Author Topic: Digging out the ISM surrounding M45 (better than Photoshop)?  (Read 7050 times)

Offline dayers

  • PixInsight Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
    • The Orlop
Re: Digging out the ISM surrounding M45 (better than Photoshop)?
« Reply #15 on: 2012 November 29 06:08:07 »
Hello Harry,

I wish I could think of a face saving answer to your question! It's amazing how one thing leads to another. I started out by getting acquainted with the Astro Tortilla wrapper that involves, among other things plate solving with astrometry.com.

Thanks for pointing me back to good old PI to further my education on the subject.

It's back to school for me, trying to unravel the thread you pointed me to. How about a video tutorial on the subject? (In your spare time, of course.)

Dave
Dave Ayers
  Stellarvue 80 mm refractor on CG-5 mount, Orion 50mm guide scope. Imaging camera SBIG STF-8300M, guide camera ASI120mm. PHD Guiding. Sequence Generator Pro, PixInsight.

Offline pfile

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 4549
    • View Profile
Re: Digging out the ISM surrounding M45 (better than Photoshop)?
« Reply #16 on: 2012 November 29 08:18:19 »
Hi
Dave

Why do you not use Pixinsight for this

http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=3911.0

Harry

as much as i like andres' scripts, astrometry's solver works with a lot less tweaking. andres' script is very novel and ingenious but it usually takes me forever to convince it to solve an image.

no such complaints about andres' annotation script.


Offline RBA

  • PixInsight Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
    • View Profile
    • DeepSkyColors
Re: Digging out the ISM surrounding M45 (better than Photoshop)?
« Reply #17 on: 2012 November 29 13:17:04 »
i think RBA described something like this in one of his widefield talks. i need to go find it now. basically he was consulting some sky survey data to see if his DBE made sense. but as i recall that was kind of low-resolution data, so i'm not sure it could be registered properly.

I've sometimes compared IRAS data with my images. I don't register the IRAS data with my image because the comparison is made visually, and mainly to compare large structures to see if there's an "approximation" in the shape an intensity of such structures. So I just need both images to be somewhat similar in size and rotation. Mainly I just try to get a better idea on whether certain "structure" visible in my image could be an artifact or not.  Here's an old tut I wrote where I mention comparing an image to its corresponding field from the IRAS data:

http://blog.deepskycolors.com/archive/2010/05/28/removing-gradients-while-preserving-ve.html