uranus7

Thank you very much, François Emond.Appreciating your wisdom and balance. Wondering if there exist an official moderator here, to solve some how the unpleasant adds from here. Gabriel

Sûrement, si la stupidité physiologique cela a fait mal, les hôpitaux serait pleine(complète) d'idiots. Mais comme la stupidité n'est pas fait mal, nous les pourrions voir parmi nous, ici, sur Astrosurf, en agissant comme quelques d'enfants idiots , frustrés en même temps,parce que, vraiment, ils se rendent compte que personne ne leur donne, en fait, aucune valeur.J'ai un sentiment de pitié, mais aussi de dégoût pour eux.Gabriel

Thank you a lot, Baroche ! Eh bien, ce n'est pas une image parfaite mais j'essayerai dans l'avenir à postez d'encore meilleures images (traduction spéciale pour mes amis spéciaux) Gabriel

Pour AlSvartr et tous mes amis d'ici: Hello AlSvartr,Here I am showing an initial arbitrary choose, very low definition picture (300x300 pixels) which I processed step by step having as general goal to clean it up and underline the details by various means.here is the starting and the final version: here are the corresponding image to the 6 steps below described: Where:1-the haze is a bit wiped. 2-highlighting the very small details 3-highlighting the medium details 4-highlighting the large details 5-tuning the contrasts on 3 level - micro, low and medium. 6- underlining a bit the edges.

Pour AlSvartr et tous mes amis d'ici: Hello AlSvartr,Here I am showing an initial arbitrary choose, very low definition picture (300x300 pixels) which I processed step by step having as general goal to clean it up and underline the details by various means.here is the starting and the final version: here are the corresponding image to the 6 steps below described: Where:1-the haze is a bit wiped. 2-highlighting the very small details 3-highlighting the medium details 4-highlighting the large details 5-tuning the contrasts on 3 level - micro, low and medium. 6- underlining a bit the edges.[Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 04-12-2014).]

Pour AlSvartr et tous mes amis d'ici: Hello AlSvartr,Here I am showing an initial arbitrary choose, very low definition picture (300x300 pixels) which I processed step by step having as general goal to clean it up and underline the details by various means.here is the starting and the final version: here are the corresponding image to the 6 steps below described: Where:1-the haze is a bit wiped. 2-highlighting the very small details 3-highlighting the medium details 4-highlighting the large details 5-tuning the contrasts on 3 level - micro, low and medium. 6- underlining a bit the edges.

Pour AlSvartr et tous mes amis d'ici: Hello AlSvartr,Here I am showing an initial arbitrary choose, very low definition picture (300x300 pixels) which I processed step by step having as general goal to clean it up and underline the details by various means.here is the starting and the final version: here are the corresponding image to the 6 steps below described: Where:1-the haze is a bit wiped. 2-highlighting the very small details 3-highlighting the medium details 4-highlighting the large details 5-tuning the contrasts on 3 level - micro, low and medium. 6- underlining a bit the edges.

Pour AlSvartr et tous mes amis d'ici: Hello AlSvartr,Here I am showing an initial arbitrary choose, very low definition picture (300x300 pixels) which I processed step by step having as general goal to clean it up and underline the details by various means.here is the starting and the final version: here are the corresponding image to the 6 steps below described: Where:1-the haze is a bit wiped. 2-highlighting the very small details 3-highlighting the medium details 4-highlighting the large details 5-tuning the contrasts on 3 level - micro, low and medium. 6- underlining a bit the edges.

Pour AlSvartr et tous mes amis d'ici: Hello AlSvartr,Here I am showing an initial arbitrary choose, very low definition picture (300x300 pixels) which I processed step by step having as general goal to clean it up and underline the details by various means.here is the starting and the final version: here are the corresponding image to the 6 steps below described: Where:1-the haze is a bit wiped. 2-highlighting the very small details 3-highlighting the medium details 4-highlighting the large details 5-tuning the contrasts on 3 level - micro, low and medium. 6- underlining a bit the edges. [Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 04-12-2014).]

