Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
chupathingie
ParticipantSo, not only did you sell a first print, you did it from a website that isn’t up yet! 😆 Congrats!
/no help at all on the data in the tubes
April 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm in reply to: Suggestions for a 2-3 day solo trip out of the DFW area #46752chupathingie
ParticipantPalo Duro Canyon. It’s about 6 hrs drive from there, 2nd largest canyon in the country, and “muggy” is 30% humidity. And I’ll give you my number in case you need emergency assistance. They have cabins if you don’t want to tent it, plenty of hiking/biking trails (bring a patch kit… goat’s heads and cacti WILL take their toll) and you can be in civilisation in 1/2 hr if you wish, but the town of Canyon is not very big. ~40 minutes away is Amarillo, so if you feel like a cold one and a live band holler and arrangements can be made.
chupathingie
ParticipantHeh, it’s funny that I get looked at like some crazy homeless guy when I snap the lens cap on and start taking a bunch of darks. It’s just not an intuitive concept to most folks that a bunch of pictures of nothing can actually serve a real purpose. But then, most folks who know something about photography never have to be concerned with taming noise since modern DSLRs are very clean with short exposures under daylight or artificially lit conditions.
My next outing is going to involve shooting flats as well, I think. I haven’t figured out how to apply flats with my basic toolkit yet, but RawTherapee has tool panels for both darks and flats, and can apply all your tweaks identically to any number of files which would really make the way I’m doing things more an exercise in spartan processing techniques. I’ll make sure I post findings when I get a chance to dig into that side of things. I will still need to use the command line to average my images together and register them for stacking, though, as I don’t really wanna bother with trying to make some of the existing stacking programs run under WINE.
One thing that the “commercial” packages do very well (in addition to just being easier) is use better algorithms for stacking. A straight-up average is pretty good, but there are other routines that combine the pixels statistically; rejecting any data that strays too far from the rest of the pack. This gets you cleaner finals with fewer subs.
chupathingie
ParticipantDark Lane goodness.
Thanks, rav. I had no idea that dark nebula would show up so well, but that background is pretty bright… you should see the full-sized version, lack of darks really ruined it! 😆
chupathingie
ParticipantWindows XP. PS3. (or GIMP). (or Irfanview).
OK, it’s easy for windows since you have things like Deep Sky Stacker (that’s just one, for instance). They have tutorials for using their software. If you don’t know how to navigate directories and the like from a DOS prompt or don’t want to do things the hard way, stick with one of these types of programs. All of the photos I’ve posted here have been done the hard way (because I’m a cheap bastard using Linux).
If you want to do it the hard way, which really helps in understanding what’s going on, there is a fairly minimal toolkit you need.
The GIMP for final minor adjustments only. Whenever GIMP gets GEGL fully implemented that will change. You could actually do the entire process in GIMP if it could work in a 16bit/channel color space. GIMP is 8-bit, and during processing that makes a huge (and immediately apparent) difference in the final image quality. All of the combining, noise subtraction and levels adjustments really need to be done in 16bit. So far I like RawTherapee for doing the visual adjustments, and it also know dark frames and flats (more on those later).
Since GIMP can’t handle the depth, you need a copy of Image Magick and align_image_stack. There may be others, but these are the ones I found and so I use them. Both are available for windows, the latter as a simple .exe file that runs from any directory after you place a reference to it in your PCs path. Both are command-line tools. You don’t need to see what’s going on while they work so it works fine.
OK, so now you need image data. Bear with me because some explanation is needed first. The reason you stack and how you stack comes about because what you’re trying to do is defeat the flaws of the imaging process; you want to be able to reject the data that’s in the way and reinforce the data about the object you want a picture of. So what’s in your way? Camera noise, light pollution and atmospheric turbulence are pretty obvious, but dust on your sensor and vignetting are things you also want to correct.
To correct the things that degrade your image data, you’re going to get images of them. Since you can’t get an image of your object without those interfering factors (wouldn’t that be easy), you come at it from behind. Start with noise, it’s the most obvious. There are 2 ways to deal with noise. One is stacking and taking an average of all of your images (that’s what we’re here for) and the other is to take pictures of the noise (dark frames) of the same duration, ISO and camera temperature. This is time-consuming, but really has to be done. So snap the lens cap on and let the camera take about 20 frames in the dark. If the temperature is expected to change a lot during your shoot, do 1/2 your lights, then your darks, then the rest of your lights. The more lights you can swing the better, 20+ starts to look smooth but 40 or more will really give you a smooth final.
