Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

Jörn Reppenhagen

Members
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jörn Reppenhagen

  • Birthday 02/02/1969

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : Grave of democracy (Germany)

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sure it's possible. Walking from Berlin to Moscow is also possible. If you concentrate on the moon, you won't need any tracking mount. Jupiter and Saturn may also come into reach. It is also possible to do some more basic astrophotography without - but it's like walking from Berlin to Moscow, with the results usually being "suboptimal", politely expressed. If you love this hobby, do yourself a favor and invest in a tracking mount, there's inexpensive solutions providing you far more observation and general comfort and allowing longer exposure times (but don't expect being able to do minutes of exposure). But your first step should be achieving sharp, focused pictures without excessive noise and grain - see thread linked by NotMyFault.
  2. Diese Fehler mache ich besonders gerne: Mehrere Ebenen, aber nicht die Pixel-Ebene ausgewählt, Pixel-Ebene nicht blau markiert. Passiert ständig, wenn man irgendeine Anpassung anwendet, die als neue Ebene ergänzt und damit automatisch ausgewählt wird. Klick auf die Pixel-Ebene, dann gehts wieder. Bild ist keine Pixel-Ebene. In dem Fall: Rechtsklick auf die Ebene, dann "Rastern ..." wählen. Deckkraft 0 oder sehr niedrig. Je niedriger die Deckkraft, desto weniger wirkt der Effekt. Fluss 0 oder sehr niedrig. Auch dann gehts nicht - oder nicht vernünftig. Das wurde zwar alles bis auf Fluss schon oben von Dan C und Komatös erwähnt, aber vielleicht ists so beschrieben noch ein Häppchen verdaulicher.
  3. @irandar: The results are typical - it cannot work this way. Stacking expects pictures where the objects have an predictable, identical offset - example: Photo 1: Star A at position 100 x 200, star B at position 150 x 170. Photo 2: Star A at position 110 x 205, star B at position 160 x 175. So we've got an offset of 10 in the X axis, an offset of 5 in the Y axis. The same offsets for star A and star B. And the same offsets for stars C, D, E, ... Your main problem is not exposure times, it's looking towards the rotational axis of the sky, the celestial pole, while there's significant time differences between your photos. Your AP stack shows that the North Star, Polaris, is somewhere near the upper right corner of the picture, the pivot point of the sky. This causes objects near the upper right corner "moving" slower than objects far away. Thus the offsets more and more increase with the distance from the North Star, aren't identical anymore. You can see this by the different lengths of the star trails. That's why the stacking algorithms produce that star trails, it just cannot work with stars of different offsets in the same picture. Just imagine sitting inside a dome with stars painted on it's walls, the dome rotating around you. If you look up the stars near the top move slower than the stars at the sides. And if you look parallel to the ground, the stars seem to move with the same speed. If you take photos of the top and stack them, you'll get the same results as with your stacked photos. But if you take pictures parallel to the ground, the results will be much better as the offsets become almost identical. Remedies: a) Very short exposure times, as already mentioned in this thread. PLUS: Photos need to be taken immediately after each other. b) Taking photos more parallel to the ground plane. c) Use of a less expensive motorized mount like Star Adventurer or AZ-GTi, or a "real" mount starting from the EQ5 class, not below. I'd go for option c) if you wish to dive deeper into astrophotography as these mounts also allow mounting of smaller telescopes. You won't be able to achieve real long exposure times of several minutes, but this would solve your problem. If you wish to stick with your DSLR and shorter focal lengths for astrophotography, mounts like Star Adventurer and AZ-GTi are your friends. For everything else a "real" mount (EQ5 and up) is the way to go. Additional info: a) Your photos are out of focus, stars are discs, not points. Focusing on stars isn't easy, manual focusing with maximum magnification of the preview might help, also a Bahtinov mask. With higher focal length/magnification, a Bahtinov mask would be the way to go. With lower focal length/magnification (like 55 mm), it's better to focus via the preview at maximum magnification, take a sample picture (short exposure time, higher ISO) and check if stars are points by watching the taken photos at maximum magnification, correct the focus if needed. Nothing's more frustrating than finding out all your pictures are out of focus - wasting the results of several hours of imaging. b) Take some dark frames as Pauls already mentioned. You've got masses of defective pixels in your photos, that tiny red, blue, green or white dots just every digital camera produces with longer exposure times. Dark frames help eliminating these. Also playing with the Stacking Options (Threshold and Clipping iterations) might help. c) Use RAW photos. JPGs usually look better out of the camera, but the camera's JPG algorithms apply a lot of changes, often in a more or less random and unpredictable way. But astrophotography and stacking need unmodified data to achieve best results. Just set your camera output to RAW + highest JPG quality, so you always get a pair of RAW and JPG, can't forget setting the output to RAW.
