Hi all,
It has been really long time since i posted here or even reading, got busy and carried out in life and astro became like forgotten passion for a while now.
Anyway, i am trying to get gear as possible to finish my setup i need, and the long i wait then the more options or opinions are happening which keep changing my plans, and i really don't mind waiting so long no buying or using until i get the right tools rather than using many gear and keep changing or replacing them if i can replace which means i didn't choose right from beginning, last 3-4 years were enough for me to show what should be done, i just need to choose correct wisely and plan it precisely.
I have many scopes now, and i am trying to have something like 3-5 scopes to be very similar if not same give same or close FL/FOV, not like others using so all big difference FL/FOV scopes to match, i already covered most but i try to stick to a specific FOV/FL and having multiple imaging setup for it, so in this case wit those 3-5 scopes say i will choose 4 of them to use same exact camera sensor, then which version i should get as the 3 following options:
- 3 Mono cameras and 1 OSC camera
- 2 Mono cameras and 2 OSC cameras
- 1 Mono camera and 3 OSC cameras
I can give more details for above if you need to give better answer or opinion, i just give the idea of what i want, living under Bortle 8/9 i know i always or mostly need longer integration time for most targets, and i don't have patience to finish one target in like 3-7 nights or even months to make it perfect, and most nights here are short time and targets don't stay in ideal/optimal zone in the sky for imaging, so it is almost like 2-4 hours only, this is not enough to cover all filters needed say LRGB/SHO or even half of that to make it nice, and i don't use or busy fast optics, so i depends on having multiple scopes and cameras of same/similar FL/FOV i mentioned before to capture different filter then i stack later.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
If I were you, assuming you have 3-5 mounts also, I would use the 3 mono cameras for narrowband and the one OSC for RGB.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
If I were you, assuming you have 3-5 mounts also, I would use the 3 mono cameras for narrowband and the one OSC for RGB.
For now i only have 3 mounts, i might add one more this year when i get the budget, not sure if i will add fifth but i won't deny adding 5 at long term, so the option is open in future for 5 mounts as total but only 3 are having better capacity load.
I already planned to use OSC for RGB only, but i also have a dual band filter of L-Ultimate, i am not willing to use one OSC camera to capture narrowbanding and broadbanding as i know i will always capture RGB for stars for all targets, that is why i asked, if i will have 3 mono for NB it sounds like my dual band filter is useless or less use then unless i buy smaller setup with smaller sensor OSC for RGB stars only and use the larger sensor for dual band filter.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Then maybe you could either get 2 OSCs, one for stars, one for dual-band, or, if I were you, I would sell the dual-band filter and save for 3nm single band ones if I don't have them already, and use 3 Monos for NB.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Then maybe you could either get 2 OSCs, one for stars, one for dual-band, or, if I were you, I would sell the dual-band filter and save for 3nm single band ones if I don't have them already, and use 3 Monos for NB.
I do have Ha 3nm and SII 3nm both at 2", but i also have Ha 5nm and OIII/SII 3nm at smaller size of 1.25" for smaller sensor cameras, in fact i don't need to sell that L-Ultimate, i still can use it occasionally later if i want as i still never used it yet, it is just difficult to find a good 3nm OIII these days, but i still can find one good enough and buy it without sacrifice of L-Ultimate, it is just it will take me long time before i can afford two more mono cams of same sensor APS-C i have.
Also there is a story of Lum filter, i still not sure if this is necessary or as some said just go with RGB alone and create lum from that, something telling me that i should really add lum from mono, then where i can add that, mainly with the larger aperture scope i believe.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I wouldn't use Lum, It just doesn't make sense to me. I think that If a person wants cleaner data, they gotta add more integration with RGB, not add Lum.
And when LRGB is not processed perfectly, Lum could wash out the color of RGB, or so it seems.
Now I hope no one gets upset for what I wrote; this is just my perspective on Lum.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I wouldn't use Lum, It just doesn't make sense to me. I think that If a person wants cleaner data, they gotta add more integration with RGB, not add Lum.
