I am going to post a few images that I used Sony's MFNR (Multi-Frame-Noise-Reduction) to see if it offers any advantages for astrophotography. What it does is fire off 6 images (Alpha Models) or 4 images (newer E-Mount Models) and stack in camera to reduce noise. The downside is that only JPEG can be used and images are limited to a max of 30 sec each.
For the displayed imaged, I shot anywhere from 15sec to 30 sec at ISO 3200 using an Orion Astrograph 8" Newton type scope with coma corrector. Focal length is 800mm and the speed is about f3.9.
The images were first loaded into Lightroom, but no adjustments are made. For each image, I exported it to Photoshop, used RC-Astro's Gradient XTerminator to even out the image background and then adjusted the Level's black point to the right stopping short of doing any clipping. Then returned it to Lightroom. I finally exported as another JPEG and that export is what I am showing.
What I find is the following:
1) Noise has indeed been minimized by the image stacking. I did not provide any additional noise reduction.
2) The images are 8-bit JPEG and do not respond well to stretching, so I didn't do any stretching at all.
3) The stars look good, corner to corner, showing that the scope is performing well.
4) Even though exposure times are short, many faint stars can be seen due to the light gathering ability of an 8" mirror.
Image 1 is The Blue Snowball. 800mm is hardly enough to show off this object. But it is plainly visible.
Image 2 is M 103, an open cluster. To the far left is NGC559, another open cluster.
Image 3 is M52, another open cluster. To the upper right is the bubble nebula, although at 800mm and 20 sec images, you don't see much.
Image 4 is NGC 103, yet another open cluster.
Image 5 is Andromeda. Lots of galaxy structure is beginning to be seen. But insufficient time and insufficient processing to bring it out better. But since this is only 8-bit JPEG, stretching is not really an option. Again, only RC-Astro was used to improve the background gradient. And the Levels black point was slid to the right, but stopped before black clipping reached.
In retrospect, imaging this way can be termed "Lazy Man's Astrophotography". It can see many faint objects, and noise is under control. But what you get is about what you end with. The images just are not very adjustable. Certainly not adjustable like the 16-bit images I get with the Atik Infinity and Atik 460ex. Even a tiny stretch causes these images to fall apart.
bwana
Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
Sony's MFNR does yield a 2x improvement in signal-to-noise ratio but, sadly, only captured in JPG format.
Pretty reasonable shots nonetheless!
bwa
JimH123 wrote:
I am going to post a few images that I used Sony's MFNR (Multi-Frame-Noise-Reduction) to see if it offers any advantages for astrophotography. What it does is fire off 6 images (Alpha Models) or 4 images (newer E-Mount Models) and stack in camera to reduce noise. The downside is that only JPEG can be used and images are limited to a max of 30 sec each.
For the displayed imaged, I shot anywhere from 15sec to 30 sec at ISO 3200 using an Orion Astrograph 8" Newton type scope with coma corrector. Focal length is 800mm and the speed is about f3.9.
The images were first loaded into Lightroom, but no adjustments are made. For each image, I exported it to Photoshop, used RC-Astro's Gradient XTerminator to even out the image background and then adjusted the Level's black point to the right stopping short of doing any clipping. Then returned it to Lightroom. I finally exported as another JPEG and that export is what I am showing.
What I find is the following:
1) Noise has indeed been minimized by the image stacking. I did not provide any additional noise reduction.
2) The images are 8-bit JPEG and do not respond well to stretching, so I didn't do any stretching at all.
3) The stars look good, corner to corner, showing that the scope is performing well.
4) Even though exposure times are short, many faint stars can be seen due to the light gathering ability of an 8" mirror.
Image 1 is The Blue Snowball. 800mm is hardly enough to show off this object. But it is plainly visible.
Image 2 is M 103, an open cluster. To the far left is NGC559, another open cluster.
Image 3 is M52, another open cluster. To the upper right is the bubble nebula, although at 800mm and 20 sec images, you don't see much.
Image 4 is NGC 103, yet another open cluster.
Image 5 is Andromeda. Lots of galaxy structure is beginning to be seen. But insufficient time and insufficient processing to bring it out better. But since this is only 8-bit JPEG, stretching is not really an option. Again, only RC-Astro was used to improve the background gradient. And the Levels black point was slid to the right, but stopped before black clipping reached.
In retrospect, imaging this way can be termed "Lazy Man's Astrophotography". It can see many faint objects, and noise is under control. But what you get is about what you end with. The images just are not very adjustable. Certainly not adjustable like the 16-bit images I get with the Atik Infinity and Atik 460ex. Even a tiny stretch causes these images to fall apart.
I am going to post a few images that I used Sony's... (
show quote)
Andromeda was well worth the wait to Download, nicely done Jim H.
Craig
CraigFair wrote:
Andromeda was well worth the wait to Download, nicely done Jim H.
Craig
Thank you.
Being as it is a JPEG from the camera, if can't be processed very much. So basically, shooting this way is "What You Shoot, Is What You Get". (WYSIWYG) If these were RAWs, more could be done.
SonnyE
Loc: Communist California, USA
Actually, and not to pop anybodies bubble, most of what is on the web is jpg anyway.
So I just go for the peg and say hey. It's the bestest I could do.
They all look great to me, Jim!
SonnyE wrote:
Actually, and not to pop anybodies bubble, most of what is on the web is jpg anyway.
So I just go for the peg and say hey. It's the bestest I could do.
They all look great to me, Jim!
Of course, what is on the web is JPEG. But what it is before it is changed to JPEG makes for a BIG difference in what it can become. JPEG is an 8-bit file, and for adjustments, levels can only be changed in 1/(2^8) increments. If you are working with a camera RAW file, it is either 1/(2^12) or 1/(2^14), depending upon which camera. Some models may only be 2^10.
And with the Infinity, it is 2^16 for the step size.
The smaller the step size, the more you can stretch. And once stretched, then turn it to JPEG. But if you start with JPEG, you are basically locked in.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.