Reading some of those comments that you splashed on the screen, was enlightening. I can't believe how naive some people are, haha. Taking a wavelength of light that we can't see, and changing it to a wavelength that we can see, is just logical.
There are literally thousands of those comments between Facebook, TiKToK and Instagram! Some are funny but many are genuinely sad! They did inspire me to make this video, I hope some of them will watch it…
Tbh, it IS CGI, but then again, EVERY video is CGI. So I guess it depends if your intent is nefarious, like using AI-generated images to deceive people on a purple thing that is supposed to clean your yellow teeth, or if the intent is honourable, like taking UV light from nebulae and converting that light to something visible to a human eye…
Wow, thank you, Space Koala. This video is a great introduction to how color works in astrophotography. I hope you create more content like this. I've subscribed!
Impressive presentation and depth of knowledge! Even with my humble DSLR files I have found SPCC to be indispensable for accurate color calibration. Agreed that we are very fortunate to have that tool. Beautiful imaging work too. Thank you!
I agree with others so far, great job on Explaining this topic, the best I've seen so far. I have not shot with mono yet And just received my first (zwo) color Cooled camera, the next step up from Using a canon DSLR, with a go-to mnt I'm aware how mono is processed but This was explained very well. And when I process an image I usually Google other people's and also try to find the most true image I can, but the end result is, I will do a second process of what I like to see, what visually pleases me because I agree It's also an art form, and expression No rules to art, I play 5 different music Instruments, and by self expressing Not by rules as long as it sounds good to me, and maybe others is all that matters. My next camera will be mono, I can't wait! Thank you for The video post! Great job! 😊
Well said. You broke down the pros and cons of each method (colour vs Mono) wonderfully. Many thanks! But, I do find processing mono data easier than colour. With colour combination tools you quickly get a master image that is easier to tweak than working with colour images shot through LP filters or multi pass filters. IMO
I agree, though especially because of this I tend to use my color cameras only when I have a chance to image under truly dark skies. Those images are a breeze to process 😁😁
@@the_space_koala I live under Bortle 4 skies and my OSC images are very good. Under darker skies OSC images do get much better. MONO is still the best for me personally. I get such a thrill when I see my first subs which have incredible detail compared with my OSC subs.
It's really sad to see so many ignorant comments online. Also, If said people had even half an idea of the effort us amateur astrophotographers make to aquire and process these beautiful images, they'd likely change their tune!? Awesome video, very well made, easy to follow and very engaging! just found your channel, and you have my subscription! 👌👍x
Thank you very much! It’s true many of them have no idea about the effort, and sadly a lot of people don’t even want to know. But for the minority that cares I’m happy to share the knowledge ☺️
I couldn't agree more: the creation of astrophotos and its colour is a combination of science, art and individual preferences. For the latter two, every combination of colours is allowed. However, if true colour representation is desired, scientific rigorosity is required. If narrowband line emitters, such H alpha, emitting at 656,28nm with a bandwidth much smaller than 0.1nm, are shall be represented in the RGB space in its true colour, then it must be placed exactly at R=255, G=000 and B=082.
That's a good explanation of how DSOs are recorded. Question please: A while back you presented new features of the ZWO Seestar through a firmware update, but many of those new features disappeared with the next firmware update. One of them was drizzling that was there, then gone. Have you heard anymore about why this happened? Thanks, Michael
Hey! They removed most features as soon as people found the “advanced” mode that was meant to be hidden. I cannot tell you why it was removed, I am not affiliated in any way with ZWO. It is just a guess for me they’ll be bringing features in as soon as they’re tested enough
This is the first video I have watched on the topic. But I can't imagine finding anything better. I am now a more more knowledgable photographer. Thank you very much, you are great!
