StarTools

Hi everyone
Slowly getting there with the AutoDev and Develop modules. Still not getting the detail in AutoDev I get with Develop only. Again, the detail is there immediately in Develop which I then fail to dig out after two AutoDevs. In fact the two stretch modules create very different end products. I think the next thing will be to learn the Contrast, HDR, Sharp and Decon in more detail.

https://linuxcostablanca.blogspot.com/2 ... -saga.html

Thanks for looking and of course, any suggestions most gratefully received.
Clear skies,
Steve

**EDIT: here are the two linear images:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1IXgiS ... u9nUN-PRP-
Do feel free to criticize my acquisition and calibration;)

...and here are the two resultant images with Dev and AutoDev respectively:

Thank you for uploading.
I have to admit, I'm having trouble replicating the problem you are experiencing with AutoDev.
In all cases, AutoDev yields vastly more observable detail across the entire dynamic range than using the Develop module. In particular, in this dataset, the shadows reveal much of the faint dust of the greater complex, and the highlights are much better controlled.
It is, of course, key to bring out the detail in the midtones to taste.

For example, below is the 240s dataset processed with mostly default settings; Log;
--- Bin
Parameter [Scale] set to [(scale/noise reduction 62.92%)/(252.59%)/(+1.34 bits)]
Image size is 1600 x 1052
-- Wipe
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [6 pixels]
--- Auto Develop
Parameter [Ignore Fine Detail <] set to [2.8 pixels]
--- Contrast
Default
--- HDR
Default (Auto Generate Mask)
Parameter [Dark/Bright Response] set to [2.00]
--- Deconvolution
Default
--- Color
Legacy preset
--- Wavelet De-Noise ('Grain Removal')
Default

Does that help?

Hi Ivo and thanks so much for your time.
I'm still not sure!
Have a look at my Dev and your AutoDev: Could it be there's more detail in your version, just that you did the basics? There are other processing steps that would bring more detail?

It still leaves me wanting AutoDev's stars with dev's detail...
Cheers,

Hmmm.... It's sounds as if you are equating "brighter" with "more detail"? They are not the same thing! Detail exists by the grace of local brightness differences. It doesn't matter where those differences sit in the dynamic range, as long as they are of equal magnitude (compensated for non-linearly of course) when compared to another image; no matter darker or brighter, our eyes should see pick up on the same detail if accentuated the same. E.g. it doesn't matter whether you are viewing a (non-linearly stretched) gray pixel on a black background or a white pixel on a (non-linearly stretched) gray background - they should be equally as easy (or hard) to see.

Perhaps your screen is not entirely calibrated correctly to show the full dynamic range? Is this image showing all brightness levels in equal increments as expected?

E.g. do you see the same increment for 90% to 100% as you see from 80% to 90%, and do you see a difference between 1% and 2%?

Parts of the image for your attention are indicated below. I have three screens here (all intentionally calibrated subtly differently) and can very clearly see more large scale detail (e.g. contours of nebulosity and structures) on two of them in the AutoDev version in the shadows, highlights and midtones. The one I don't see much difference in the shadows is - intentionally - calibrated poorly to mimic cheap laptop screens and help me see how algorithms perform in the face of poor screen calibration (e.g. 1% and 2% show no difference in the image above on that screen), but even then, detail in the highlights is still easier to make out on that screen.
All that said, if you feel local detail needs a boost according to your personal tastes and preferences in the AutoDev version, you can of course, push the smaller scale detail by deviating from the defaults (e.g. in Contrast, HDR, Sharp, etc.)

Hi

It's sounds as if you are equating "brighter" with "more detail"?

Yes, I think I am.

Is this image showing all brightness levels in equal increments as expected?

Yes. I have a decent sized desktop and the 1% to 2% and 80% to 90% both show distinctly.

Question: Without losing detail, can I enhance it in the AutoDev version so that it stands out more? I accept your explanation of the subtle detail in the AutoDev version. It's just that it seems subdued. What would be your next step to bring it forward?

Thanks again for your time.
I'm slowly getting there.

alacant wrote:Hi
Yes. I have a decent sized desktop and the 1% to 2% and 80% to 90% both show distinctly.

