7.56
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
| I stand with Diva in this (as on many other things besides). There is no meaningful way to decide who gets the nod and there are no measurable quantities to stick to. Besides, M42? Really??? I cannot think of a subject more boring, maybe M31 coming close. |
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: In a scientific discussion, which these folks are engaging in, the idea of "boredom" is irrelevant. What you find is boring, is of absolutely zero value here. What I find is boring, is equally of zero value. Now that we have pulled this back from kindergarten levels, Karen, we can get the thread back on track with its current trajectory. No one needs to a call a Manager at the moment. These folks wanted to argue with one another, based on spreadsheets, and I gave them a set of excellent data to use instead of spreadsheets. So we sit back, don't call for Managers, and see what they can do with the data provided. I stand with you being obtuse in this thread. Usually I like your perspective. This time I am kinda against you. |
|
7.56
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Well, you can't please all the people all the time, to paraphrase... Back to the matter at hand: I'm not even sure what is there to prove or what the opposite arguments are let alone how the argument would/could be settled. And, who's Karen? |
|
11.02
#...
·
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: Karen was a joke, probably not prevalent outside of the States. It's basically calling you out for being a drama queen. The matter at hand, is that they argued about L and RGB and its value, contribution, etc. A bunch of shit that only matters for nerds with spreadsheets and too much snot and not enough tissue. So I offered up some data to help normalize the conversation. I don't know why you hate the idea of my data. You downloaded it, and processed it as well. I know this  |
|
7.56
#...
·
|
|---|
Bill Long - Dark Matters Astrophotography: Nice one, but no, I didn't download it nor I have the faintest idea of how it looks like. Sorry! |
11.91
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
When we get into discussions of "real" and perceived" luminance is when I feel like this discussion has veered into pure pedantry. What' we image is far below the threshold of color and even lightness perception. There are differences in transmission profiles between different filters we use and between filters and OSC. Tools such as various calibration methods attempt to compensate. At the end of the day, a luminance filter captures the same wavelengths that the RGB filters do, at the cost of loss of discrimination between the three color bands. If the claim is that adding this back in LRGB has consequences - I'd submit that, on the grand scheme of things, these consequences are probably not terrible. It isn't like this action turns an image of M31 into one of M33! My main take away from this discussion is that I probably should be taking more color data than I do. If we were that concerned about perception, shouldn't we be using red filters that have substantially less H-alpha and SII transmissions? |
|
2.33
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Need to come back and read all this, but yes m42 isn't the ideal example. I'll still process it but I'm not expecting anyone else to do the same. The point we were trying to make I believe is that Lum (while helpful in all images) is less so for something like m42 - probably the ideal RGB target. I see no reason to shoot LRGB on m42 barring if you're going super wide for the dust, and at that point you may as well go HaRGB anyway [Edit: for m42 specifically at least]. |
8.59
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Die Launische Diva: Try starting here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554706/ It cleared up a misconception for me, which was that rods deal with luminance. That in fact is not the case...our "detail" vision is in fact 100% handled by M and L cones in our foveal centralis. Luminance is an intrinsic aspect of color, not some independently detected isolated thing. |
|
2.33
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Oh man, once again I did not realize the nature in which Bill's data is provided. I'm not interested in providing all my details and such for a dataset that won't prove anything in this thread anyway. I feel like my points have been made, especially with posts from Vercastro. I'm not sure how else to say what I'd like to and it seems like the best way to settle all this is with a number of expansive datasets, which doesn't seem like it's going to happen soon. |