Hello, msThank you, ms, for your suitable add. It's very instructive to be posted here and also excellent organized in flow-chart.But ms, you don't forget that there are more than those 2 class of issues showed above (atm. turbulence - 2 components and camera's noise). For example the FOG in the atmosphere (considered as an homogeneous issue for the whole frame surface), also the out or in-focus during the capture and others.Here on above flow-chart, the value nk (if represent the camera's noise) is seen as a constant even IS NOT, because the camera's noise usually increase due to the inner heat or isn't stable even if camera is cooled (variations within an interval). But we know: it's an approximating model as all math. helpful models. By processing, we apply the associated de-convolutions and here is a very hilarious situation: using the parametrized de-convolution routines (software), if we don't know how to set the parameters we even may activate new issues (artifacts, etc). Soon, right HERE, I'll give another concrete example of processing (first of all for Mr. AlSvartr), an example where I'll show, step by step, the look of a processed image at each step, trying to reach various goals. Thank you again, "ms", thank you AlSvartr and François Emond for comments (remember that I much much better can understand in French than to speak or to write to). Cheers,Gabriel

Mr. AlSvartr, The processing means to try de-convolve the string of "bad" convolutions inherently appeared due to various issues during captures and even pre-processing (stacking). If A is the ideal image (which we need it) and B is the disturbed image (electronically, the haze, etc), which we had it,then, we have to get a function F , so that F(B)~A. ("~" means here - as close possible equal to)Using the matrix, seen as linear approximating functions, and assigning *(matrix composition), ^^(-1) inverse matrix, we'll have: G * A = B the relation (1)A the "cleaned" image where we have to arrive. B the raw resulted image (known matrix) which suffered a perturbation (let's suppose because the electronic noise) To arrive to the "real", clearer, ideal image, A, we have to find this unknown G. Usually, this one is experimentally approximated and modeled into dedicated software subroutines where few parameters enlarge the chances to better and interactively approximate G. Once we get this G, then:G^^(-1) * G * A = G^^(-1) * B[G^^(-1) * G] * A = G^^(-1) * B the relation (2) I*A=A=G^^(-1) * B or A=G^^(-1) * B where G^^(-1) is named the de -convolution function. But, take in account that, because the ideal image function A (which I'm looking for) was disturbed by many issues. Then, G^^(-1) will be substituted here by a composed function, where each component will act against a different image disturbing issue.The danger that the number of artifacts to increase is huge then (that's why many of astro-photographers who insist for details might have problems with artifacts or an induced noise by an excessive processing)As you proposed, for getting back to the initial image starting from the final result means to apply to (2) the matrix G, like this: G*[[G^^(-1) * G] * A ]= G* [G^^(-1) * B] the relation (3) where I have to arrive exactly at matrix B, those which is the initial image at this post. But, YOU DON'T FORGET that G is the composition result of many components (for noise, haze, etc) each one being defined by many parameters of the specific routine. Simply, G=g1*g2*g3...*gn.Can you believe me,AlSvartr, I really can't remember all very many parameters which I set it up during my above processing, at each routine (aren't recorded anywhere, for being able to reversely use it). That's why I can't do whatever you asked me. If I wouldn't exactly respect the back tracking, trying whatever you asked me, of course, I'll miss to arrive at exactly same original image then.Somebody, here, proposed me, to blur up the image and to try to go reversely back. But that is a utopia, sorry. The blurring function can't be used to retrace to initial variant of the image. It can be used to cover somehow the noise, but only for a certain level (interval) of the noise and very carefully, to not loose forever some details.The blurring rather then might be considered as a de-convolution ( positive) function.I hope you correctly understood my position and explanation here. You just trust me that I nothing else used except the initial image which you can see on the top of this very "controversial" post.You will have time enough to reallise, in time, that I am a fair and maybe too open person to be suspected that I am a liar. If you really understood my explanation, please try to help stop (using your French) some other's vulagarity on my post, HERE.Thank you very much, Cheers,Gabriel[Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 04-12-2014).]

