Sign in to follow this  
uranus7

Autre image credit from BB Observatory - New Jersey to be processed

Recommended Posts

Publicité
En vous inscrivant sur Astrosurf,
ce type d'annonce ne sera plus affiché.
Astronomie solaire : la bible est arrivée !
400 pages, plus de 800 illustrations !
Les commandes sont ouvertes sur www.astronomiesolaire.com
Toujours aussi piquées et contrastées tes images, superbe bravo ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you very much, Baroche !
Special thanks to you, Polo.

If you really liked my processing, then you'll do a good job to give a like here, where I haven't much enough friends:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=818707028191597&set=gm.894139973930681&type=1&theater

What is the suitable word in french for envious ???

[Ce message a été modifié par uranus7 (Édité le 23-11-2014).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

From the purely aesthetical point of view your processing does a good job, with very neat rendering! On the other hand, some details present in the original image are gone on yours, while new ones (artifacts) do appear, which -from a more scientific point of view- is a loss. Btw, the strength of your process also affects the edges (grey band) of the image :-)

Cheers

Simon

P.S.: "envious" may be translated in french by "envieu" or "jaloux", depends a bit of what you wanna say.

[Ce message a été modifié par AlSvartr (Édité le 23-11-2014).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello, Simon,
You wrote:
<<From the purely aesthetical point of view your processing does a good job, with very neat rendering! On the other hand, some details present in the original image are gone on yours, while new ones (artifacts) do appear, which -from a more scientific point of view- is a loss. Btw, the strength of your process also affects the edges (grey band) of the image >>

First of all "aesthetical" doesn't exist in English but you simply may use aesthetic point of view.

The details are not only kept but even more, are REVEALED those which were hidden. Also the gray band are deliberately and separately strengthen by me, to give kind of 3-D impression for real 3-D shapes (whatever a camera capture simply can't realize). Well, NO artifact appeared during my processing. It seems that all your assertions here are FALSE and not sustained at all (except the deliberately strengthening of edges). But I invite you to give me some examples. Please, just make little crops of each picture and post it here, to convince me and all of us. So, give me please, examples for disappeared details and appeared artifacts.

You are Simon but I am a relative of TOMA...

Cheers,

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Gabriel,

Take it easy, I was just giving my opinion, no need to get harsh In this forum we are used to give our opinion, that's all.

To come back to your image, the only test that would unveil the truth about your processing is a closure test, i.e. starting from a known image (whatever it is), blur it, apply your processing, and check out if you get back the exact same original picture.


Cheers

S.

[Ce message a été modifié par AlSvartr (Édité le 24-11-2014).]

[Ce message a été modifié par AlSvartr (Édité le 24-11-2014).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Simon,

I certainly agree with opinions but mainly the sustained opinions which avoid subjective assertions. That's why I purposed to you to bring here some concrete examples for your assertions.
Here was about a partially unknown image (flat and hazy) and the appeared details can be right those which can't be seen at the initial image. Many raw files and even processed are still hiding details which still didn't get the right astro-photograph. But that doesn't mean the new details are artifacts. By the way, the tiny mini (micro) granules which you can see in the final image, really exist and even specialists from BBO confirmed and mentioned them, as a curiosity.


Cheers,

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Gabriel,

As soon as I have time I will bring these "proofs". But I keep my idea that a closure test would be much more relevant.

Cheers

S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starting from here:
only one frame ?

Do you have a raw video (100+ AVI frames) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Gabriel
Personally, I would say beautiful! I love it! very pretty work of art.
Congratulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<<Starting from here:
only one frame ?
Do you have a raw video (100+ AVI frames) ?>>

Hello, ms

Yes, I had the raw result of a 70 frame pre-processing (reconstruction). The BBSO is using an adaptive optics System. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics
Also is using a very good HD camera and a huge telescope (the biggest in the World dedicated to the Sun observations) having "a mirror of 1.6m. The images were taken with a PCO2000 CCD camera, broad band TiO (705.7 nm) filter, 70 x 70 arcsec, exposure 1.0ms at a cadence of 20 seconds. Each is a speckle reconstruction of the best 70 out of 100 frames taken in very quick bursts." The above initial frame is a "reconstruction" (kind of stacking, done by a BBSO technician).
So, I had just a quasi-frame:shot of 100 frames once at 20 seconds +selection of the best 70 of 100 frames + the "reconstruction", as the technician declare here, where he posted the resulted TIME-LAPSE film.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=832451586776805&set=o.202476246430394&type=2&theater

my quasi-frame is the frame #607 of the above T-lapse but at the HD resolution, of course, because the T-lapse is a film where the frames are reduced in resolution.

Cheers,

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much , MissBlues

Waiting for you to often visit my posts here !

