StarTools

Here is an Astrobin link to my image of NGC 7293, the Helix nebula, processed using Star Tools.
http://astrob.in/59536/ comments welcome.
Che

That's a lovely Helix! You got the outer shell clearly coming out as well - very nice!
Perhaps some more star color would be nice, but I see the frames were quite long, so that tends to overexpose their cores and make color a little harder to recover. If you wanted to, you could use the Magic module to draw some color into the cores and or shrink the cores somewhat.
Was any deconvolution used?

Hi Ivo
thanks for the comments. I also thought some star color would be nice, but didn't succeed. But overall I'm very happy with the image. I binned at the default setting of 71%(i think thats the value iirc) and also tried some deconvolution. Dont remember if it was default settings or not. I try many different settings and go back and forth sometimes until I think I see what I like so am not always sure what I ended up doing. I see some files ST10 ST11 ST20 ST21 etc try to open them to see what they are(tracking?) but dont open in notepad. Was looking for the file that shows what was done so that I can have a more consistent workflow. the more I use the program, the more I like it. If you would like to try your hand at the star color here's the link to the DSS stacked image https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrrd05bov2i22 ... 207293.FTS
Che

edit: i see in some of my other image folders that there is the text file showing the workflow, but cant find it for this image???

Cheman wrote:Hi Ivo
thanks for the comments. I also thought some star color would be nice, but didn't succeed. But overall I'm very happy with the image.

As you should!

I binned at the default setting of 71%(i think thats the value iirc) and also tried some deconvolution. Dont remember if it was default settings or not.
I try many different settings and go back and forth sometimes until I think I see what I like so am not always sure what I ended up doing. I see some files ST10 ST11 ST20 ST21 etc try to open them to see what they are(tracking?) but dont open in notepad. Was looking for the file that shows what was done so that I can have a more consistent workflow. the more I use the program, the more I like it.
edit: i see in some of my other image folders that there is the text file showing the workflow, but cant find it for this image???

As of the latest 1.3.5 betas, the StarTools.log file should be located in the folder where the executable resides. Let me know if that's not the case.
You're right, the STxx.trk files are memory swap files used for all the tracking info.

If you would like to try your hand at the star color here's the link to the DSS stacked image https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrrd05bov2i22 ... 207293.FTS

Awesome data!
Not much different or better to what you already brought out, but I was looking to bring out the cometary globules, 'radiating' from the center. They're clearly visible in this (also StarTools processed) image of 54h of narrow band data on the Helix. I think you got them in there too! Nice!
Star color was indeed hard due to the overexposure. So hard in fact that I had to switch to 'Other software' in the Color module (which emulates desaturation of bright objects) as the 'Color Constancy' mode gave incorrect colors. You could go back and layer in some less overexposed data, but, like you, I love the image as it is.

