Hi everybody, Here is a listing of last week's (and today's) blog posts on The Salt Lake Tribune's astronomy blog The Final Frontier: An out-of-this-world proposal, crash and burn, What an outburst!, What do you know about this man?, It's a bird, it's a plane, it's likely not satellite debris... Comments are always welcome, and thanks for reading! Sheena McFarland State Government Reporter The Salt Lake Tribune 90 S. 400 West, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Office: (801) 257-8619 Cell: (801) 510-5567 Fax: (801) 257-8525 smcfarland@sltrib.com
I've always thought of death as the "final frontier". Space is the pentultimate frontier. * ;o) * On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Sheena McFarland <smcfarland@sltrib.com>wrote:
Hi everybody,
Here is a listing of last week's (and today's) blog posts on The Salt Lake Tribune's astronomy blog The Final Frontier:
For those who may not have it bookmarked, Sheen's blog is at: http://blogs.sltrib.com/frontier patrick On 24 Feb 2009, at 11:03, Sheena McFarland wrote:
Hi everybody,
Here is a listing of last week's (and today's) blog posts on The Salt Lake Tribune's astronomy blog The Final Frontier:
An out-of-this-world proposal, crash and burn, What an outburst!, What do you know about this man?, It's a bird, it's a plane, it's likely not satellite debris...
Comments are always welcome, and thanks for reading!
Sheena McFarland State Government Reporter The Salt Lake Tribune 90 S. 400 West, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Office: (801) 257-8619 Cell: (801) 510-5567 Fax: (801) 257-8525 smcfarland@sltrib.com
Need to feel better about your astro-mistakes? Read my blog: http://deseretnews.com/blogs/monthly/1,5553,10000034,00.html?bD=20090224&sc=... And I would very much like any comments that might shed light on other errors, so that folks might avoid them -- or at least get a chuckle out of them. Best wishes, Joe
On 25 Feb 2009, at 00:11, Joe Bauman wrote:
Need to feel better about your astro-mistakes? Read my blog:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/monthly/1,5553,10000034,00.html?bD=20090224&sc=...
Ouch! That was almost painful to read. :)
And I would very much like any comments that might shed light on other errors, so that folks might avoid them -- or at least get a chuckle out of them.
Ok, here are a couple from the days of film photography (taken at Little Stonehenge): Forgot to advance the film between exposures. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/0893.jpg Forgot to close the shutter before using a red light to check the scope's corrector plate for dew. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/0903.jpg patrick
Hey, I love your shot of the moon occulting Orion! -- jb --- On Wed, 2/25/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Hard lessons in amateur astronomy To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 12:54 AM On 25 Feb 2009, at 00:11, Joe Bauman wrote:
Need to feel better about your astro-mistakes? Read my blog:
http://deseretnews.com/blogs/monthly/1,5553,10000034,00.html?bD=20090224&sc=... Ouch! That was almost painful to read. :)
And I would very much like any comments that might shed light on other errors, so that folks might avoid them -- or at least get a chuckle out of them.
