NGC 7662 redone with AIP4WIN

Received the latest version of "The handbook of astronomical imaging image
processing" today. Its thicker than the family bible and may take just as
long to read.

It came with AIP4WIN image processing software which I decided to test on
the recent image of NGC 7662 posted here.

This is the version posted previously:
http://tinyurl.com/bdkxu

This is the AIP4WIN enhanced version:
http://tinyurl.com/9w6bg

I've not had an opportunity to test its full functionality given the 2 hours
or so playing with it but I'm impressed so far.

Regards


Chris

Chris Taylor nous a écrit :

Received the latest version of "The handbook of astronomical imaging
image processing" today. Its thicker than the family bible and may
take just as long to read.

It came with AIP4WIN image processing software which I decided to
test on the recent image of NGC 7662 posted here.

This is the version posted previously:
http://tinyurl.com/bdkxu

This is the AIP4WIN enhanced version:
http://tinyurl.com/9w6bg

The improvement is definitely visible.
Is this software available without the thick bible, or should I have to
read the book to use it ?

--
Norbert. (no X for the answer)
======================================
knowing the universe - stellar and galaxies evolution
http://nrumiano.free.fr
images of the sky http://images.ciel.free.fr
======================================

Hi Norbert

From what I can gather it only comes with the book.

Here's the link
http://www.willbell.com/aip/index.htm

I suppose you could give them a call and see if they'll work a deal without
the book but for $99 it seems pretty good value anyways compared to say,
Maxim DL which I also used on the original image.

Its going to be fun going over the old images with this during the poor
weather periods.

Regards


Chris


"Norbert" wrote in message
...
Chris Taylor nous a écrit :

Received the latest version of "The handbook of astronomical imaging
image processing" today. Its thicker than the family bible and may
take just as long to read.

It came with AIP4WIN image processing software which I decided to
test on the recent image of NGC 7662 posted here.

This is the version posted previously:
http://tinyurl.com/bdkxu

This is the AIP4WIN enhanced version:
http://tinyurl.com/9w6bg

The improvement is definitely visible.
Is this software available without the thick bible, or should I have to
read the book to use it ?

--
Norbert. (no X for the answer)
======================================
knowing the universe - stellar and galaxies evolution
http://nrumiano.free.fr
images of the sky http://images.ciel.free.fr
======================================

"Chris Taylor" wrote in message
...
Received the latest version of "The handbook of astronomical imaging image
processing" today. Its thicker than the family bible and may take just as
long to read.

It came with AIP4WIN image processing software which I decided to test on
the recent image of NGC 7662 posted here.

This is the version posted previously:
http://tinyurl.com/bdkxu

This is the AIP4WIN enhanced version:
http://tinyurl.com/9w6bg

I've not had an opportunity to test its full functionality given the 2
hours or so playing with it but I'm impressed so far.

Regards


Chris


People,

Even though you are all going to jump down my throat for saying this, im
going to say it anyway!

Does no one think that all the applications and 'mathematical filters' you
are all so keen to apply to your work dilutes the subject of your images. I
mean, i take lots of daytime pics with an old slr(on film) some are good
some are bad...The good ones are kept as are the bad ones, the difference
being, the good ones get looked at! I would not dream of using a filter in
an image editing app to attempt to improve any aspect of my pictures.

Im the same with astro photo's, if i take a bad one, thats what it is..its a
bad picture, it gets chucked in a 'pants' directory and left there. I never
apply filters to an astro image, in fact i dont even stack them if i can
help it. Just seems to me that most of you will take a bad picture and
instead of notching it up as experience and taking another of the same
subject, you would rather spend more time than it would take to take another
trying to repair it!!!

Aside from the fact that i, as well as most know that certain filter bring
out detail that would otherwise be lost, but how far is too far?

Rob

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:45:35 +0000, Chris Taylor wrote:

This is the AIP4WIN enhanced version: http://tinyurl.com/9w6bg

What an exquisite image!

--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK

In message , Robert
Geake writes

People,

Even though you are all going to jump down my throat for saying this, im
going to say it anyway!