Excellent - always good to know we're talking about the same thing! (I was actually thinking of adding something like that test image above into StarTools)

Question: Without losing detail, can I enhance it in the AutoDev version so that it stands out more? I accept your explanation of the subtle detail in the AutoDev version. It's just that it seems subdued. What would be your next step to bring it forward?

There are three things you can do;
1. Use the Develop module after AutoDev 'as-is' and add some skyglow. This will make everything brighter and keep AutoDev's "objective" dynamic range allocation intact.
2. Use an RoI that is a better representation of the dynamic range problem AutoDev should solve for.
3. "Rig" its detail vision in such a way that it thinks the input image is actually darker than it really is (and thus AutoDev will over-compensate when doing its thing, yielding a brighter image); that's what 'Detector Gamma' parameter does.

The latter may be the easiest and was - more or less - created for what you are looking for (I think!). The result is that more pixels will fall in the "highlight" category while still not blowing out the stars. It may not be objectively the best solution, but it may be aesthetically.

Does that help?

Hi and thanks again

Use the Develop module after AutoDev

Do you really mean that, or do you mean rather '... the AutoDevs.'? The plural confirmation is vitally important, otherwise I'm back to square one with the old AutoDev-wipe-Dev.
If the response is with the 's', I'm home and dry. Here's hoping:)
Cheers

alacant wrote:Hi and thanks again

Use the Develop module after AutoDev

Do you really mean that, or do you mean rather '... the AutoDevs.'? The plural confirmation is vitally important, otherwise I'm back to square one with the old AutoDev-wipe-Dev.
If the response is with the 's', I'm home and dry. Here's hoping:)
Cheers

Sorry for the confusion!
I was trying to answer this question;

Question: Without losing detail, can I enhance it in the AutoDev version so that it stands out more?

In conjunction with this exhange;

It's sounds as if you are equating "brighter" with "more detail"?

Yes, I think I am.

I therefore assumed you were asking how you could make the image appear brighter.

So what I meant by the first method was; use AutoDev as normal for the not-so-bright stretch as discussed/demonstrated. Then, to make all pixels and detail brighter evenly, launch Develop, tell it to stretch the image 'as-is' (e.g. don't redo stretch), and only add some skyglow. E.g. all this does is add a pedestal value to make all pixels brighter by the same linear value. This keeps the "objective" dynamic range allocation by AutoDev to all detail intact, except that it obviously eats away some global dynamic range (it simply moves the black point) in the service of making everything brighter (e.g. detail suffers equally). The other two solutions similarly accomplish brightening of the image, but only in certain areas of the image (e.g. detail suffers not equally).

To reiterate; you can obviously build on the detail that AutoDev has brought out by using the Contrast, HDR and Sharp modules. These will modify the detail to stand out more depending on the settings used;

Detail exists by the grace of local brightness differences

Making detail stand out is making those differences greater.
Making all detail stand out as best as possible on a global level (e.g. without local manipulation) means allocating the global dynamic range as optimally as possible to make as much as possible stand out. <-- this is what AutoDev was built to do and what Develop fails at in the shadows and highlights.
You can then further make those differences greater (therby making detail more visible) by performing local dynamic range manipulation. <-- this is what Contrast, Sharp, HDR were built to do.

Does this make sense/help?

EDIT: As a sanity check I asked my partner (graphic designer) to describe the two images (one above the other w/o green squares) I posted earlier without being specific about what the difference was. She indeed said that one looked brighter in some areas (your Develop image), but the other showed more detail (my AutoDev image).

Does this make sense/help?

Yes, very much so. The more I use AutoDev, the more (less obvious) detail I see which just isn't there when using Develop, with the big advantage of keeping the stars under control.

One thing I still find difficult is knowing exactly where to 'slice' through the image for the second AutoDev to create a roi. I miss the % slider of Develop but I don't think such a slider would make sense in AutoDev...

Thanks again for your expert input and help

I find I can manipulate the 'brightness' or otherwise by adjusting the other settings when using a ROI to create the tune I want on the image. I don't think a % slider would do that.