And when LRGB is not processed perfectly, Lum could wash out the color of RGB, or so it seems.
Now I hope no one gets upset for what I wrote; this is just my perspective on Lum.
It is ok, you are not alone there, recently i see more people vote for RGB only, so no one will be sad except maybe the purists who are lucky enough with $$$$$ equipment under best dark skies doing imaging then lum for them is essential, i am not one of them.
The point wit OSC for RGB is to take long time data of RGB alone, so like taking about 2-5 hours of RGB with OSC, i even can image same area again for RGB to have even more signal of it if i will image again for like another filter, say one night with Ha only and next night with OIII/SII maybe so i can expose two nights with RGB, not sure if that will be good enough for RGB and making lum out of it, people think i will take like 20-60min only for RGB, no, only if the sky isn't clear, but if it is clear then there is a dedicated camera for RGB without waiting another filters to finish, but what about targets where people use LRGB mostly say galaxies and clusters, is it good idea i use lum with mono and RGB with OSC or i better forget about lum completely?
I once imaged M45 with LRGB, lum was completely bad, a trash, while RGB wasn't bad but not great enough, so it kept me thinking about if i should go with lum or not.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I wouldn't use Lum, It just doesn't make sense to me. I think that If a person wants cleaner data, they gotta add more integration with RGB, not add Lum.
And when LRGB is not processed perfectly, Lum could wash out the color of RGB, or so it seems.
Now I hope no one gets upset for what I wrote; this is just my perspective on Lum.
You probably don't have good enough sky and/or technical prowess to take advantage of Lum. I hope you don't get upset, that's my perspective.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Tareq Abdulla:
I wouldn't use Lum, It just doesn't make sense to me. I think that If a person wants cleaner data, they gotta add more integration with RGB, not add Lum.
And when LRGB is not processed perfectly, Lum could wash out the color of RGB, or so it seems.
Now I hope no one gets upset for what I wrote; this is just my perspective on Lum.
It is ok, you are not alone there, recently i see more people vote for RGB only, so no one will be sad except maybe the purists who are lucky enough with $$$$$ equipment under best dark skies doing imaging then lum for them is essential, i am not one of them.
The point wit OSC for RGB is to take long time data of RGB alone, so like taking about 2-5 hours of RGB with OSC, i even can image same area again for RGB to have even more signal of it if i will image again for like another filter, say one night with Ha only and next night with OIII/SII maybe so i can expose two nights with RGB, not sure if that will be good enough for RGB and making lum out of it, people think i will take like 20-60min only for RGB, no, only if the sky isn't clear, but if it is clear then there is a dedicated camera for RGB without waiting another filters to finish, but what about targets where people use LRGB mostly say galaxies and clusters, is it good idea i use lum with mono and RGB with OSC or i better forget about lum completely?
I once imaged M45 with LRGB, lum was completely bad, a trash, while RGB wasn't bad but not great enough, so it kept me thinking about if i should go with lum or not.
I would say, Lum is useless if you don't have dark skies. I understand now how Lum might be used to save time to get cleaner data, because Lum takes all 3 colors (RGB) at once, but then it doesn't make sense why people think it is beneficial if Lum is getting in 3x as much light pollution also.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
If you're going to get 4 cameras... get 4 mono cameras. Your OSC data will never stack up (figuratively speaking) against a mono camera.
This luminance argument is incorrect. Light pollution or not, it's not going to change anything wether it's RGB or Luminance being exposed. While my skies may not be light polluted, my methods still stand. I shoot honestly very minimal RGB data, and dump countless hours into luminance. This method hasn't failed me yet. You'll see plenty of projects in my gallery where I've dumped 1-3 hours of RGB (per channel), and 15-30 hours into luminance. Think of it this way, RGB is color, Luminance is detail. Luminance does not affect the color data in any way.... so if you're finding your images washed out after adding luminance, the fault lies in your processing.
