Lobster Claw Nebula using Drizzle Integration

[STEVE333]

With my WFOV telescope the Image Scale is 2.25 arc-sec/pixel which causes small stars to be pixelated and/or square. David (Jockinireland) pointed out how using Drizzle Integration can help that problem. So, this is a reprocess of the Lobster Claw and Friends nebulae using Drizzle Integration. For some reason I was also able to include all of the Lobster Claw which is an improvement. The stars are definitely much better than in the original processing with normal integration, however, it's hard to tell without enlarging the image to the point you cans see the individual pixels. A version with normal Integration is included for comparisosn.


With Drizzle Integration
bubble_sho_stars by STEPHEN KING, on Flickr


Without Drizzle Integration
Bubble_SHO by STEPHEN KING, on Flickr


The file size using Drizzle is considerably larger (approx 3X larger for this image). Also, StarXTerminator takes much longer to run on the larger file. Just FYI.

Thanks for looking.

Steve

[Juno16]

Thanks Steve.

Why is the coloration between each image so different with drizzle?

[STEVE333]

The coloration difference isn't related to the Drizzle. It comes about because of the difference in how much I boosted the S2 and/or 03 data before combining with the Ha. I find NB processing to be more art than science. Each time I reprocess an image it comes out a bit different because of variations along the way.

Steve

[BABOafrica]

The drizzle definitely gave you a boost. But if I tried to drizzle even a small image on my laptop it probably reduce the hard drive to dust.

BABO

[Juno16]

The coloration difference isn't related to the Drizzle. It comes about because of the difference in how much I boosted the S2 and/or 03 data before combining with the Ha. I find NB processing to be more art than science. Each time I reprocess an image it comes out a bit different because of variations along the way.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I definitely understand that.
I have a hard time repeating an osc process with the same results as the original.

Drizzling is my choice with my 2.7 arcsec/px image scale.

[Mirrorgirl]

I love the first one Steve you processing is amazing

[starfield]

The stars definitely look tighter with drizzle. Nice and round. How many frames did you have to work with?

--Steve

[yobbo89]

i see a big difference on smaller stars, on my setup i notice the same thing at 0.64'' smaller stars seems a little blocky without drizzle

[STEVE333]

The stars definitely look tighter with drizzle. Nice and round. How many frames did you have to work with?

--Steve

I had a total of 139 images approximately equally split between S, H and O.

I love the first one Steve you processing is amazing

Thanks Rhoda. The first one is my favorite too.

The coloration difference isn't related to the Drizzle. It comes about because of the difference in how much I boosted the S2 and/or 03 data before combining with the Ha. I find NB processing to be more art than science. Each time I reprocess an image it comes out a bit different because of variations along the way.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I definitely understand that.
I have a hard time repeating an osc process with the same results as the original.

Drizzling is my choice with my 2.7 arcsec/px image scale.

Thanks so much for getting me started with drizzle! It makes a huge difference.

The drizzle definitely gave you a boost. But if I tried to drizzle even a small image on my laptop it probably reduce the hard drive to dust.

BABO

I understand Joe, Drizzle is definitely a memory hog!


Thanks all - Steve

[messier 111]

very nice integration , thx .