C8 plus, Et moi aussi, je dégoûte votre grossièreté et votre nationalisme abject.[Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 03-12-2014).]

Thank you very much, 'polo0258' , 'ms' and 'Rolf'. Appreciating a lot your support and attitude. Mr. JP Brahic asked me (above) to stop, so... I'll stop. For those who didn't like my processed version, please copy the above original picture (the first picture of this post, which is in jpeg format) and try to do whatever you think that is much better for a correct processing. I also started using this jpeg format of original picture (original which's tiff format unfortunately wasn't linked on FB for "competitors").For those who want to have more details about processing (avoir plus de détails sur le traitement), please, you better ask M.Thierry Legault for details regarding another, better processing. Pour ceux qui ne peut pas comprendre en Englais, je vous recomande a utiliser: https://translate.google.fr Best regards, Mes sincere salutations,Gabriel [Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 03-12-2014).]

M. astrovicking, J'ai vu la lien ci-dessus, que vous avez donnés comme un exemple et qui devrait représenter la qualité des images de M. Thierry Legault. ( http://www.astrophoto.fr/ ) De mon point de vue, le traitement de M.Thierry Legault, au moins du soleil, est maladroit (excessif traité) aboutissant à une qualité dégoûtante. Si et ses livres ont la même qualité, donc j'ai été convaincu sur lui. De plus, qui est très important, mon point de vue est qu'astrofotografia est quoi que ce soit d'autre qu'une recherche de sensationnel capturant des satellites ou des avions(plans) passant par le soleil. Qu'est que nous nous efforçons ici de représenter,le sensationnal artificielle ou naturelle ? Ici je déduis que M. Thierry Legault vise en premier lieu notre sensationnellement bon marché et non le vrai astrofotografie.J'observe pour DSO aussi (Deep Space Object), que M. Thierry Legault vise le passe du satelittes le long de constelations. C'est formidable, autant qu'il a attendu, cette science, L'Astronomie, pour ayant des dernières nouvelles, de mouvements dans le ciel de satellites, du M. Thierry Legault. Autrement,pour DSO, ses images sont assez médiocres,même au niveau d'un débutant, en ce qui concerne qualité. Si vous voulez, je donnerai des tests de comparatif d'exemples à être effectué.Pour des déclarations de mauvais goût, qu'il a faites ici M. Thierry Legault, c'est-à-dire:<< rappelons qu'en anglais, uranus se dit "your-anus" >> Qu'en fait, il est caractérisé complètement et qui est aussi un délit à la langue anglaise en même temps, eh bien, Thierry Legault devrait faire des excuses immédiatement dans la première rangée de la communauté astrosurf (si ceci s'attendrait recevoir le respect), alors, pour les parleurs (étrangers) de la langue anglaise qui lisent ici.Moi, cependant, je ne peux pas pardonner de telles allégations comme obscène, dans lequel, je peux voir qui'll l'excel, particulièrement sur un tel forum.Pour moi, il est juste un imposteur. C'est dommage qu'il se soit débrouillé à ouah avec rien.Gabriel[Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 02-12-2014).]

Hello guys,I'm not forced to answer to any question here, for Mr. Thierry Legault, mainly if the questions are black-hearted. I don't care if Mr. Thierry Legault has or not much experience as Astro-photographer. I have my experience and also I have the right to have my own opinion about quality (mine or other's). I generally was very moderate regarding my comments about other's result but, my regular way to be is SINCERE, even if that way hurt others. When Mr. Thierry Legault will have my experience in processing, then, he might hope to have my special attention to his questions. Well, for my open-heart friends from this site, I'll just recommend to see my little "award" which I received today on SolarActivity FaceBook page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=681712528609831&set=gm.899643883380290&ty pe=1&theater Cheers,GabrielTraduction en francaise:Je ne suis pas forcé de répondre à n'importe quelle question ici, pour M. Thierry Legault, principalement si les questions ont malfaisant. Je ne fais pas si le M. Thierry Legault fait ou ne fait pas beaucoup d'expérience en astrophotography. J'ai mon expérience et aussi j'ai le droit d'avoir mon propre avis sur la qualité (moi ou d'autre). J'étais généralement très modéré ici à mes commentaires du résultat de l'autre, mais, ma cérémonie est d'habitude assistée par la façon d'être tres sincère, même si cette façon endommage d'autres. Quand M. Thierry Legault aura mon expérience dans le traitement (processing) , alors, il pourrait espérer avoir mon sincere attention particulière à ses questions. Eh bien, maintenant, pour mes amis ouverts-du-coeur de ce site, je recommanderai juste de voir ma petite "récompense"("sentence") que j'ai reçue aujourd'hui à la page Facebook SolarActivity : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=681712528609831&set=gm.899643883380290&ty pe=1&theater Salutations,Gabriel[Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 01-12-2014).]