As a person who runs dual mono imaging... I could never find a place for an OSC camera in my mix, even if it was an additional camera. I tried it for a few months. I hated it. My antlia LRGB filters provide a MUCH cleaner color signal than an OSC with UV/IR filter ever could. OSC images will always be red/blue deficient thanks to the bayer matrix, at least until you can get a decent amount of time into them, and by comparison that amount of time is far more than you would have spent compared to mono. Given that you are in a highly light polluted area, you might want to consider saving some of that money and going remote instead. Just a thought. If I was in your boat, that's what I'd do, or stick to purely narrowband.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Brian Puhl:
This luminance argument is incorrect. Light pollution or not, it's not going to change anything wether it's RGB or Luminance being exposed. While my skies may not be light polluted, my methods still stand. I shoot honestly very minimal RGB data, and dump countless hours into luminance. This method hasn't failed me yet. You'll see plenty of projects in my gallery where I've dumped 1-3 hours of RGB (per channel), and 15-30 hours into luminance. Think of it this way, RGB is color, Luminance is detail. Luminance does not affect the color data in any way.... so if you're finding your images washed out after adding luminance, the fault lies in your processing.
I still don't understand the benefit of luminance, and probably never will until I get a Mono camera, if I ever do that.
You sound very knowledgeable and will probably help the OP more than anyone, so I'm outta here...  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Brian Puhl:
This luminance argument is incorrect. Light pollution or not, it's not going to change anything wether it's RGB or Luminance being exposed. While my skies may not be light polluted, my methods still stand. I shoot honestly very minimal RGB data, and dump countless hours into luminance. This method hasn't failed me yet. You'll see plenty of projects in my gallery where I've dumped 1-3 hours of RGB (per channel), and 15-30 hours into luminance. Think of it this way, RGB is color, Luminance is detail. Luminance does not affect the color data in any way.... so if you're finding your images washed out after adding luminance, the fault lies in your processing.
I still don't understand the benefit of luminance, and probably never will until I get a Mono camera, if I ever do that.
You sound very knowledgeable and will probably help the OP more than anyone, so I'm outta here...
Haha no worries. Just remember, luminance is purely detail. Color is color. You can do things like you Ha layer as a luminance in your SHO images if your image tends to be noisy or can't get enough integration time.
A perfect example of why luminance is so important could be my NGC 1333 image. While it wasn't my favorite, and I do admit I probably should have shot a little more RGB.... THIS was my raw RGB data that ended up becoming integrated with the luminance and Ha data for the final image. The RGB lacks any detail at all really. All this detail was recovered in the luminace layer.
and the full image here:
https://www.astrobin.com/qpzy5s/B/
I do admit I made quite a few mistakes in the final image, like overly denoising, but it still made an impact. Eventually I will reprocess. Anyways, back on topic.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Tareq Abdulla:
I wouldn't use Lum, It just doesn't make sense to me. I think that If a person wants cleaner data, they gotta add more integration with RGB, not add Lum.
And when LRGB is not processed perfectly, Lum could wash out the color of RGB, or so it seems.
Now I hope no one gets upset for what I wrote; this is just my perspective on Lum.
It is ok, you are not alone there, recently i see more people vote for RGB only, so no one will be sad except maybe the purists who are lucky enough with $$$$$ equipment under best dark skies doing imaging then lum for them is essential, i am not one of them.
The point wit OSC for RGB is to take long time data of RGB alone, so like taking about 2-5 hours of RGB with OSC, i even can image same area again for RGB to have even more signal of it if i will image again for like another filter, say one night with Ha only and next night with OIII/SII maybe so i can expose two nights with RGB, not sure if that will be good enough for RGB and making lum out of it, people think i will take like 20-60min only for RGB, no, only if the sky isn't clear, but if it is clear then there is a dedicated camera for RGB without waiting another filters to finish, but what about targets where people use LRGB mostly say galaxies and clusters, is it good idea i use lum with mono and RGB with OSC or i better forget about lum completely?
I once imaged M45 with LRGB, lum was completely bad, a trash, while RGB wasn't bad but not great enough, so it kept me thinking about if i should go with lum or not.
