StarTools

We're suffering record poor weather here in the UK and skies have been mostly cloudy for the past 2-1/2 months. Just 3 clear nights in that period that I can recall and I used them all. As a result I still have many outstanding targets which are incomplete or not even started. This post represents the progress I've made in that time, all data was processed using StarTools v1.4b with the exception of combining channels to create an HST palette for which I find Annie's Actions in PhotoShop quick and convenient. For narrow-band images I always process each channel separately _then_ combine the result, this because each channel needs individual attention for noise and stretch etc. My usual process is to perform an initial stretch, crop (if needed), wipe (again, if needed), stretch, deconvolution, sharpen, sometimes HDR if I have bright uncontrolled highlights, then finally de-noise. I may use 'Magic' to shrink the stars by 1pxl if I want to promote the nebula rather than a surrounding dense starfield, otherwise I leave it as it is. So nothing complex needed - which is the best option if your data can stand on it's feet!

All images captured using my NP127is refractor plus Moravian G4-16000 camera, unguided on a 10-Micron GM2000HPS mount. Exposure times are either 20 or 30mins, I try for at least 10 subs per channel but clouds usually deny the best laid plans!

ngc1499 California Nebula (bi-colour):




Heart Nebula (HST):


Rosette Nebula (bi-colour):


ic2177 Seagull Nebula (H-alpha):


Sh2-249 Jellyfish Neb (H-alpha)


Thanks as always to Ivo for making the best post-processing program available to us in the form of StarTools!

ChrisH

Edit: best to view at full-res if you can, click on the image and it will take you to Photobucket where you can click the (+) button top-right to view They are all around 4096 x 4096 pixels - the resolution of the Moravian G4-16000 camera (16803 sensor)

Beautiful images Chris
I especially like your California nebula. It has a wonderful 3-d effect of floating in the stars and has beautiful highlights. All are well done
Che

Cheman wrote:Beautiful images Chris
I especially like your California nebula. It has a wonderful 3-d effect of floating in the stars and has beautiful highlights. All are well done
Che

Thanks Che, glad you liked it That one was published in this month's Sky@Night mag (albeit a silly small size that shows nothing!), the Rosette will be in next Month's issue. If the others ever get finished I may submit those too

Chris

That is absolutely stunning!

Chris, if you want to get rid of the satellite trail in the Heart nebula, give the heal module a shot at it. It usually does a pretty good job of it. Sat trails don't especially bother me
Che

Cheman wrote:Chris, if you want to get rid of the satellite trail in the Heart nebula, give the heal module a shot at it. It usually does a pretty good job of it. Sat trails don't especially bother me
Che

Thanks, I'll have to try that - the only time I have in the past it removed all the stars and figured that was its function - not something I needed.

Chris

you just need to set a straight line mask over the trail only
Che

Chrisa, I'm new to NB imaging and everything I get is green because of the H-A strength. When you process the channels in ST, what do you do to balance the colors so as to get a more pleasing image? These are great!

ChrisLX200 wrote:We're suffering record poor weather here in the UK and skies have been mostly cloudy for the past 2-1/2 months. Just 3 clear nights in that period that I can recall and I used them all. As a result I still have many outstanding targets which are incomplete or not even started. This post represents the progress I've made in that time, all data was processed using StarTools v1.4b with the exception of combining channels to create an HST palette for which I find Annie's Actions in PhotoShop quick and convenient. For narrow-band images I always process each channel separately _then_ combine the result, this because each channel needs individual attention for noise and stretch etc. My usual process is to perform an initial stretch, crop (if needed), wipe (again, if needed), stretch, deconvolution, sharpen, sometimes HDR if I have bright uncontrolled highlights, then finally de-noise. I may use 'Magic' to shrink the stars by 1pxl if I want to promote the nebula rather than a surrounding dense starfield, otherwise I leave it as it is. So nothing complex needed - which is the best option if your data can stand on it's feet!

All images captured using my NP127is refractor plus Moravian G4-16000 camera, unguided on a 10-Micron GM2000HPS mount. Exposure times are either 20 or 30mins, I try for at least 10 subs per channel but clouds usually deny the best laid plans!

ngc1499 California Nebula (bi-colour):

Heart Nebula (HST):

Rosette Nebula (bi-colour):

ic2177 Seagull Nebula (H-alpha):

Sh2-249 Jellyfish Neb (H-alpha)

Thanks as always to Ivo for making the best post-processing program available to us in the form of StarTools!

ChrisH

Edit: best to view at full-res if you can, click on the image and it will take you to Photobucket where you can click the (+) button top-right to view They are all around 4096 x 4096 pixels - the resolution of the Moravian G4-16000 camera (16803 sensor)

whixson wrote:Chrisa, I'm new to NB imaging and everything I get is green because of the H-A strength. When you process the channels in ST, what do you do to balance the colors so as to get a more pleasing image? These are great!

That's a common problem, the Ha channel is usually the strongest and it will tend to overwhelm the other channels unless you do something about it. First, if the object is a discrete target surrounded by dark sky, then you will need to normalise the backgrounds in order to avoid a colour bias in those areas. I'm afraid I resort to PixInsight for that (using LinearFit). Second, you need to make adjustments to the brightness of the nebula itself using a combination of levels, curves, and brightness/contrast such that other narrow band channels (OIII and SII) are balanced relative to each other. This is trial and error (for me anyway) and I make small changes until I'm happy with the result. Finally I make an overall adjustment to provide the best on-screen result. I tend to use PhotoShop (or Corel PaintshopPro) because the changes are instantly visible.

ChrisH