Cheers,

Hi Ivo
I like your version as well, I think you pulled out a bit more detail.
I found the Star Tools text file where you said it would be, much easier to find when you know where to look I see that that file keeps growing by adding the info from the latest image to the file. I personally would prefer if it made a file for each image and saved it in the folder where those images are or had an option to do so, but not a big deal. Here is the section that corresponds with my Helix
File loaded [C:\Users\Dave\Desktop\Helix NGC7293\Helix NGC 7293.FTS].
---
--- Crop
Parameter [X1] set to [25 pixels]
Parameter [Y1] set to [28 pixels]
Parameter [X2] set to [2915 pixels (-34)]
Parameter [Y2] set to [1922 pixels (-28)]
--- Bin
Parameter [Scale] set to [(scale/noise reduction 70.71%)/(200.00%)/(+1.00 bits)]
--- 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 [0 %]
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 [91.58 %]
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 [18 %]
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [14.2 pixels]
--- Deconvolution
Parameter [Image Type] set to [Lunar/Planetary]
Parameter [Mask Behavior] set to [De-ring Mask Gaps, Hide Result]
Parameter [Radius] set to [3.8 pixels]
Parameter [Iterations] set to [6]
Parameter [Regularization] set to [1.00 (optimal noise and detail)]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [3.4 pixels]
--- HDR
Parameter [UNKNOWN] set to [Medium]
Parameter [Channels] set to [Brightness & Color]
Parameter [Algorithm] set to [Optimize Hard]
Parameter [Dark/Bright Response] set to [1.00]
Parameter [Detail Size Range] set to [4 pixels]
Parameter [Noise Suppression] 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 %]
--- Wavelet Sharpen
Parameter [Channels] set to [Brightness Only]
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 [Brightness Mask Power] set to [0.00]
Parameter [Amount] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Small Detail Bias] set to [75 %]
--- 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 [20 %]
Parameter [Brightness Detail Loss] set to [20 %]
Parameter [Redistribution Kernel] set to [4.5 pixels]
Parameter [Read Noise Compensation] set to [0.10]
Parameter [Smoothness] set to [75 %]
--- Life
Parameter [Detail Preservation] set to [Min Distance to 1/2 Unity]
Parameter [Compositing Algorithm] set to [Power of Inverse]
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 [12 %]
Parameter [Detail Preservation Radius] set to [20.0 pixels]
Parameter [Saturation] set to [50 %]
Parameter [Strength] set to [100 %]
Parameter [Mask Fuzz] set to [1.0 pixels]
--- Magic
Parameter [Mode] set to [Tighten]
Parameter [Mask Grow] set to [1 pixels]
Parameter [Iterations] set to [1 pixels]
--- Wavelet Sharpen
Parameter [Channels] set to [Brightness & Color]
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 [1.0 pixels]
Parameter [Brightness Mask Power] set to [0.00]
Parameter [Amount] set to [95 %]
Parameter [Small Detail Bias] set to [71 %]
File saved [C:\Users\Dave\Desktop\Helix NGC7293\Helix NGC 7293st.tiff].

You'll see during deconvolution I used the Lunar/Planetary setting. I like how it worked better for this. Also I dont use the autodevelop feature and instead use develop and keep bumping up digital development until I like it.
All advice cheerfully accepted.
Che

edit: after comparing images side by side, I much prefer your version. Could you share your processing file? My version is much too soft, for lack of a better term while I think your version brings out the detail without looking stressed. .Maybe tighten up the stars a bit and I think that would be good.

Cheman wrote:Hi Ivo
I like your version as well, I think you pulled out a bit more detail.

You got some of the larger strucures poking out a bit more though. It's all a matter of taste (and goals)!

I found the Star Tools text file where you said it would be, much easier to find when you know where to look I see that that file keeps growing by adding the info from the latest image to the file. I personally would prefer if it made a file for each image and saved it in the folder where those images are or had an option to do so, but not a big deal.

Yep, sorry about the inconsistency. On Linux and MacOS this has always been the case, but I only found out a few months ago that Windows changes default directory for reading and writing files when you start using file dialogs...

Here is the section that corresponds with my Helix

Good standard workflow, but I'm missing the use of the Color module?
Try using Life after the Color module, and using that last wavelet sharpen run while Tracking is still 'on', in order to maximise the benefits of Noise tracking.
They're little things but in conjunction with Tracking can help tease out just that little bit more detail from the noise!

Also I dont use the autodevelop feature and instead use develop and keep bumping up digital development until I like it.

I rarely use Develop as I find that I can usually coax AutoDev to do a superior job, even with very noisy data/background. I used AutoDev for your data as well, as it does a much better job with keeping star bloat under control.