Thierry Legault :<<Il a récupéré l'image par l'intermédiaire de Facebook mais il n'a aucune participation à la prise de vue qui a été réalisée au Big Bear Observatory en Californie>>FAUX, Thierry, je ai eu le droit de processe (traitee) l'image du Seigneur Claude Plymate , technicien au California Institute en tant que membre de la page Facebook - SolarActivity . Voir ici le "résultats " du "concours" (pour ceux qui ont accès à la page) et ne oubliez pas que la, mon FB name est Gabriel Corban: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=834450813243549&set=gm.893220837355928&ty pe=1&theater << ne sait pas s'il a traité/surtraité/massacré (rayez la mention inutile) une très belle image solaire dans un but scientifique ou esthétique.>>Thierry, ici, vous me rappelez les livres de Kafka , en particulier "Le Processus" ou "Le château" . Votre interprétation est ridicule. Ne comprenez-vous pas que je ne peux pas répondre aux questions (des points) absurde venant de vous ? Pas croire que tout le monde (qui font de ce résumé) peut juger que par votre esprit. <<Il déclare avoir traité l'image pour donner un "effet 3D", ce qui tient de la méthode Coué car outre le fait qu'il n'y a dans l'image de départ aucune information sur la forme réelle de la surface solaire au moment de la prise de vue, une véritable 3D se regarde en double image à fusionner (croisé ou parallèle) ou avec des lunettes colorées>>Again Franz Kafka ici. Ce est mon travail que je choisis de faire la "3 - D effect" et est seulement votre travail me juger . Je ne me soucie tout simplement pas. <<Pour finir, un peu agacé de ne pas recevoir que des compliments, il a ressorti un fil de chonum du mois dernier pour y glisser une petite vengeance.>>Thierry, nous ne devrions pas être amis avec quelqu'un, que vous aimez ses photos . Ce est ma règle .Je viens il appliqué dans votre cas.Il ne était pas question de vengeance . Plutôt votre intervention était une vengeance . Je voulais juste vous montrer ce que cela signifie d'être honnête et juste . Aussi je voulais vous montrer comment de nombreuses aberrations peuvent soumettre votre style de travail et pourtant je ne étais pas trop explicite . Tout votre interprétation du résumé est FAUX et MALVEILLANTS. Vous n'avez pas, ici, le droit de se MOQUER et à dénigrer .Votre interprétation misérable : <<(*) : rappelons qu'en anglais, uranus se dit "your-anus">>démontre la réalité qu'une demande : vous êtes une personne ABJECTE, VULGAIRE, qui n'aurait pas ce qu'il faut rechercher sur ce site. Ainsi, de parler au nom de la science. Gabriel [Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 01-12-2014).]

