Over the past 2 years I am developing an annoying habit. Mainly, obsessing over the shape of the stars and practically ignoring the DSO that I just captured. To me this is ridiculous as I got back into astronomy wanting to enjoy the beauty of the objects I can capture even though they are not spectacular from my not so great LP skies. I get round stars but still obsess over the shape and color. There is so much commentary and disagreement on techniques and the "what stars should look like" out on AP sites it gets me sidetracked from a decent image I just captured. Just curious if anyone else goes through this as they travel down the AP road.
Developed a Bad Habit when I Switched from Visual & EAA to AP
Engaging
Hi Bruce,
I haven’t been obsessed about the star shapes (and I agree, I‘ve seen post where people have been dissatisfied if the numeric eccentricity hasn’t been closest to zero) but what I think what one also needs to be careful about, and sometimes I sense this, is to get into competition and by that loosing the joy of one‘s own work and trying to see one‘s own equipment and work in a negative light.
There are many attitudes towards amateur astronomy and one needs to find one‘s own personal goals and definitions what one wants to achieve and follow this path. People invest a lot of money and time into this (which also needs the support of your family) that the primary goal must be to match your own goals and not goals that others may set for you (implicitly). Furthermore, I consider it to be an endeavor where there the endeavor is the goal and not a specific spot where you need to be in a certain time.
Now, I‘ve written a lot and probably haven’t said that much but overall I sometimes sense that people get disappointed about heir own great work.
Clear skies,
Björn
I haven’t been obsessed about the star shapes (and I agree, I‘ve seen post where people have been dissatisfied if the numeric eccentricity hasn’t been closest to zero) but what I think what one also needs to be careful about, and sometimes I sense this, is to get into competition and by that loosing the joy of one‘s own work and trying to see one‘s own equipment and work in a negative light.
There are many attitudes towards amateur astronomy and one needs to find one‘s own personal goals and definitions what one wants to achieve and follow this path. People invest a lot of money and time into this (which also needs the support of your family) that the primary goal must be to match your own goals and not goals that others may set for you (implicitly). Furthermore, I consider it to be an endeavor where there the endeavor is the goal and not a specific spot where you need to be in a certain time.
Now, I‘ve written a lot and probably haven’t said that much but overall I sometimes sense that people get disappointed about heir own great work.
Clear skies,
Björn
Respectful Supportive
Hi Bruce,
In my opinion there is too often too much discussion about technical aspects, details and skills, instead of focusing on the beauty and emotions an image transports. Also under which circumstances it has been crated. The technique is a tool to express or visualize something. What we do is a creative process and not a physical measurement of photons. Actually it is "Art versus Science".
I agree, if technical failures are relay disturbing and spoil is complete image, then they have to be considered, but not tiny flaws.
Usually if you visit a gallery and you adore a Rubens or a Rembrandt painting you enjoy the image itself and do not discus whether Rubens had a proper color calibration of the tree in the background and denying therefore a like.
In my opinion there is too often too much discussion about technical aspects, details and skills, instead of focusing on the beauty and emotions an image transports. Also under which circumstances it has been crated. The technique is a tool to express or visualize something. What we do is a creative process and not a physical measurement of photons. Actually it is "Art versus Science".
I agree, if technical failures are relay disturbing and spoil is complete image, then they have to be considered, but not tiny flaws.
Usually if you visit a gallery and you adore a Rubens or a Rembrandt painting you enjoy the image itself and do not discus whether Rubens had a proper color calibration of the tree in the background and denying therefore a like.
Engaging
Gentlemen,
I could not have expressed this any better than the two of you. At first, I always said, I like all of my images because I did them. Now, I find myself being more and more critical of my work and comparing it to others rather than enjoying the reason why I started doing this wonderful hobby. I also think some internal competitiveness is bubbling up.
I greatly appreciate your insights as you both hit the bullseye on what I need to refocus on and get back to where I started….the simple joy of astronomy.
I could not have expressed this any better than the two of you. At first, I always said, I like all of my images because I did them. Now, I find myself being more and more critical of my work and comparing it to others rather than enjoying the reason why I started doing this wonderful hobby. I also think some internal competitiveness is bubbling up.
I greatly appreciate your insights as you both hit the bullseye on what I need to refocus on and get back to where I started….the simple joy of astronomy.
Well written Respectful
Personally, I think it's OK to look closely at your stars and ensure they are as best as they can be. Stars are the first line of defensive monitoring to any underlying issues in your rig/imaging train. They are like the tonsils of the universe 
If your stars are bloated, then the whole image is probably out of focus. If your stars exhibit high eccentricity, then the fine details of your bok globules are probably smeared in the same direction of that eccentricity, albeit less noticeable. I see them as an aid, helping to produce a finer image.