--- Bin
Parameter [Scale] set to [(scale/noise reduction 50.00%)/(400.00%)/(+2.00 bits)]
--- Auto Develop
To see what we got.
--- Crop
Parameter [X1] set to [2 pixels]
Parameter [Y1] set to [2 pixels]
Parameter [X2] set to [1472 pixels (-2)]
Parameter [Y2] set to [973 pixels (-2)]
--- Wipe
Created a mask with the Lassoo tool that masked out the nebula.
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [3 pixels]
Parameter [Corner Aggressiveness] set to [98 %]
Parameter [Aggressiveness] set to [75 %]
--- Auto Develop
Created an ROI over the nebula that showed good dynamic range and lowest amount of background noise, then tweaked parameters to get background noise down as much as possible.
Parameter [Ignore Fine Detail <] set to [3.8 pixels]
Parameter [Outside ROI Influence] set to [4 %]
--- Deconvolution
Default settings
--- Wavelet Sharpen
Parameter [Amount] set to [265 %]
--- Color
Used red, green and blue settings that the Color module came up with. I find I rarely need to chnage them.
StarTools Color Constancy 'style' recovered erroneous color information in the stars, so I set it to 'Other Software, Detail Aware' which emulates how other software progressively desaturates bright objects.
Parameter [Cap Green] set to [To Yellow]
Parameter [Style] set to [Other Software, Detail Aware]
Parameter [Dark Saturation] set to [5.00]
Parameter [Saturation Amount] set to [219 %]
--- Life
Isolate preset. No mask.
Parameter [Strength] set to [33 %]
--- Wavelet De-Noise
(switched Tracking off)
Parameter [Scale 1] set to [84 %]
Parameter [Scale 2] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 3] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Scale 4] set to [90 %]
Parameter [Color Detail Loss] set to [15 %]
Parameter [Brightness Detail Loss] set to [15 %]
Parameter [Read Noise Compensation] set to [4.00 %]
Parameter [Smoothness] set to [64 %]

That's pretty much it. Not to toot my own horn, but it always amazes me how short (and consistent) processing flows really are in ST compared to some other programs...

Good standard workflow, but I'm missing the use of the Color module?

I used the color module but didnt come up with anything I liked better than the way it already was so did not keep it.

try using Life after the Color module

see above

and using that last wavelet sharpen run while Tracking is still 'on', in order to maximise the benefits of Noise tracking.

I had already turned tracking off and did final noise reduction and then later tried sharpen again, could I have turned tracking back on then sharpen or am I off base here?

They're little things but in conjunction with Tracking can help tease out just that little bit more detail from the noise!

These are the kind of things I am trying to learn, all of this helps me

I rarely use Develop as I find that I can usually coax AutoDev to do a superior job, even with very noisy data/background. I used AutoDev for your data as well, as it does a much better job with keeping star bloat under control.

I will try to use AutoDev more and see if it helps

Not to toot my own horn, but it always amazes me how short (and consistent) processing flows really are in ST compared to some other programs...

that horn should be blaring as loud as possible!!!!!
thanks again
Che

and using that last wavelet sharpen run while Tracking is still 'on', in order to maximise the benefits of Noise tracking.

I had already turned tracking off and did final noise reduction and then later tried sharpen again, could I have turned tracking back on then sharpen or am I off base here?

Nope, unfortunately that wouldn't have worked. After swithcing Tracking off, no Tracking will be performed and all tracking data is lost (that's why it wants to do noise reduction at that exact moment).

Not to toot my own horn, but it always amazes me how short (and consistent) processing flows really are in ST compared to some other programs...

that horn should be blaring as loud as possible!!!!!

I knew that emoticon would come in handy some day when I installed it!

Hi Cheman,

I took the liberty of downloading your stacked data and had a go at it. May I first say that it is superb. I am learning way around StarTools and that is why any chance that I get I practice hoping for the day that I could collect data such as yours. I had several gos at it and this is the most successful one. From the onset I tried to preserve the delicate outer halo that you have captured both on the left side and some very faint trace on the bottom right. It was just my usual routine of , DEV with star mask, wipe to remove colour bias, re develope with another star mask and and the usual Decon, Shrpen and life. I had a lot of trouble balancing the colours in the colour module and just gave up and did a denoise and a flux sharpening. I have to confess that I boosted the saturation and a final smart sharpening in CS2 and converted to Jpeg.Hope that you approve. I will deleting all the files after posting.

Regards,

A.G

Awesome repro A.G.!

Gents, I'm a bit worried about the performance of the Color module. For me it worked just fine and gave a good improvement (except for the stars, but switching 'style' took care of that). I'm keen to understand why this is not the case for you guys... Not that there is anything wrong with what you produced though!
What version of ST were your running?