Nice presentation, but there's a fundamental flaw in the argument made regarding the Bayer matrix. Mono uses filters which have bandpasses that either don't overlap at all, or overlap very little. The bayer uses a dye based filter, which has a large overlap in bandpasses. Blue pixels are gathering green light, green is gathering blue and red, and red pixels gather green. In fact, blue gathers red, and red gathers blue (at admittedly lower levels). This adds up to signal (similar to human eye function of cones), so the argument that basically says that the other pixels are not being used is just false. SPCC adjusts for OSC color "confusion" similarly to Mono lack of Cyan/yellow-orange (due to too small of bandpass overlap). Regarding the debate about efficiency of mono vs OSC, this has been rigorously evaluated (see John Upton calculator on CN), and while LRGB is more efficient that OSC, it can be true that OSC is more efficient than mono RGB. It's use case specific. The reason why is due to the overlapping bandpasses of OSC vs the narrow bandpasses of typical mono filters (some with a LP gap between red and green). Finally any dislike of interpolation can be completely avoided by drizzle. So, while I find some of the information provided pretty dated/stale, I agree that OSC and Mono are getting closer and closer in performance capabilities. With SPCC, proper sampling, adequate SNR, and drizzle, any differences more than likely come down to personal skill in post-processing for most cases where very narrow wavelength isolation isn't required.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree that on OSC sensors there’s often an overlap between the different colors, however I do not think this is as good a thing as you suggest it is. It can be somewhat beneficial if you were to use a single band narrowband filter as you would get a small amount of additional data in the other channels. In real life, people will usually use either no filter or a dual band filter on OSC cameras where getting your Sii or Ha in your blue and green channels and Oiii in your red, you’re decreasing contrast in your data as you cannot selectively add them together. So yes you get some extra data but it actually makes your data quality worse, it’s not really an argument in favor of the OSC. You can create a luminance-like layer adding together all the channels though this is less efficient than an actual luminance layer, and color contrast is decreased in any case. If you think the band pass of a color in the other 2 channels is significant enough for you to get more data, then the contrast loss is also significant. Otherwise, this effect can be ignored and the original point of the video stands. Regarding avoiding interpolation via drizzling I agree it can be overcome, however you need a substantial number of frames (as always with drizzling). It is good practice though and I almost always do it with my color sensors.
According to Trevor Jones, he only gets an improvement of ~14% going with Mono over One Shot Color, but its worth it to him. Remember folks, the deeper you get into anything, the more you see the subtle differences that the pro's are trying to improve upon, sometimes obsessing over. So if your just getting into AP, or its little brother Electronically Assisted Astronomy (EAA), Tiny Steps and Patience are your friend. You'll get there. Thanks! -mike
I am huge fan of one shot color cameras because the lousy conditions at my nothernly latitude. And for the final result there are no 'real' or 'fake' colors because none of my deep sky images looks like the blue green visual impression seen in my telescopes... 😊 There are no colors in nature, color is about visual perception created by our brains.
I don’t know what you did that changed the light here compared to your video and field of view with all the math with the lighting here so much better I think that camera quality is better, or at least, it seems that way to me.
My main problem in the South West UK is them Injecting the sky with reflective particles that leave a thin layer hanging about for days, clear blue sky's are disappearing. According to the UK's Met Office recently their video "injecting the sky" says its a reflective layer, but i'm guessing the particles don't only reflect on one side. Astro photography and our health and the health of trees and plants, is doomed if this continues.
The reality is, if you were in a space craft near the nebulas, they wouldn't look like the Hubble photos. However, as it is highly unlikely I will be booking a trip to Orion any time soon, you can go as hard as you like mucking about with the colours to show off pretty patterns in the clouds as it's all fantastically outside my normal every day life. Where I get upset is the Milky Way/landscape photos such as in the recent annual awards, utterly garish if not downright repulsively over processed. The Milky Way does not look like a psychedelic spew, I've seen it & it's white when not drowned out by light pollution or the moon. Very pretty and wonderful, it does not need to look like a rollercoaster careering about a colour palette to impress.
I sure do agree, some people overprocess photos in my opinion. Then again, others will say my pictures are overprocessed as well! We all have our own preferences and when it comes to astro they definitely don't align :D
I love the images produced by astrophotographers. Myself am only a visual observer and am okay with what i can only see with my naked eyes thru the telescope.
@@the_space_koala OK, I get the point. Our international NASA group took the first infra-red pictures of our universe from the IRAS satellite, a cooled monochrome unit that allowed full colorisation of the final images. The colours are mathematically genuine - hence my concern at seeing the title. Thanks for the reply 🙂
I'm a fake, love the subject however don't really want to buy into it. Its really great to enjoy what others achieve and all the work that goes into it. Light pollution is a big problem and star parties are very interesting which as a inventor brings me to the idea of building a mobile observatory with living quarters. That and camping would be an adventure on its own but I'd leave the astrophotography up to others.
I do EAA and do one shot color photography. Emission nebula almost always shows up as red. Reflection nebulae vary. Dark nebulae are shadows. "Astrophotographers" are not photographers. They are artists. That is why any random one hundred "photos" of most emission nebulae look so different from each other. Thumbs up, just the same.
This is a hard topic, there’s a fine line between artistic freedom and just pure making stuff up when it comes to astrophotography. I personally try to stick to the realistic look
Great video, thanks for the explanations! You have now a new subscriber. People who freak out about those colors should read the book "The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes" by Donald Hoffman. Reality is not what we think and color images are just a simple example of this. :-)
I’ve never understood why image editing software does not allow to map each filter to a specific wavelength, instead of an entire channel Maybe there is some software limitations, but that should be possible to overcome
On the recording side you have this information if you use narrowband filters on a monochromatic sensor. However, our hardware (think screens) is only able to display colors as a combination of the colors red green and blue. We do not have pixels that can light up in any given color, just these 3 for the most part. We can get any color we want by combining intensities of these 3. I hope this makes sense
@ yes and no. Say I shoot Ha, OIII and 390nm narrowband. Say I want to have Ha and OIII exactly matched to their wavelengths, but want to map the 390NM to 420nm in order to have a “realistic” colour for my image. The software should be able to do that, and screens can show millions of colours (think wavelengths), so I don’t see why this is not possible. I have actually asked the Pixinsight guys a few years ago and their answer was the nobody had ever asked them that question, which to me is even more puzzling! So I reckon it’s not a hardware challenge, just a “we’ve always done things this way” kind of response. Imagine not having to colour calibrate your images with the tedious online tools you mention in the video, what a relief!