I would say, Lum is useless if you don't have dark skies. I understand now how Lum might be used to save time to get cleaner data, because Lum takes all 3 colors (RGB) at once, but then it doesn't make sense why people think it is beneficial if Lum is getting in 3x as much light pollution also.
I don't think if lum is a waste then people will never use it even under dark skies, so it is like an additional filter doing nothing, so why bother using it even under dark skies be it Bortle 1 or 2, but if it is being sold and added to RGB set means it has a use one way or another, how and when or where to use it that is another topic i will learn about.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Brian Puhl:
If you're going to get 4 cameras... get 4 mono cameras. Your OSC data will never stack up (figuratively speaking) against a mono camera.
This luminance argument is incorrect. Light pollution or not, it's not going to change anything wether it's RGB or Luminance being exposed. While my skies may not be light polluted, my methods still stand. I shoot honestly very minimal RGB data, and dump countless hours into luminance. This method hasn't failed me yet. You'll see plenty of projects in my gallery where I've dumped 1-3 hours of RGB (per channel), and 15-30 hours into luminance. Think of it this way, RGB is color, Luminance is detail. Luminance does not affect the color data in any way.... so if you're finding your images washed out after adding luminance, the fault lies in your processing.
As a person who runs dual mono imaging... I could never find a place for an OSC camera in my mix, even if it was an additional camera. I tried it for a few months. I hated it. My antlia LRGB filters provide a MUCH cleaner color signal than an OSC with UV/IR filter ever could. OSC images will always be red/blue deficient thanks to the bayer matrix, at least until you can get a decent amount of time into them, and by comparison that amount of time is far more than you would have spent compared to mono. Given that you are in a highly light polluted area, you might want to consider saving some of that money and going remote instead. Just a thought. If I was in your boat, that's what I'd do, or stick to purely narrowband.
If i will go with 4 mono then in this case i will just buy one more mono camera and use the mono i have which is a smaller sensor than the other two or three i will have, i was thinking that RGB for stars isn't really a big deal even under light pollution, as you mentioned many expose that for short time about 1-2 hours total even with OSC, but i still have time to think about it, and i might give it a test to see if it works.
The main question is and still remaining, should i use OSC for narrowbanding? You said i should stick with NB under light pollution, so i do have NB filters and also dual band filter, can't i use that dual band filter then with OSC even under light pollution sky?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Brian Puhl:
Brian Puhl:
This luminance argument is incorrect. Light pollution or not, it's not going to change anything wether it's RGB or Luminance being exposed. While my skies may not be light polluted, my methods still stand. I shoot honestly very minimal RGB data, and dump countless hours into luminance. This method hasn't failed me yet. You'll see plenty of projects in my gallery where I've dumped 1-3 hours of RGB (per channel), and 15-30 hours into luminance. Think of it this way, RGB is color, Luminance is detail. Luminance does not affect the color data in any way.... so if you're finding your images washed out after adding luminance, the fault lies in your processing.
I still don't understand the benefit of luminance, and probably never will until I get a Mono camera, if I ever do that.
You sound very knowledgeable and will probably help the OP more than anyone, so I'm outta here...
Haha no worries. Just remember, luminance is purely detail. Color is color. You can do things like you Ha layer as a luminance in your SHO images if your image tends to be noisy or can't get enough integration time.
A perfect example of why luminance is so important could be my NGC 1333 image. While it wasn't my favorite, and I do admit I probably should have shot a little more RGB.... THIS was my raw RGB data that ended up becoming integrated with the luminance and Ha data for the final image. The RGB lacks any detail at all really. All this detail was recovered in the luminace layer.
and the full image here:
https://www.astrobin.com/qpzy5s/B/
I do admit I made quite a few mistakes in the final image, like overly denoising, but it still made an impact. Eventually I will reprocess. Anyways, back on topic.
Nice example!