Regards,

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah ok then I start to understand why I see things in your processed picture that do not appear on the first one...I guess that the first one is a unique (jpeg?) image out of the 70 frame? If yes then that would explain something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello Gabriel

is it's a pity that G-band bright points are totally destroyed by the processing!!! because i think that it is the initial purpose I think of this photo to show the maximum détails of this G-Band Bright Points

like this

[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1384021_10204544047494060_5735189511043305522_n.jpg?oh=3e438fb7b237901a2d7b522168d329b6&oe=54DAFBDF&__gda__=142 6712038_32586b006f5951a26d4958862846ef6e[/IMG]

but it's just my opinion


[Ce message a été modifié par jp-brahic (Édité le 24-11-2014).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jean-Pierre,

It's just what I explained before. The G- band existed before just because the image was flattened (2-D aspect). Developing by processing the 3-D aspect, logically the G-band disappeared a bit but not totally. The details, Jean-Pierre,are enriched, first of all, by this 3- D aspect, here, and definitely this was my initial goal: 3-D aspect. It would be much easier to me to keep all the G-band bright points but I just tried something more. As I told before to MR.Allan Friedman, the 3-D appearance is important because, indeed, the photo-sphere's granules have 3-D different shapes which are in a dynamical change all the time. I'm really unpleasantly surprised and disappointed that most of solar imagers don't know or don't want to take in account this point of view. The suitable processing on at least 3-4 levels of details can get the 3-D aspect of granules and you already saw, at some of my pictures (my captures), this 3-D effect. Well but, finally, it's just matter of taste.

Thank you for your comments and I'm glad that you helped me, by this occasion, to better explain my points in White Light processing.

Regards,

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, AlSvartr,


<< Ah ok then I start to understand why I see things in your processed picture that do not appear on the first one...I guess that the first one is a unique (jpeg?) image out of the 70 frame? If yes then that would explain something...>>


Yes, this is the explanation of the appeared details.
The first one was a jpeg took directly from a FB page. It is supposing to be the stacking result of the best mentioned 70 frames (the BBO technician name it "reconstruction"), then, lots of not necessary visible details being embed into this file.

Cheers,

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

So, could you post the HD version of the frame n°705 who have actually used for your precessing ?
It would be more relevant than showing us a low quality frame capture from a compressed movie file.

BTW, an image resulting from speckle reconstruction is not exactly a "raw image" ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
The above initial frame is a "reconstruction" (kind of stacking, done by a BBSO technician).

Initial frame = Non-rigid registration + Fusion ?
Final frame = Initial frame + Deblurring ?
It's a kind of super-resokution reconstruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salut,

Je vais probablement me faire jeter, mais y'a pas moyen de faire la discussion en Français ?

Ca m'a l'air intéressant mais j'y pipe que dalle ????

Désolé du hors sujet.


Amicalement, Christophe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello, Christian


It's about frame # 607, Christian Viladrich, not 705.
The used file was those saved by me from FaceBook, of course in jpg.
I didn't used at all the movie file...just mentioned to you to understand that they build a T-lapse, the way which I explained above.

I already mentioned that I'm not sure about the meaning "reconstruction" and just supposed to be kind of stacking.
But you can explained it here if it's not so complicate.

The used file for processing is this one: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=834450813243549&set=gm.893220837355928&type=1&theater

Nobody had conditions so that the HD file to be uploaded on a special site (see the dialog there whit this proposal) so, all worked with the downloaded jpg file from above link.

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ms:

<<Initial frame = Non-rigid registration + Fusion ?
Final frame = Initial frame + Deblurring ?
It's a kind of super-resokution reconstruction. >>

Hello, ms
Probably Christian Viladrich will explain to us better what "reconstruction" means. I sincerely speaking, really don't know.

Regards,

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<<Salut,
Je vais probablement me faire jeter, mais y'a pas moyen de faire la discussion en Français ?
Ca m'a l'air intéressant mais j'y pipe que dalle ????
Désolé du hors sujet.
Amicalement, Christophe.>>

Salut Mesieur Christophe

Il est regretable mais ma Francaise est horrible.
J'apprendu l'Englaise et Russian a l'ecole.
Et bien, je vais apprandre le Francaise aussi, a cette occasion...
Pardone mois, s'il vous plait.

Mes salutations,

Gabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello ms, hello guys

Well, guys, remember that I specified above that BBSO own an adaptive optic system (AOS).
Adaptive optics is a technique employed by astronomers to sidestep the blurring effects caused by the atmosphere. A special sensor monitors distortions in the air, sends that information to a computer when then adjusts the shape of the flexible mirror to correct for the distortion. Using adaptive optical systems, astronomers can take pictures nearly as sharp as those made by the Hubble Space Telescope which orbits above the atmosphere. Taking in account this AOS you just have to read a large explanation about SPEAKLE IMAGING here:

https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol02_no2/2.2.4.speckleimaging.pdf

The question is if the SPEAKLE still might or not hide some details. I guess YES, because in fact, is finally a composition of a number of convolutions (even taking in account only the electronic convolutions of camera) and the processing represent a composition of de-convolutions, finally. Then, is possible that the initial "frame" to still hide some un-revealed details, my friends.

For JP Brahic : your above posted URL isn't correctly defined, so that I can't see the image which you refer. If you, by hazard, will pass over here, please, make the suitable correction.

Regards, "a tous"

Gabriel


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://translate.google.fr
Pour Christophe.

Happy to follow your work Gabriel
I think strong interesting.
For my eyes artist .
Nathalie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this