After the Neptune encounter, NASA published two versions of the Neptune image, one in natural color and one in false color. Both were annotated, so people could read how and why the false color image was made. Some newspapers then proceeded the prettier picture without attaching the explanation.
Best video I have seen to explain color in astrophotography. Very nice work. 😊
Wow thank you for saying that!
Reading some of those comments that you splashed on the screen, was enlightening. I can't believe how naive some people are, haha. Taking a wavelength of light that we can't see, and changing it to a wavelength that we can see, is just logical.
There are literally thousands of those comments between Facebook, TiKToK and Instagram! Some are funny but many are genuinely sad! They did inspire me to make this video, I hope some of them will watch it…
Let me guess, the Earth is flat too😅😂😂😅😅
Tbh, it IS CGI, but then again, EVERY video is CGI.
So I guess it depends if your intent is nefarious, like using AI-generated images to deceive people on a purple thing that is supposed to clean your yellow teeth, or if the intent is honourable, like taking UV light from nebulae and converting that light to something visible to a human eye…
Wow, thank you, Space Koala. This video is a great introduction to how color works in astrophotography. I hope you create more content like this. I've subscribed!
Thank you for saying that! The feedback has been very positive so I’m working on more similar in-depth videos
Impressive presentation and depth of knowledge! Even with my humble DSLR files I have found SPCC to be indispensable for accurate color calibration. Agreed that we are very fortunate to have that tool. Beautiful imaging work too. Thank you!
Thank you very much! Once you go SPCC you never go back!
@@the_space_koala very true! When MARS becomes available it will be another powerful tool, taking the guess work out of gradient corrections
I agree with others so far, great job on
Explaining this topic, the best I've seen so far. I have not shot with mono yet
And just received my first (zwo) color
Cooled camera, the next step up from
Using a canon DSLR, with a go-to mnt
I'm aware how mono is processed but
This was explained very well.
And when I process an image I usually
Google other people's and also try to find the most true image I can, but the end result is, I will do a second process of what I like to see, what visually pleases me because I agree
It's also an art form, and expression
No rules to art, I play 5 different music
Instruments, and by self expressing
Not by rules as long as it sounds good to me, and maybe others is all that matters. My next camera will be mono, I can't wait! Thank you for
The video post! Great job! 😊
thank you for saying that and congrats on your first astrocam! There's no stopping now :P
Well said. You broke down the pros and cons of each method (colour vs Mono) wonderfully. Many thanks! But, I do find processing mono data easier than colour. With colour combination tools you quickly get a master image that is easier to tweak than working with colour images shot through LP filters or multi pass filters. IMO
I agree, though especially because of this I tend to use my color cameras only when I have a chance to image under truly dark skies. Those images are a breeze to process 😁😁
@@the_space_koala I live under Bortle 4 skies and my OSC images are very good. Under darker skies OSC images do get much better. MONO is still the best for me personally. I get such a thrill when I see my first subs which have incredible detail compared with my OSC subs.
tysm, well explained and researched. Your channel subscriber count is going to blow up soon!
wow thank you so much! I hope you are right haha
Really nice colors on your Rosette shot. The classic SHO palette is a favorite of mine.
thank you so much! I find it makes it more interesting if we don't forcefully remove all the green tint from the image!
@@the_space_koala Yes! I'm an advocate for keeping some green in sho images. :)
It's really sad to see so many ignorant comments online. Also, If said people had even half an idea of the effort us amateur astrophotographers make to aquire and process these beautiful images, they'd likely change their tune!?
Awesome video, very well made, easy to follow and very engaging! just found your channel, and you have my subscription! 👌👍x
Thank you very much! It’s true many of them have no idea about the effort, and sadly a lot of people don’t even want to know. But for the minority that cares I’m happy to share the knowledge ☺️
@@the_space_koala 💯☺👍
great explanation on LRGB and SHO image acquisition. good job!
Thank you for saying that!
This is a fantastic explanation of how color works in astrophotography. Thank you!