  4. @Bruno106: Could you post two of your original RAW files and two of the FITS files? I am no AP expert, but I could give this a try.
  5. Stacking adds a Curves and a Levels adjustment to the picture layer after stacking, so the visible results indeed are stretched. Just deactivate or delete the Curves and Levels adjustment layers to work with the unstretched image.
  6. Had a similar problem. My mistake had been the white balance setting in the stacking dialog - it was set to "Daylight", which caused all colors to be rendered yellow/white.
  7. See this video by James Ritson: Plus, you may want to check out this YouTuber and enter "masking" into the search box. You'll find countless useful hints about masking and working with masks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8jszUpmSM0
  8. Plus, a JPG usually gets heavily processed in-camera before saving. Usually it takes quite some effort making a RAW look as good as the JPG. That's why I always set my camera to save RAW and JPG - to get a JPG I can use immediately, and a RAW I can really play with. You've got some harsh contrasts in your image, pure white to pure black. For not overexposing, the shadows need to become quite dark in the RAW. But still, it seems to be a bit overdone. If you post the original RAW file, we could check and compare the RAW development with other RAW converters. Comparing highly processed JPGs and pristine RAWs just doesn't work.
  9. @Dan C - Mystery solved: a typical case of HAUS (highly advanced user stupidity). A mysterious entity (ME) had set the white balance in the stacking dialog to "daylight".
  10. @Kevin Barry- ASI071MC Pro uses a Sony sensor. This thread is about Fujifilm. @Dan C - I am reluctant to opening a new thread if there's already an old thread dealing with the matter. In most forums you'll immediately get lectured for redundancy. I'll try astrostacking again, maybe I just missed setting a vital option - and if the result is still the same, I'll open a new thread. Note: There's no total absence of colors like before - there's just ONE color; in my case it's yellow, with all the other colors not showing up.
  11. Just to push up this topic again: Still no colors with Fujifilm RAW files and astro stacking with update 1.10.3. Single RAF files have color information, stacked files just show a single tone. Come on, AP guys - this bug is known for more than 8 months, now.
  12. I found some similar issue (Windows version): If I use the Displace filter e. g. to overlay some text on brickwork, then apply more adjustments like a Gaussian blur to smoothe the text and adapt it to the low pixel resolution of the underlying photo, the results look like it should be. But if I export the finished image, all adjustments after using the Displacement filter just disappear, the picture gets saved with just the Displace filter applied without any further editing steps - rendering the text too sharp and unnatural. Same happens if I use "Merge Visible". Only way of exporting the correctly rendered image is taking a screenshot. I guess it's the same problem causing that behavior. Exporting and merging obviously just don't follow the "include what you see" approach. @Iconoclast: Will try that and report back later.
  13. Yes, Vignette is there. But almost unusable because it's stationary fixed to the center of the image. Who puts the subject in the center? Suggestion: Make that vignette freely movable. (Yes, I know ... Ellipse, Gaussian Blur, Erase blend mode - usable workaround, but still a pain in the you-know-where ...) That tiny, tiny slider buttons ("thumbs") ... Sure, that titchy knobs look sooo modern and sophisticated, but it's not what you really need. How often did you miss that knobs? How often did you set the mouse pointer on that knobs, looked back to the picture to see the change - only to find nothing changes because your mouse pointer shifted by some pixels before pressing the mouse button? See? Suggestion: Make 'em BIG! - Alternatively: Keep the size but enlarge the "hit zone" around that knobs. Best: Let the user choose the size in preferences.
  14. Banacan: For this usage case, you might be better off with a simple HSL adjustment - especially because of the transparent background and the uniform color range. Select HSL adjustment, choose red color circle, select the picker, click on a bright red area, set Hue Shift to e. g. -62, Saturation Shift to 56, Luminosity Shift to 49 - or to your liking. Then make sure the HSL layer is selected, invert the layer (color reverts to red), choose the Paint Brush Tool [B], select pure white as a color (255, 255, 255), then paint over the areas you wish to recolor, Opacity controls intensity. Take care not to select "Wet Edges" and "Protect Alpha". That's essentially the same as Recolor - but the above also works with more complex color combinations (not just with "everything red" things). Workaround for setting correct hue with Recolor: Set your target color using RGB, then switch from RGB to HSL. The now shown Hue value is the value to set in the Recolor dialogue. In private: I also find the behavior of the color replacement brush rather strange/senseless - it just doesn't do what it should be supposed to do.
  15. Chris: Possible, but I don't know for sure. I'll pay attention to active selections next time and immediately come whining again.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.