Collinder 26

[Graeme]

This is Collinder 26, IC1805, the open star cluster at the heart of the Heart Nebula in Cassiopeia.

It's 4 stacks of 24 x 180 second exposures using LRGB filters. Captured at 0°C, 20/08/23. Total integration 4.8 hours.

The seeing was terrible hence it's a bit noisy and the temperature was high when I started hence the 0°C sensor setting.

IC1805_02_EL.jpg

Captured using NINA. Processed in PixInsight.

Graeme

[HansV]

Still, lots of detail!

[Graeme]

Still, lots of detail!

Thanks Hans.

Yes, I was quite pleased with the detail, considering the dodgy mount!

Here's a reprocessed (3rd version of the 2nd attempt!), sharper, more dramatic, saturation enhanced, star size reduced version:

IC1805_02_03.jpg

[ChrisGreaves]

Here's a reprocessed (3rd version of the 2nd attempt!), sharper, more dramatic, saturation enhanced, star size reduced version:

Hi Graeme. Top-of-the-head questions for this image
Question 1: How many bits are captured when you trigger the attempt; raw data captured from the skies, in its (or Bytes or ...)
Question 2: How many bits are manipulated (read and stored) when you make a new version.

This question 2 is posed as I think of MSPaint. If I decide to edit a screenshot of a 3,938 Bytes image, then I load 3,938 Bytes of data into MSPaint, make changes, and then store the updated image, another 3,938 Bytes, In total 8,786 Bytes of data manipulated.
On top of that are my actual changes but in my test example the new image is 4,987 Bytes, so the new image size is 8,925 Bytes, an increase of about 13%.

In my screenshot case I might say i have processed 8,925 Bytes - a crude figure based on File size.

In your case though I suspect you are loading the data, then making several iterations across that data before saving it. If you made twenty data iterations on data then you would have (top of the head) 1 + 20 + 1 times the file size in Bytes

Cheers, Chris

[HansV]

Great new version!

[stuck]

...Question 2: How many bits are manipulated (read and stored) when you make a new version.

This question 2 is posed as I think of MSPaint...

Umm, astro photo processing is considerably more complex than MS Paint so I doubt Graeme will be able to give you any sort of sensible answer based on your analogy of editing a screenshot in MS Paint.

Graeme said the image was "4 stacks of 24... " so that's 4 x 24 raw images from the camera combined into one image. The number of options available within the software that can be adjusted before the final image is finalised and saved as an actual image file will be huge.

Ken

[Graeme]

Here's a reprocessed (3rd version of the 2nd attempt!), sharper, more dramatic, saturation enhanced, star size reduced version:

Hi Graeme. Top-of-the-head questions for this image
Question 1: How many bits are captured when you trigger the attempt; raw data captured from the skies, in its (or Bytes or ...)
Question 2: How many bits are manipulated (read and stored) when you make a new version.

There are:
24 Luminance frames
24 Red frames
24 Green frames
24 Blue frames
30 Flat frames
30 Flat Dark frames
10 Dark frames

All at 32Mb = 166 x 32 = 5,312Mb

The LRGB files are per image. The Flats and Dark Flats are per session. The Darks are reusable but have to match the exposure of the Light frames so I have a library of darks at different exposures.

They're all stacked up to produce three folders, a Calibrated folder, a Master folder and a registered folder which totals 22Gb. In the Masters folder there are 4 images, L, R, G and B. These are are each 256Mb, they're processed separately and then combined into a colour image which is about 200Mb. After some more processing I do a save as a png file of 1Mb. Finally I do another save as a jpg of 250kb for Eileen's Lounge.

Then after a couple of goes at processing I delete everything except the pngs to make room for the next one!

Graeme

Great new version!

Cheers Hans

[stuck]

... 166 x 32 = 5,312Mb...

I wasn't even close! Shows you how much I know about astrophotography

Ken

[BobH]

Great photos, Graeme!

Thanks for sharing them.

[Graeme]

... 166 x 32 = 5,312Mb...

I wasn't even close! Shows you how much I know about astrophotography

Ken

Funnily enough, I captured a panoramic view of clouds this afternoon. Absolutely stunning layer upon layer of lines of cloud going back to the horizon with a big black ominous cloud to the right. But my ageing Samsung A50 didn't really perform!

Great photos, Graeme!

Thanks for sharing them.

Thanks Bob

[ChrisGreaves]

They're all stacked up to produce three folders, a Calibrated folder, a Master folder and a registered folder which totals 22Gb.

Thanks Graeme. So 22Gb of storage - which is not "processed".
I do not know the precise processing, but would suspect some form of interpolation, that is, massive computing on about the scale of the Audio editor Audacity, which works in 32-but floating-point.
Using a conservative factor of ten, say 220Gb of processing.

I can ignore the Library because, large as it is, it is a Fixed Cost. Likewise ignore the PNG & JPG as being insignificant compared to the frames and flats.

That's a lot of processing (and as I mentioned a month or so ago, beyond the comprehension of the human brain).
Thanks again
Chris

[ChrisGreaves]

Umm, astro photo processing is considerably more complex than MS Paint ...

Agreed! I was using MSPaint only as an example of a processor.

... so I doubt Graeme will be able to give you any sort of sensible answer based on your analogy of editing a screenshot in MS Paint.

I had thought later in the day that "storage" at least should provide a starting point. After all, the data that starts as photons 000s of 000s away has to be stored somewhere before it can be processed.

The number of options available within the software that can be adjusted before the final image is finalised and saved as an actual image file will be huge.

Huge? On might say "astronomical"

But this seems to me to be a bit like the calculation for intelligent life in the universe. We can drop in some factor (I chose "ten") to suggest a processing cost. And even that will depend on a definition of processing. Core memory had to be written-to in order to be read, so at that level, obtaining a bit from storage cost two bit-operations. At the other end, if we define "processing" as "I capture images and post them on Eileen's Lounge", then the processing cost is Graeme's 22Gb.

Turing showed that every human computation can be mapped out mechanically, so - in theory - we can set a bit-cost to every process.

Now I'm thinking that a task that monitored, say, disk storage and its fluctuations would capture peak values for disk use, including temporary files, paging files, the lot, and that too would give a corroborative figure for "bits in motion" or similar.

Cheers, C

[ChrisGreaves]

Shows you how much I know about astrophotography

Welcome to the club. But isn't it fun exploring!
Cheers, Chris

[ChrisGreaves]

... I captured a panoramic view of clouds this afternoon.

Definition of an optimist: An Astrophotographer who instead of complaining about clouds obstructing the view, goes out an photographs the clouds!
Cheers, Chris

[Graeme]

And they were very lovely clouds too, although the photo only gives an idea:

Screenshot 2023-08-29 122727.jpg