That said though, fretting over stars but not using the information they provide constructively to produce a better image, that is the destructive and demoralizing vortex in which one can find themselves. Nothing is gained from self-criticism; but, everything is gained from failed images and technical challenges which motivate you to do better.
Be one with your stars
CS, Ara
If your stars are bloated, then the whole image is probably out of focus. If your stars exhibit high eccentricity, then the fine details of your bok globules are probably smeared in the same direction of that eccentricity, albeit less noticeable. I see them as an aid, helping to produce a finer image.That said though, fretting over stars but not using the information they provide constructively to produce a better image, that is the destructive and demoralizing vortex in which one can find themselves. Nothing is gained from self-criticism; but, everything is gained from failed images and technical challenges which motivate you to do better.
Be one with your stars
CS, Ara
Well written Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Some of this star fetish might be historical. As recent as a decade ago if your star eccentricity wasn't nearly perfect your entire image was negatively affected. Fortunately those 9um pixels hid a lot of bad star data. Nowadays with 3.8u pixels being the norm, you can get nearly perfect galaxy and nebula photos with eccentricities as high as about 0.7. You can fix the stars with deconvolution, or run Starnet on the image and replace the stars with stars extracted from a selected subset of your subs.
Don't get me wrong, an image with sharp stars will always have more details than one with high eccentricity, but the eccentricity measured on a system with modern pixel sizes cannot be compared directly to a 9um pixel sensor. An under sampled or critically sampled system will always give lower eccentricity than an over-sampled system.
Always drizzle!!! Then perform most of your noise reduction and other processing, then apply a Gaussian blur equal to your oversampling factor then down sample to critically sampled resolution. Then you can compare your eccentricity to other systems.
CS, David
Don't get me wrong, an image with sharp stars will always have more details than one with high eccentricity, but the eccentricity measured on a system with modern pixel sizes cannot be compared directly to a 9um pixel sensor. An under sampled or critically sampled system will always give lower eccentricity than an over-sampled system.
Always drizzle!!! Then perform most of your noise reduction and other processing, then apply a Gaussian blur equal to your oversampling factor then down sample to critically sampled resolution. Then you can compare your eccentricity to other systems.
CS, David
Helpful Insightful
David Redwine:
Some of this star fetish might be historical. As recent as a decade ago if your star eccentricity wasn't nearly perfect your entire image was negatively affected. Fortunately those 9um pixels hid a lot of bad star data. Nowadays with 3.8u pixels being the norm, you can get nearly perfect galaxy and nebula photos with eccentricities as high as about 0.7. You can fix the stars with deconvolution, or run Starnet on the image and replace the stars with stars extracted from a selected subset of your subs.
Don't get me wrong, an image with sharp stars will always have more details than one with high eccentricity, but the eccentricity measured on a system with modern pixel sizes cannot be compared directly to a 9um pixel sensor. An under sampled or critically sampled system will always give lower eccentricity than an over-sampled system.
Always drizzle!!! Then perform most of your noise reduction and other processing, then apply a Gaussian blur equal to your oversampling factor then down sample to critically sampled resolution. Then you can compare your eccentricity to other systems.
CS, David
Hi David,
I have a slightly different point of view. Please allow me to share my 2 cents.
1. Only in consumer range the cameras have such small pixels since they use consumer CMOS. This trend to smaller pixels is very counterproductive. Usually you always run in oversampling range an get these bloated stars. Bigger pixels are better or you have to use binning. Also for SNR and photons per pixel. These small pixels are only good for short FL systems. Professional cameras tend to use much bigger pixels.
2. Eccentricity beyond 0.5 is hard to correct. Even with deconvolution. Moreover deconvolution works only if you have a unidirectional eccentricity over the entire image, e. g. coming from tracking inaccuracy. An eccentricity of 0.7 means also you have smeared the signal over many pixels which leads to low SNR.
3. Why should I make such an effort with Starnet, instead of having the right sampling factor from the start, or get rid of these eccentric subs? And if all my subs have an eccentricity of 0.7 then it might be better to find the error in the setup and get it fixed.
4. Sharp means not more information if you oversample. That's a common misunderstanding.
5. Drizzling makes only sense when undersampled. You add only nonexistent information to the image. Additionally you blow up the image size and increase processing time by the power of 2. Which could mean for full frame cameras it is not anymore reasonably to process.
I have to admit, my approach would be different, but there are always alternative ways.