Thierry, lets assign to 1,2,3 your points.1. I didn't declared at all, at the beginnig, that the picture is aesthetic or scientific. Then...is just a processing. Take it as you wish...it's your subjective interpretation then. Did you attentively read my post ??? 2. The point 2 has no relevance...except probably at a POLICE POST. My credit is very clear first of all by the title of the post. You didn't read it ? The image is in fact captured at BBO but in fact, the reconstruction was made at New Jersey, so, isn't a fatal error because I mentioned in a way, the trace of the picture, finally. I wanted to make correction about the place of the Institute where I received the picture but the possibilities to correct the post's title here seems to be impossible, too primitive or very delicate (not at hand) supposing much time consuming (also for image insertion, URL insertion, etc) so I rather give up.3. Yes, I "talked a lot" about 3-D effect. If you didn't see the effect is probably because maybe you aren't able to see it or you won't. Did you ever think about that idea till now ? All images here on this site are "arbitrary interpretations" as you named. If you didn't know then today you find out. Here I saw different images wonderful or bad. For solar I saw very hard close up's made with very expensive instruments, full of artifacts, with smeared area processed as "arbitrary interpretation", but also nice images close to a scientific look and made with modest instruments at a high level skills. Thanks [Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 27-11-2014).]

Hello Chonum, Sorry but in my opinion your images are over processed and noisy. Probably the etalon of your scope cant work for a shorter band than 1 Angstrom as I can see, so, pushing with processing the artifacts and the noise are filling the picture. Also, pushing with the processing, the tiny filament's lines become interrupted.I think also that you captured and stacked frames where some filaments already appear as moved, so the stacking will result in some smeared area. That usually is happening when you shot too much frames and the Chromosphere is dynamically very active.Finally, the pictures remain impressive enough.Regards,Gabriel [Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 26-11-2014).]

Hello, ChonumIn my sincere opinion, most of your images are over processed. As I can see, your etalon, probably can't allows a better resolution corresponding for a value <1 Angstrom band-pass.On this situation, forcing by processing to a better sharp is going to noise, over contrast (over lightened area) and interrupted segments representing plasma disposed along magnetic lines.On the other hand, your capture technique seems to be not suitable as I see. If you shot long avi's or long strings of frames, you are in danger to stack frames where the filaments (long or short) already moved (during capture) and the stacked result will appear with smeared areas, whatever I already saw at your last (above) pictures. The main rule, if the capture is rich enough in information (good seeing/transparency) without possible moved filaments inside, is to not over process more than the band-pass and more than the noise allow you. But the pictures remains artistically impressive and I appreciate your efforts. Regards, Gabriel

Hello, FredericMy position regarding the G band inter-cells can be read above, at my answer to JP Brahic. I compared again. No loss in the umbra, it's just another way to show it by processing. Anyway, the initial frame had at some places, extremely much confused details which, by 3-D effect were a bit assimilated by very well defined neighbor details. At a general look to the initial frame (image) you can't ignore the abnormalities at the left down corner for example and not only, where the shapes are wrongly defined by physical issues (lens, turbulence, wrong reconstruction, etc). Nobody can tell me that the initial frame has a homogeneous quality on his whole surface. As you can see, the small G band inter-cells are much much better defined to the middle of the picture than on down-left area (initial picture).What are you expecting to get off, by processing, in the very wrong definitely area, where someone of here is only supposing to be G-band inter-cells ? Here in Romania we have a saying: "nobody can do a perfect lash using only sand".Of course, as for the scientific value the down-left corner area has not much value even at the original delivered image (frame). On the other hand, I just wanted to do the 3-D impression for big granules, first of all. That was my main proposal first of all. "Le style c'est l'homme même" ( Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon- French Academie, Aug. 25, 1753) and that's the way I processed for my proposal with the input conditions. Appreciating your comments.Regards,Gabriel

Bravo Polo ! Stunning image ! Gabriel

Thank you Christophe for appreciations ! Regards,Gabriel

Et,a la finale, pour mon amis: https://www.flickr.com/photos/43926774@N06/with/15664224055/ Gabriel

@ ms

Hello, ms,<<Between final SR image and initial LR frames (noisy, blurred, down-sampled) : Atmosphere Blur Effect -> Motion Effect -> Camera Blur Effect -> Down-Sampling Effect + Noise.>>Yes, ms ! But even for a single AVI's frame, all above functions together make a composition of convolutions which is a convolution also. And behind any convolution result, still might hide some unseen details...just waiting for somebody to reveal them. Cheers,Gabriel