Ok, here are a couple from the days of film photography (taken at Little Stonehenge): Forgot to advance the film between exposures. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/0893.jpg Forgot to close the shutter before using a red light to check the scope's corrector plate for dew. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/0903.jpg patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141 I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe, Thanks for the info. I will try and retrace your steps. Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe, I think I got pretty close to what you did. Your way was certainly easier that what I was trying to do. Now I have to go back and see where I went wrong. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1150 Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Yes, that looks really good! -- Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 12:10 PM Joe, I think I got pretty close to what you did. Your way was certainly easier that what I was trying to do. Now I have to go back and see where I went wrong. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1150 Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Another result. I took Jim's image (using Joe's way) and applied the Starizona Photoshop levelizer plug-in to the JPG image. See http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1156 -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:18 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Yes, that looks really good! -- Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 12:10 PM Joe, I think I got pretty close to what you did. Your way was certainly easier that what I was trying to do. Now I have to go back and see where I went wrong. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1150 Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Don, That brightened up the background nicely. Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:02 PM Another result. I took Jim's image (using Joe's way) and applied the Starizona Photoshop levelizer plug-in to the JPG image. See http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1156 -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:18 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Yes, that looks really good! -- Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 12:10 PM Joe, I think I got pretty close to what you did. Your way was certainly easier that what I was trying to do. Now I have to go back and see where I went wrong. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1150 Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Is the plug-in available for download? Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:16 PM Don, That brightened up the background nicely. Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:02 PM Another result. I took Jim's image (using Joe's way) and applied the Starizona Photoshop levelizer plug-in to the JPG image. See http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1156 -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:18 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Yes, that looks really good! -- Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 12:10 PM Joe, I think I got pretty close to what you did. Your way was certainly easier that what I was trying to do. Now I have to go back and see where I went wrong. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1150 Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Yes, but it costs $40. You can download a trial version. For more information see http://starizona.com/acb/ccd/software/soft_proc_levelizer.aspx -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:37 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Is the plug-in available for download? Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:16 PM Don, That brightened up the background nicely. Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:02 PM Another result. I took Jim's image (using Joe's way) and applied the Starizona Photoshop levelizer plug-in to the JPG image. See http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1156 -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:18 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Yes, that looks really good! -- Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 12:10 PM Joe, I think I got pretty close to what you did. Your way was certainly easier that what I was trying to do. Now I have to go back and see where I went wrong. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1150 Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Thanks, Don. Does the plug-in work with Photoshop Elements, or do you need the full Photoshop? -- Best wishes, Joe --- On Fri, 2/27/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 10:40 PM Yes, but it costs $40. You can download a trial version. For more information see http://starizona.com/acb/ccd/software/soft_proc_levelizer.aspx -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:37 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Is the plug-in available for download? Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:16 PM Don, That brightened up the background nicely. Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:02 PM Another result. I took Jim's image (using Joe's way) and applied the Starizona Photoshop levelizer plug-in to the JPG image. See http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1156 -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:18 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Yes, that looks really good! -- Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 12:10 PM Joe, I think I got pretty close to what you did. Your way was certainly easier that what I was trying to do. Now I have to go back and see where I went wrong. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1150 Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I don't know. I would try out the trial version and see. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 10:57 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Thanks, Don. Does the plug-in work with Photoshop Elements, or do you need the full Photoshop? -- Best wishes, Joe --- On Fri, 2/27/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Friday, February 27, 2009, 10:40 PM Yes, but it costs $40. You can download a trial version. For more information see http://starizona.com/acb/ccd/software/soft_proc_levelizer.aspx -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 5:37 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Is the plug-in available for download? Thanks, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:16 PM Don, That brightened up the background nicely. Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 4:02 PM Another result. I took Jim's image (using Joe's way) and applied the Starizona Photoshop levelizer plug-in to the JPG image. See http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1156 -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 3:18 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Yes, that looks really good! -- Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Jim Gibson <jimgibson00@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 12:10 PM Joe, I think I got pretty close to what you did. Your way was certainly easier that what I was trying to do. Now I have to go back and see where I went wrong. http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1150 Jim --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 9:21 AM Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous. Jim, Maybe the difference is in the clear data. I took each of the clear photos and subtracted the dark from it. Then I used a "remove bad pixel" feature of MaxIm DL to get rid of bad pixels, some of which were in more than one of the frames. The feature keeps a map of bad pixels so you can apply it to other views from the same session. Next I picked out the clear that seemed to show the best range and used an "equalize screen stretch" button to make all the clears about the same. Finally I combined them using various methods to see which was the best. I think the best one turned out to be taking a medium of the images. I did the same sort of thing for the colors, except that one -- I think it was green -- had only one image so I didn't combine it with another green. Finally I combined LRBG without playing with curves because it seemed about right as it was. My last operation was to adjust the brightness and contrast with MaxIm DL. Best wishes, Joe --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 2:01 AM Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
On 26 Feb 2009, at 09:21, Joe Bauman wrote:
Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous.