CS Rudiger
Helpful Insightful Engaging
Hi Rüdiger,
I don't know if one can limit the small pixels to consumer cameras. I think the overall trend is simply to the smaller pixel sizes as the CMOS sensors of our Astro cameras are basically industry grade sensors. I am regularly working with computer vision in industry and several sensors I met there I'm also finding in the Astro cams. For many purposes the small pixels are ideal but not for what we want to do. Long story short… also CCD production is reduced and I could imagine that in 10 to 15 years, regular production will cease and only CCDs for research (start to save money) and the tiny pixel CMOS will be available.
Now coming back to the thread: my attitude became to not excessively manipulate the data beyond the fundamental processing steps. Stacking, stretching, a bit of saturation and that should it be. I usually don't apply noise reduction methods anymore as noise is part of the process like the fine noise that you hear when you listen an LP. Some people like the noise, some hate it. I kind of started to like seeing an image with its fine noise than a completely flat sky background. But as usual with tase: one can discuss about it forever.
And beyond that, I think there's another aspect worth considering: we're taking photos of the universe! It's not justing making a beautiful image but it's discovering the universe with your own photos. With that said, you can image my opinion about trying to sell me nebula photos with the stars removed…
An last but not least, Merriam-Webster's definition of hobby:
"a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation" 😇
So, if your stars aren't round and it bothers you, take it as a task to work on and if there are issues, there's a community that will provide helpful answers. If the stars are round enough and 5 is even and your are happy, so be it! 👍🏻
Clear skies!
Björn
I don't know if one can limit the small pixels to consumer cameras. I think the overall trend is simply to the smaller pixel sizes as the CMOS sensors of our Astro cameras are basically industry grade sensors. I am regularly working with computer vision in industry and several sensors I met there I'm also finding in the Astro cams. For many purposes the small pixels are ideal but not for what we want to do. Long story short… also CCD production is reduced and I could imagine that in 10 to 15 years, regular production will cease and only CCDs for research (start to save money) and the tiny pixel CMOS will be available.
Now coming back to the thread: my attitude became to not excessively manipulate the data beyond the fundamental processing steps. Stacking, stretching, a bit of saturation and that should it be. I usually don't apply noise reduction methods anymore as noise is part of the process like the fine noise that you hear when you listen an LP. Some people like the noise, some hate it. I kind of started to like seeing an image with its fine noise than a completely flat sky background. But as usual with tase: one can discuss about it forever.
And beyond that, I think there's another aspect worth considering: we're taking photos of the universe! It's not justing making a beautiful image but it's discovering the universe with your own photos. With that said, you can image my opinion about trying to sell me nebula photos with the stars removed…
An last but not least, Merriam-Webster's definition of hobby:
"a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation" 😇
So, if your stars aren't round and it bothers you, take it as a task to work on and if there are issues, there's a community that will provide helpful answers. If the stars are round enough and 5 is even and your are happy, so be it! 👍🏻
Clear skies!
Björn
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Hi Björn,
you are absolutely right, this sensors are all multipurpose sensors. It is simply too expensive to develop dedicated sensors. That is the reason why the professional cameras are so extremely expensive, since they use modified sensors from small batches and hand selected.
I think for us APs not only the final image is the satisfying, but also the process of gathering it. I may compare it with hunting (so I am not a hunter): It is not only to hunt down the pray, but also the process. In the end you say: "Got you NGC xxxx!". The image only visualizes your efforts.
you are absolutely right, this sensors are all multipurpose sensors. It is simply too expensive to develop dedicated sensors. That is the reason why the professional cameras are so extremely expensive, since they use modified sensors from small batches and hand selected.
I think for us APs not only the final image is the satisfying, but also the process of gathering it. I may compare it with hunting (so I am not a hunter): It is not only to hunt down the pray, but also the process. In the end you say: "Got you NGC xxxx!". The image only visualizes your efforts.
Concise Engaging
Is anyone using EAA for object scouting?
I recently got into EAA when I couldn't resist a huge discount on the Unistellar eQuinox. I find it a fascinating supplement to astrophotography in particular for a beginner. I started to use it to scout potential astrophotography targets. I alwa...
Discusses astrophotography techniques and equipment optimization for capturing objects.
Fixing the dreaded tilt and backspacing error in optical systems with objective analysis.
Fixing the dreaded tilt and backspacing error in optical systems with objective analysis. The curse and blessing of modern CMOS cameras is that amateur astro-imagers have easy and relatively affordable access to extremely high resolution detectors bu...
Addresses optical system issues affecting star quality and image sharpness.