Author Topic: Real or Synthetic Luminance?  (Read 3429 times)

Offline joelshort

  • PixInsight Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
    • Buckeyestargazer.net
Real or Synthetic Luminance?
« on: 2015 January 15 12:25:19 »
If this is covered elsewhere please point me in the right direction.  My question is rather simple, do most people shoot real LUM, or do they use the RGB subs to create a Synthetic LUM?  Is there a best practice or is it different for different objects?

Until about a year ago I always captured lum.  Then I started creating a synthetic lum from all the RGB subs combined or even with some real LUM added in.  I found that I liked that practice.  Just curious what the gurus here think!   ;)
Joel Short
www.buckeyestargazer.net
CFF135 f6.7, SV80ST, G3-16200M, QHY163M, QHY183M

Offline jkmorse

  • PixInsight Padawan
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
  • Two questions, Mitch . .
    • Jim Morse Astronomy
Re: Real or Synthetic Luminance?
« Reply #1 on: 2015 January 15 13:52:10 »
Joel,

See these posts.  They are what changed my image capture Routine:

http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=6042.msg41037#msg41037

The second thread referenced in the first post is particularly important as it really lays out Juan's explanation.  For convenience here it is again: http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=1636.msg9297#msg9297

Best,

Jim
Really, are clear skies, low wind and no moon that much to ask for? 

New Mexico Skies Observatory
Apogee Aspen 16803
Planewave CDK17 - Paramount MEII
Planewave IFR90 - Astrodon LRGB & NB filters
SkyX - MaximDL - ACP

http://www.jimmorse-astronomy.com
http://www.astrobin.com/users/JimMorse

Offline joelshort

  • PixInsight Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
    • Buckeyestargazer.net
Re: Real or Synthetic Luminance?
« Reply #2 on: 2015 January 15 14:41:34 »
OK so that pretty much answers my question.  Case closed!  Thanks Jim.
Joel Short
www.buckeyestargazer.net
CFF135 f6.7, SV80ST, G3-16200M, QHY163M, QHY183M