I do sometimes miss the wider fields of a short focal length OTA. Between that and a thread I started on another list, I'm actually giving serious thought to pulling my Schmidt camera out of mothballs. Fast (f/1.65) and short (230 mm focal length) and a 6 x 9 *degree* (not minute) FOV. I was at Picture Line yesterday and was surprised to see a lot of film photography stuff for sale. I doubt I'd print anything, rather I'd just scan and manipulate the negatives. So maybe this is why I've never dismantled my darkroom. patrick p.s. I love the smell of acetic acid in the morning... :)
Hey Patrick, read the present issue of Astronomy mag! There's hope for us "big boys" (telescopes!) jb --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 10:36 PM On 26 Feb 2009, at 09:21, Joe Bauman wrote:
Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous.
I do sometimes miss the wider fields of a short focal length OTA. Between that and a thread I started on another list, I'm actually giving serious thought to pulling my Schmidt camera out of mothballs. Fast (f/1.65) and short (230 mm focal length) and a 6 x 9 *degree* (not minute) FOV. I was at Picture Line yesterday and was surprised to see a lot of film photography stuff for sale. I doubt I'd print anything, rather I'd just scan and manipulate the negatives. So maybe this is why I've never dismantled my darkroom. patrick p.s. I love the smell of acetic acid in the morning... :) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe, If you are referring to the HyperStar it makes it easy to get wide field fast images with a bigger scope. Most of the images in my album see http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=303 were do that way with a single shot color camera. You will get better results with an autoguider and monochrome camera with filters. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:55 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Hey Patrick, read the present issue of Astronomy mag! There's hope for us "big boys" (telescopes!) jb --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 10:36 PM On 26 Feb 2009, at 09:21, Joe Bauman wrote:
Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous.
I do sometimes miss the wider fields of a short focal length OTA. Between that and a thread I started on another list, I'm actually giving serious thought to pulling my Schmidt camera out of mothballs. Fast (f/1.65) and short (230 mm focal length) and a 6 x 9 *degree* (not minute) FOV. I was at Picture Line yesterday and was surprised to see a lot of film photography stuff for sale. I doubt I'd print anything, rather I'd just scan and manipulate the negatives. So maybe this is why I've never dismantled my darkroom. patrick p.s. I love the smell of acetic acid in the morning... :) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
That's right, I was referring to HyperStar, Don. Unfortunately, after I worked myself into a frenzy of excitement, I checked their web site and discovered they don't have a lens for my size 'scope, the Meade 12". They can work on a Meade 10" but that takes a special conversion kit. Anyway, I'm out of luck. Thanks, Joe --- On Sat, 2/28/09, Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> wrote: From: Don J. Colton <djcolton@piol.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HyperStar To: "'Utah Astronomy'" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009, 11:41 AM Joe, If you are referring to the HyperStar it makes it easy to get wide field fast images with a bigger scope. Most of the images in my album see http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=303 were do that way with a single shot color camera. You will get better results with an autoguider and monochrome camera with filters. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:55 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Hey Patrick, read the present issue of Astronomy mag! There's hope for us "big boys" (telescopes!) jb --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> wrote: From: Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 10:36 PM On 26 Feb 2009, at 09:21, Joe Bauman wrote:
Patrick, I agree about the stars. If you blow up a section of a wider view you get fatter stars. Often the smaller view will have more detail. If I made a zillion-piece mosaic that covered as much a single shot from Tyler's telescope, it would look similar. So I am not going after big objects. I'll shoot things like planetaries and galaxies that aren't enormous.