Does no one think that all the applications and 'mathematical filters' you
are all so keen to apply to your work dilutes the subject of your images. I
mean, i take lots of daytime pics with an old slr(on film) some are good
some are bad...The good ones are kept as are the bad ones, the difference
being, the good ones get looked at! I would not dream of using a filter in
an image editing app to attempt to improve any aspect of my pictures.

In that case you are almost certainly losing a lot from your original.
In fact, scratch the "almost". Try looking at some of the web sites and
TV programmes that compare raw and processed data, or go to a talk on
the subject.
You don't say if you process your own film or do your own prints - if
you did, you would _know_ how much difference changes can make, even
with negatives or slides which are very good, and how much can be
salvaged from that picture you took last week on the other side of the
Earth, and which you misjudged the exposure and can't repeat.


Im the same with astro photo's, if i take a bad one, thats what it is..its a
bad picture, it gets chucked in a 'pants' directory and left there. I never
apply filters to an astro image, in fact i dont even stack them if i can
help it. Just seems to me that most of you will take a bad picture and
instead of notching it up as experience and taking another of the same
subject, you would rather spend more time than it would take to take another
trying to repair it!!!

For one thing, a lot of pictures are unique and can't be repeated. And
even when they can, a standard technique in astro-imaging is to take two
or more images, sometimes days or weeks apart and taken with different
equipment, and to combine them to produce a new image that shows more
than either does alone.


Aside from the fact that i, as well as most know that certain filter bring
out detail that would otherwise be lost, but how far is too far?

You've just said it. Filters bring out detail that would otherwise be
lost. And "too far" is what you consider to be too far.
Time to hand over to some of the experts on this group :-)
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Robert Geake" wrote in message
...

""""Does no one think that all the applications and 'mathematical filters'
you are all so keen to apply to your work dilutes the subject of your
images""""
- Why perform dark and flat frames and subsequent mathematical manipulation
for a cleaner image?

- There are techniques, such as deconvolution, unsharp masking, high and
low pass filtering and noise reduction that can improve the original image.
The police, for instance, use these techniques to improve on an image; for
forensic or other purposes. Bringing out more detail from an image doesn't
necessarily make the original image a bad one to begin with.

- Even with non-astro - conventional digital photography, thousands are
made from books which teach enhancement of digital photography and imaging.
Pop a search onto (say) www.amazon.co.uk for the results.

"""""I would not dream of using a filter in an image editing app to attempt
to improve any aspect of my pictures."""""
- Enhancement is not limited to digital imaging, unsharp masking was
originally used with film, does the application degrade or improve the
original print? Depends on what you're looking for. These processes
translate directly to the digital darkroom with ease.

""""I mean, i take lots of daytime pics with an old slr(on film) some are
good some are bad...The good ones are kept as are the bad ones, the
difference being, the good ones get looked at!""""
- Why apply polarising filters or GND filters to improve the effect of a
photograph; to affect or bring out detail? My guess here is that although
not entirely natural, the artificially filtered photo is the one that'll get
looked at. Ask the professional photographer if he'd forego a filter for
puritanical reasons.

""""Just seems to me that most of you will take a bad picture and instead of
notching it up as experience and taking another of the same subject, you
would rather spend more time than it would take to take another trying to
repair it!!!""""
- With Britain's generous offering of cloudy skies, there's often more
opportunity for a revisit to the digital darkroom than the dark sky. You may
have also missed the point on this particular post. The excercise was a
demonstration of one software package over the previous application of
others from a beginner's perspective. I've been at this for less than a
year. Perhaps there are others on the NG in my own position who'd value the
perspective?

""""Aside from the fact that i, as well as most know that certain filter
bring out detail that would otherwise be lost, but how far is too far?"""
- This is a good question (or point). There's always a temptation to
over-enhance an image. If you think any specific image has been overdone,
you're welcome to share your viewpoint. If the critisism is both considerate
and constructive its unlikely to be discounted. If a poster isn't prepared
to accept such critisism then they shouldn't be posting here anyways.

Regards


Chris