I did mention to people that i want to use RGB only for colors, just colors and nothing else, because i will use the mono for details, so if RGB is just colors and details will be with lum then why can't use OSC camera to get RGB then, i will expose OSC to longer time or say entire time of the night, so instead to have like 20-40 min of RGB filters each i could expose for like 2-4 hours with OSC, then i can process that alone, it will be as stars colors layer, while i use mono for SHO and lum, so from your post it sounds that even OSC for RGB alone isn't good enough, i am using IMX571 sensor which all people said it is a nice clean sensor even in OSC unless there is something i need to know about that it makes it not good, also i mentioned somewhere that i might drive to dark sites sometimes if possible so then OSC should be like a one time imaging than using 3 filters together not sure if i can complete them all in time before the sky is changing mind.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
To make it clear, i have the following cameras cooled for now:
1. IMX571 OSC & Mono
2. QHY294M-Pro
3. QHY163M
4. ASI1600MM
So 5 cameras, 4 mono and 1 OSC, 4/3" Panasoninc ones are connected to 60mm doublets, QHY294M connected to FRA400 for now, the two IMX571 are meant to be used with 90mm f/6 triplet APO + 0.8x.
I have new scope i received short time ago like about 10 days ago or 1 week, which is 106mm f/6.6 triplet APO, i wanted to buy 0.6x reducer whatever to bring it from 700mm to 420mm, so i can buy another IMX571 for it, not sure if i should buy OSC to use my dual band filter, or mono then which one filter to use, Ha? And the other mono for what, OIII/SII? what if i want to use Ha and Lum also like for some galaxies, mainly the mono will be used with the 4 main filters of LumSHO, i might use 1 camera for 2 filters, but wanted to have more data time with each, i can't buy two IMX571 any soon, only one now, while i can buy OSC, and if i can find the prices as before when i bought my two IMX571 then i can buy again one mono and one OSC, but not two mono, say i can have one mono now and the the other maybe end of the year or next year at best.
Another option is, to use that QHY294M with FRA400 to get RGB, the scope is well corrected so the stars should be perfect at least, and it is wider at 400mm, so i can crop it to smallest format which is 432mm from 90mm, but QHY294M has amp glow, older model than imx571, so is it a good idea combining RGB data from an older model sensor with LSHO from newer/better sensor?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
I have only two setups, both are refracrors, one 100/800, one 120/840 and imaging from Bortle 4/5 . One has OSC 571 , the other mono and imaging routine is similar to what you want to do, looking to the same target wit both setups. If I do NB targets , I do RGB with OSC (for stars, for example ) , and the rest of the time I do dual band which I mix with NB data from mono camera. I do have both Antlia ALP-T dual band filters, so can get Ha, Hb, OIII and SII from OSC. Looking it from that perspective , in your situation I would take 1 OSC, 3 mono and put dual band filter(s) on OSC, RGB filters on all mono cameras, and put one NB filter on each mono (or more if budget allows. In my Bortle 4/5 location, I have given up with Luminance. That kind of distribution would give you any possibility yo wish from either all doing RGB to all doing NB .
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Stjepan Prugovečki:
I have only two setups, both are refracrors, one 100/800, one 120/840 and imaging from Bortle 4/5 . One has OSC 571 , the other mono and imaging routine is similar to what you want to do, looking to the same target wit both setups. If I do NB targets , I do RGB with OSC (for stars, for example ) , and the rest of the time I do dual band which I mix with NB data from mono camera. I do have both Antlia ALP-T dual band filters, so can get Ha, Hb, OIII and SII from OSC. Looking it from that perspective , in your situation I would take 1 OSC, 3 mono and put dual band filter(s) on OSC, RGB filters on all mono cameras, and put one NB filter on each mono (or more if budget allows. In my Bortle 4/5 location, I have given up with Luminance. That kind of distribution would give you any possibility yo wish from either all doing RGB to all doing NB .
That is also a great idea, only i have to decide about which one to start doing it first, the broadband or narrowband, because i have to choose one and complete its calibration frames [dark, flat, bias or dark flat] as each filter has different focusing offset and different flat and also exposure settings, so that also must be considered, another reason why i wanted to use OSC for RGB stars only so it will have one calibration frames settings.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Brian Puhl:
If you're going to get 4 cameras... get 4 mono cameras. Your OSC data will never stack up (figuratively speaking) against a mono camera.
