One more time - FITs question

[Emanuele]

Andreas, AWESOME!

Thank you so very much!
How did you know that the value to set the range was 69000?

[Andres.Pozo]

Andreas, AWESOME!

Thank you so very much!
How did you know that the value to set the range was 69000?

I opened the image using a range of 200000 and truncation. Then I made a preview selecting the brightest star and found the maximum value (0.345...) of the preview using the statistics window. Assuming that the star is saturated, finding the maximum value in the image was as easy as multiplying the maximum value by 200000.

Probably you could get a similar result if you cropped the image deleting the bad rows at the bottom with the application that you used for generating it.

[Philip de Louraille]

There are a lot of problems with your images.
1) noise at the bottom border of both.
2) The red signal has a huge artifact (optical mis-alignment, ghost reflection in your optics?)
3) Dividing your L image by a factor of 2 throughout gives an OK look (see an automatic STF below)

[Philip de Louraille]

Some of my images did not load below but you can get them at https://public.me.com/pkcyll and look into the folder named PI.

2 Lums - scaled.jpg show your L image divided by 2 sided with the intact one. Both had an automatic STF applied

L.jpg shows your original image (noise at the top - I used Nebulosity to display it.) but that star and your long exposure are just too much for your sensor!

Lum bad signal.jpg shows a zoomed portion of the noise.

R.jpg shows the noise on top too but NOTICE the artifact surrounding the bright star and a ghost of it near it. Misaligned optics? Internal reflections?

R-3D.jpg shows a 3-D representation of your red image. Note the artifacts I mentioned above.

I think the red image is garbaged.