutorials. You also used Decon which I have yet to get figured out. Looks like I need to watch more tutorials. I'll process using your settings so I can see the changes happen. Thanks again.
Mike

I binned to make the file size manageable. I thought my i7 was fast! Unless you know you aren't oversampling then binning is worth the loss of detail in exchange for some noise reduction.

ML7087373 wrote:I know this is not the DSS forum, but any suggestions on those DSS settings to make the result better for StarTools are welcome.
Also, with those settings, on loading the image in StarTools, should I select Bayered or Not Bayered?

Don't use AHD but something that's not as 'sophisticated'. Use bilinear interpolation or the like. Better still, don't interpolate at all and create superpixels. The reason for this is that we're dealing with very noisy data in AP and AHD tries to find meanig in the noise. Since there is none, AHD tends to generate artifacts in its attempts to 'interpret' the noise. These artifacts are hard to get rid of and make noise actually appear worse. This is especially true when there are only a few frames. The biggest problem is that StarTools too will recognise the erroneous 'reconstructions' by AHD as detail (and not noise) an will try to preserve these.

Another thing you could/should try is stack using average, instead of median (or any other statistical rejection algorithm). With only few noisy samples to choose from (4 in this case), median stacking will yield noisy and blotchy results.

Binning the data will help as well.


If you are certain the image has not been color balance and has indeed been debayered (which for your DSLR is indeed the case), then choose the 'Linear, was Bayered, is not whitebalanced' option. This will give you a small boost in noise reduction, owing to the fact that a bayer filter makes the CCD collect twice as many green pixels as red and blue pixels. StarTools can therefore assume that the green channel has 2x better fidelity when considering its contribution to the luminance data. However, if you have white balanced the data before handing it to StarTools, the channels will have been multiplied with some (to StarTools) unknown multiplier and thus this 2:1 ratio is no longer valid.

It appears to me that most DSS data is color balanced however (even though the user can tell DSS to expressly NOT color balance the data - it just gets ignored). This is a pity.

On to the Image. Any observations about the capture are welcome, but I'm really seeking processing feedback here. And Ivo, use any monitor you want to, create the best image that you can with this data.

Given the data, you've done quite well! And the workflow makes a lot of sense. I got some suggestions though.

--- Auto Develop
Parameter [Ignore Fine Detail <] set to [Off]
Parameter [Outside ROI Influence] set to [15 %]

Here you should observe a number of things. The data is noisy and shows clear blotches (not good) instead of random noise. Random noise is good, any sort of noise that is clustered or displays a pattern is bad - StarTools will home in on any patterns it can find behind random noise and either bring them out or, at the very least, leave them in. It doesn't just do this in the denoising module, it does this throughout the application.
AutoDev is the first place you can see it do that - instead of creating a histogram stretching curve that brings out just the galaxies and their detail, it has actually allocated quite a bit of dynamic range to the blotches, because it thinks it is detail. However, let's ignore all that for now. Other things we can see is that the data is way oversampled, there are stacking artifacts and there is a dust donut above M81.

First thing I would do is Bin the data to something smaller (I chose 35%), trading (useless) resolution for some noise reduction. As the noise isn't random, the visible reduction in noise is not as good as would usually be the case, but everything helps.

--- Crop
Parameter [X1] set to [20 pixels]
Parameter [Y1] set to [26 pixels]
Parameter [X2] set to [5134 pixels (-68)]
Parameter [Y2] set to [3374 pixels (-91)]

You crop the stacking artifacts away. Good.

--- Wipe
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [1 pixels]

With very noisy data and especially in the case of blotches, bump up the Dark Anomaly Filter (let's say 10 pixels), so that dark blotches below that size don't get mistaken for the 'real' interstellar background (otherwise Wipe will assume that the dark blotch is the real interstellar background 'peeking through').
Also lassoo out the dust donut above M81. While we're at it, let's also Lassoo out M81 and M82 so that Wipe won't sample them for background (not always necessary, unless Aggressiveness is high, but it's good practice).
Setting Temporary AutoDev to 'yes' should now show the galaxies well isolated from the background. The background is still blotchy, but it's looking better.
It's now time for the real global stretch off of which we will base all our other detail enhancements.