This luminance argument is incorrect. Light pollution or not, it's not going to change anything wether it's RGB or Luminance being exposed. While my skies may not be light polluted, my methods still stand. I shoot honestly very minimal RGB data, and dump countless hours into luminance. This method hasn't failed me yet. You'll see plenty of projects in my gallery where I've dumped 1-3 hours of RGB (per channel), and 15-30 hours into luminance. Think of it this way, RGB is color, Luminance is detail. Luminance does not affect the color data in any way.... so if you're finding your images washed out after adding luminance, the fault lies in your processing.
As a person who runs dual mono imaging... I could never find a place for an OSC camera in my mix, even if it was an additional camera. I tried it for a few months. I hated it. My antlia LRGB filters provide a MUCH cleaner color signal than an OSC with UV/IR filter ever could. OSC images will always be red/blue deficient thanks to the bayer matrix, at least until you can get a decent amount of time into them, and by comparison that amount of time is far more than you would have spent compared to mono. Given that you are in a highly light polluted area, you might want to consider saving some of that money and going remote instead. Just a thought. If I was in your boat, that's what I'd do, or stick to purely narrowband.
I second this. I too have quite a few images with very little RGB and a ton of L. In LRGB processing RGB only contributes to the color of the image. All the SNR and detail comes from L. That doesn't change in LP conditions. I've done LRGB in mag 18 sky and while not ideal (broadband in general isn't ideal is bright sky) the advantages of LRGB over straight RGB is still quite apparent. Can you get an extremely clean image without L? Yes but it would require significantly more RGB data then it would doing an LRGB.
I too used to run up to 4 scopes side by side. I tried mixing mono and osc a few times and each time ended up ditching the osc because they're inefficient and limiting.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Reg Pratt:
Brian Puhl:
If you're going to get 4 cameras... get 4 mono cameras. Your OSC data will never stack up (figuratively speaking) against a mono camera.
This luminance argument is incorrect. Light pollution or not, it's not going to change anything wether it's RGB or Luminance being exposed. While my skies may not be light polluted, my methods still stand. I shoot honestly very minimal RGB data, and dump countless hours into luminance. This method hasn't failed me yet. You'll see plenty of projects in my gallery where I've dumped 1-3 hours of RGB (per channel), and 15-30 hours into luminance. Think of it this way, RGB is color, Luminance is detail. Luminance does not affect the color data in any way.... so if you're finding your images washed out after adding luminance, the fault lies in your processing.
As a person who runs dual mono imaging... I could never find a place for an OSC camera in my mix, even if it was an additional camera. I tried it for a few months. I hated it. My antlia LRGB filters provide a MUCH cleaner color signal than an OSC with UV/IR filter ever could. OSC images will always be red/blue deficient thanks to the bayer matrix, at least until you can get a decent amount of time into them, and by comparison that amount of time is far more than you would have spent compared to mono. Given that you are in a highly light polluted area, you might want to consider saving some of that money and going remote instead. Just a thought. If I was in your boat, that's what I'd do, or stick to purely narrowband.
I second this. I too have quite a few images with very little RGB and a ton of L. In LRGB processing RGB only contributes to the color of the image. All the SNR and detail comes from L. That doesn't change in LP conditions. I've done LRGB in mag 18 sky and while not ideal (broadband in general isn't ideal is bright sky) the advantages of LRGB over straight RGB is still quite apparent. Can you get an extremely clean image without L? Yes but it would require significantly more RGB data then it would doing an LRGB.
I too used to run up to 4 scopes side by side. I tried mixing mono and osc a few times and each time ended up ditching the osc because they're inefficient and limiting.
Kind of OSC isn't good, i don't know why i see people buying OSC then, and i saw some using them under Bortle 8/9 very nice, i have mono from beginning, not going to remove that, but i want to see how bad is OSC after long time combining it with mono.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
2.94
4.02
6.06
8.78
1.81
8.02