I do sometimes miss the wider fields of a short focal length OTA. Between that and a thread I started on another list, I'm actually giving serious thought to pulling my Schmidt camera out of mothballs. Fast (f/1.65) and short (230 mm focal length) and a 6 x 9 *degree* (not minute) FOV. I was at Picture Line yesterday and was surprised to see a lot of film photography stuff for sale. I doubt I'd print anything, rather I'd just scan and manipulate the negatives. So maybe this is why I've never dismantled my darkroom. patrick p.s. I love the smell of acetic acid in the morning... :) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi all, read about the plans NASA and ESA have to explore moons of Jupiter, where oceans are known to lurk: http://deseretnews.com/blogs/1,5322,10000034,00.html?bD=20090227 -- and don't forget Ann House's kind advice. Best wishes, Joe
Patrick, You are dead on about the focal length and the star size. My dad uses a C-14 for his imaging, and we have had many discussions on this topic. In my opinion, the star size is usually dictated by the atmospheric conditions more than the optics. With the jet stream passing over our heads (as it usually does), our skies are pretty shaky. Those little wobbles don't amount to much when shooting at 520mm with my Tak Epsilon or at 720mm with the ASA N8, but are pretty obvious when shooting at the focal lengths you use (I'm guessing your C-14 at F/11 is roughly 3073mm). In almost every case, if you shrink the size of your image down to the same scale as mine, the star sizes will look about the same. Cheers, Tyler _____________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Wiggins Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 2:01 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] HH from Patrick's data Very nice Joe, Tyler sent me his version after what he called "a relatively quick processing job" and while his colors are a bit different from your version the overall sharpness and appearance is quite similar to yours. You have come a long way with your processing skills. Now if you'd just get your observatory built so you could start taking more data of your own... (that was an unsubtle hint, BTW.) Joe, as I've long suspected, one of the reasons Tyler gets such small, pinpoint-like stars is he is using a much shorter focal length than you or I. I came to this conclusion by taking his version of my latest Horsehead and shrinking it down to the same size as Tyler's jaw dropping shot of the HH and surrounding region. I then placed it next to Tyler's original and got a pretty good match. Still not quite as good as his, but pretty darn close. http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/hhcomp.jpg patrick On 25 Feb 2009, at 18:46, Joe Bauman wrote:
Here's my slapdash effort to assemble Patrick's data -- obviously I didn't pick out some of the bad pixels:
http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1141
I didn't use flats because it seems fine without them. -- jb
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi Tyler, Thanks for the confirmation. Interesting to learn that your dad is an astroimager too. Like father like son. Thanks too for your version of my Horsehead shot. I've posted it to my album: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1025 Note that that was all 3x3 data. I've got 2x2 data I took the same night. I'll try and post that kit tonight now that everyone seems to be finished with my 3x3 kit. patrick On 26 Feb 2009, at 09:40, Tyler Allred wrote:
Patrick, You are dead on about the focal length and the star size. My dad uses a C-14 for his imaging, and we have had many discussions on this topic. In my opinion, the star size is usually dictated by the atmospheric conditions more than the optics. With the jet stream passing over our heads (as it usually does), our skies are pretty shaky. Those little wobbles don't amount to much when shooting at 520mm with my Tak Epsilon or at 720mm with the ASA N8, but are pretty obvious when shooting at the focal lengths you use (I'm guessing your C-14 at F/11 is roughly 3073mm). In almost every case, if you shrink the size of your image down to the same scale as mine, the star sizes will look about the same. Cheers, Tyler
If we want to keep blogs going - in this case Sheena's and Joe's - we need to post comments. Blogs are a good tool. They are fluid and involving. We have all enjoyed Utah Astronomy. We have formed friendships and it has become part of our community. Let's reach out to our two new "community members." The articles posted for comments are thoughtful and educational. I would hate to see the newspapers do away with them due to a seemingly lack of interest. Thank you, Utah Astronomy, for this forum to post my thoughts. -A
participants (8)
-
Ann House -
Chuck Hards -
Don J. Colton -
Jim Gibson -
Joe Bauman -
Patrick Wiggins -
Sheena McFarland -
Tyler Allred