--- Develop
Parameter [Digital Development] set to [71.30 %]

I see you use a manual Develop. That's a valid choice. I myself prefer AutoDev as it is typically better at bringing out detail and keeping stars under control.
I use AutoDev with a Region Of Interest over M81. I also tell it to ignore fine detail below 5 pixels (blothches) and to optimise only a little bit for anything outside the ROI (5%).

Before doing anything else, I will try my luck at a little bit of deconvolution. Having binned the data, we might just be able to scrape up enough signal to dig out a little bit more detail from M82.
I run 'AutoMask' (normally Decon would offer, but it is assuming we want to use our old mask that we used for Wipe - which we don't of course).
AutoMask usually does a pretty good job, but this time it has actually masked out M82's core. So I manually select the core in the mask editor.
The default settings in Decon seem to work well and do indeed resolve some fine detail in M82's core.

Having done this, anything goes, Contrast, HDR, Wavelet, Sharpen they are all valid choices.

I used the Reveal preset in the HDR module (bit set Detail Size Range to 44 pixels, so it kicks in a bit earlier, i.e. is more aggressive).
I also used Wavelet Sharpening with Intelligent Enhance off, and setting small detail bias to 95%;

--- Life

I see you used the Isolate preset in the Life module, which is an excellent choice - it keeps the large scale galaxies, but pushes back the small scale noise.
Don't forget to reset the mask (Clear, Invert).

--- Wavelet De-Noise

You switch off Tracking here, but you haven't applied any Color correction yet. Do that first (as to why, see this post).
As soon as you launch the Color module, it will try to automatically suggest a correct color balance. It's often close, but may need some help now and then. The large correction for Red it comes up with, combined with erroneous color in the star cores betrays that this data has been color balanced before.
What you're looking for is a good even distribution of star temperatures (red->orange->yellow->white->blue).
Most galaxies like M81 have older stars in their core (more yellow), while having younger stars towards the outer rim (blue).

I chose the following values;
Red Bias Reduce 2.54
Green Bias Reduce 1.03
Blue Bias Reduce 1.05

With these values we get nice star color, we can see the beautiful bursts in M82, and we can even see hints of HII knots (purple) in M81 (whether they will survive noise reduction is another story).

I also chose Saturation 280%, Bright Saturation response 4.00 (so the bright star cores are colorless which fixes the problem that pre-color balancing introduced) and set Dark Saturation to 4.10 (bringing more color into the darker regions).

And now for the tricky bit - final noise reduction. Less bltochiness would have really helped for reasons stated above, but we can still get some reasonable results.

I chose the following values;

Parameter [Scale 5] set to [48 %]
Parameter [Scale Correlation] set to [2]
Parameter [Color Detail Loss] set to [12 %]
Parameter [Brightness Detail Loss] set to [12 %]
Parameter [Read Noise Compensation] set to [25.88 %]

It's largely a matter of taste. The Scale Correlation helps StarTools ignore the blotchiness a bit better, telling it that the apparent detail that it is seeing (the blotch) should count less towards its decision to leave in or remove smaller detail.

In the end then, this is what I ended up with;
Hope this helps!

gminder wrote:Mike,

I tried your data in Star Tools and PixInsight. I usually do a lot better in Star Tools, but in this case, PI did a better job of taming the noise.

There's definitely some detail in the image. But I think with just four subs, it's tough to dig it out. Here's the Star Tools version with the log file at the bottom.

Great stuff Gary!
Yes, I prefer your PI version as well. Hopefully, the post above this one explains why StarTools has some difficulty with the data as-is (and how to work around it).

Hope this helps![/quote]

Thanks Ivo, that absolutely helps! Now that's what I call a tutorial. Your processing gives me a boost in confidence. With more data and more time working with StarTools I'll be able to produce images that, if I'm not careful, will end up on department store telescope boxes.
I'm going to restack the data with different settings and try your process. Thanks for all your help.
Mike

ML7087373 wrote: if I'm not careful, will end up on department store telescope boxes.

Please don't grace their boxes with your awesome images - those shoddy department store scopes are evil! They've ruined the enthusiasm of many a budding astronomer.

Just wanted to say thanks for the thread above, and for the tutorial Ivo - very helpful for improving my understanding of what to try - and what to avoid!