OK, enough theory… here’s how you stack: Convert all of your raw files to 16 bit/channel TIFF files (of course you shot in RAW) and separate your darks from your lights into 2 folders, “darks” and “lights, of course. Use imagemagick to average all the darks together. In Linux the command looks like:
Quote:convert -average *.tif darkframe.tif [/unquote]
Check the manual for the windows equivalent, it should be similar if not identical. Just open a run dialog, navigate to your folder of darks and type it in. WHen it’s finished, you will have a file named darkframe.tif that you will use to clean up your individual files before you do anything else to them. Copy this file over to your lights folder.Now you want to use imagemagick to subtract the dark frame from each of your lights; the resulting files will then be aligned and stacked. So navigate to your lights folder now and type:
composite -compose minus lightframe#.tif darkframe.tif correctedlightframe#.tif
Again, check the manual for the windows version of the command composite and how it’s options are structured. If you do this right, you’ll have files named so that wildcards work in the following steps.
/screeching halt.
Yaknow, I thought I had done this write-up before… here it is.
chupathingie
ParticipantWhat OS? It can be done both manually and with additional software. The more convenient you want it the more expensive it gets 🙂
chupathingie
Participantlight pollution here is just ridiculous.
Stumbled across this today (fancy site, eh?) while trying to dig up info on sub length vs noise. His top picture looks almost exactly like my first digital astropic, taken in the middle of Dallas/Fort Worth. I had like 38 of them, all 30-sec exposures and a lot of additional details came out after stacking and subtracting out the skyfog; which is going to be a bitch for you I expect if your skies are anything like the light pollution that the 6 million peeps in DFW manage. Even if you don’t have the scratch for filters, you can still battle the LP basically for free with some additional subs or by blurring your original all to hell in a new layer then subtracting it from the original (minimum-focus subs pointed at slightly different parts of the surrounding sky and averaged would be better, tho).
It’s very much a game of collecting good quality image data of what you don’t want, so that you can use it against itself.
chupathingie
ParticipantOof. What a disaster.
First, the volume of meteors that managed to burn up in our neck of the woods was pretty low. We had 6-7 peeps out there and maybe counted a dozen an hour.
Second, I shot all my fisheyes at ISO3200 with 4 minute subs. I don’t care how good anyone thinks a 5DII is in low light, 3200 is WAY too fast for 4 minutes subs. My darks are very ugly.
Third, by the time the Milky Way started coming up I managed to run off about 15 3-minute subs at ISO1600 of the area just east of and including Antares, but my battery lost it before I could acquire darks. That leaves my one “keeper” for last night washed-out, noisy, and in need of heavy resizing to hide the static and hot pixel stacking artifacts. This is 10% of the original size.

The good news is that I’m pretty excited now to go back out knowing that I need to stick to ISO1600, and maybe purchase a back-up battery to extend my shooting time (or a 12V pack that I can insert in place of a battery and I’ll run off the Jeep). I’m going to be looking for a nice fast prime between 30-50mm as well I think. Recommendations gladly considered. This shot was taken at 70mm/f2.8 with the 70-200mm L.
chupathingie
ParticipantWheee! New toys!
/and the water looks great!
chupathingie
Participanto.O
I know how much you like Ken Rockwell.
😆
chupathingie
ParticipantLast time I went out there the local astronomy club was there as well. I gotta say M51 is amazing to look at through a 30″ f4 Dob; 10 foot stepladder and all. I wanna pick a spot that at least gets the lot of scopes up out of the faint edges of the FOV. I gotta look at the charts… find how high up the radiant is gonna get before say 3AM.
chupathingie
ParticipantGood find… a well-spent hour reading that (been a long day, I’m kinda slow)
chupathingie
ParticipantOOhhh…. (/me late to thread)… those are very surreal. Willing to bet most would look at those and think HDR, so you can leave them stumped as to how you did them when you tell them they’re unmanipulated…
chupathingie
ParticipantWell, that’s some good news for a Tuesday morning! Grats to you, ennui!
chupathingie
ParticipantYa know, you could always drop them your phone number and say “call me”. You get to ask questions, they get to realize you’re taking them seriously (even if they play the “OMGTHISISSOAWESOMEFORYOU!” card) and they won’t call unless they’re serious about wanting to print your stuff.
-
AuthorPosts