Thank you for that, glad you enjoyed it
I couldn't agree more: the creation of astrophotos and its colour is a combination of science, art and individual preferences. For the latter two, every combination of colours is allowed. However, if true colour representation is desired, scientific rigorosity is required. If narrowband line emitters, such H alpha, emitting at 656,28nm with a bandwidth much smaller than 0.1nm, are shall be represented in the RGB space in its true colour, then it must be placed exactly at R=255, G=000 and B=082.
I couldn’t agree more! I rarely do true color narrowband but I always add that tiny bit of blue that makes all the difference!
That's a good explanation of how DSOs are recorded. Question please: A while back you presented new features of the ZWO Seestar through a firmware update, but many of those new features disappeared with the next firmware update. One of them was drizzling that was there, then gone.
Have you heard anymore about why this happened? Thanks, Michael
Hey! They removed most features as soon as people found the “advanced” mode that was meant to be hidden. I cannot tell you why it was removed, I am not affiliated in any way with ZWO. It is just a guess for me they’ll be bringing features in as soon as they’re tested enough
This is the first video I have watched on the topic. But I can't imagine finding anything better. I am now a more more knowledgable photographer. Thank you very much, you are great!
Wow thank you I’m so happy it’s been useful
Nice presentation, but there's a fundamental flaw in the argument made regarding the Bayer matrix. Mono uses filters which have bandpasses that either don't overlap at all, or overlap very little. The bayer uses a dye based filter, which has a large overlap in bandpasses. Blue pixels are gathering green light, green is gathering blue and red, and red pixels gather green. In fact, blue gathers red, and red gathers blue (at admittedly lower levels). This adds up to signal (similar to human eye function of cones), so the argument that basically says that the other pixels are not being used is just false. SPCC adjusts for OSC color "confusion" similarly to Mono lack of Cyan/yellow-orange (due to too small of bandpass overlap). Regarding the debate about efficiency of mono vs OSC, this has been rigorously evaluated (see John Upton calculator on CN), and while LRGB is more efficient that OSC, it can be true that OSC is more efficient than mono RGB. It's use case specific. The reason why is due to the overlapping bandpasses of OSC vs the narrow bandpasses of typical mono filters (some with a LP gap between red and green). Finally any dislike of interpolation can be completely avoided by drizzle. So, while I find some of the information provided pretty dated/stale, I agree that OSC and Mono are getting closer and closer in performance capabilities. With SPCC, proper sampling, adequate SNR, and drizzle, any differences more than likely come down to personal skill in post-processing for most cases where very narrow wavelength isolation isn't required.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree that on OSC sensors there’s often an overlap between the different colors, however I do not think this is as good a thing as you suggest it is. It can be somewhat beneficial if you were to use a single band narrowband filter as you would get a small amount of additional data in the other channels. In real life, people will usually use either no filter or a dual band filter on OSC cameras where getting your Sii or Ha in your blue and green channels and Oiii in your red, you’re decreasing contrast in your data as you cannot selectively add them together. So yes you get some extra data but it actually makes your data quality worse, it’s not really an argument in favor of the OSC. You can create a luminance-like layer adding together all the channels though this is less efficient than an actual luminance layer, and color contrast is decreased in any case. If you think the band pass of a color in the other 2 channels is significant enough for you to get more data, then the contrast loss is also significant. Otherwise, this effect can be ignored and the original point of the video stands.
Regarding avoiding interpolation via drizzling I agree it can be overcome, however you need a substantial number of frames (as always with drizzling). It is good practice though and I almost always do it with my color sensors.
Outstanding! You are very good and your content is refreshing. Thank you!
Thank you so much!
According to Trevor Jones, he only gets an improvement of ~14% going with Mono over One Shot Color, but its worth it to him. Remember folks, the deeper you get into anything, the more you see the subtle differences that the pro's are trying to improve upon, sometimes obsessing over. So if your just getting into AP, or its little brother Electronically Assisted Astronomy (EAA), Tiny Steps and Patience are your friend. You'll get there.
Thanks! -mike
Beautiful images! Great explanation!
Thank you!
I am huge fan of one shot color cameras because the lousy conditions at my nothernly latitude. And for the final result there are no 'real' or 'fake' colors because none of my deep sky images looks like the blue green visual impression seen in my telescopes... 😊
There are no colors in nature, color is about visual perception created by our brains.
imagine if we could see halpha! the night sky would be that much more colorful!
well done - glad I found your channel. Excellent video - thank you
Thank you for that, glad you liked it!
Excellent presentation and explanation. I am on the verge on "going mono" 🤪Subscribed.
Join the dark side! We’ve got filters! Thank you 😊
Great explanation!
I don’t know what you did that changed the light here compared to your video and field of view with all the math with the lighting here so much better I think that camera quality is better, or at least, it seems that way to me.
I was experimenting a lot as I was just starting out with these videos!
Absolutely Brilliant - Thank you for breaking a complex subject understandable
thank you - happy it helped!
Super informative, cool video! Thanks! :)
Thanks for saying that, I’m glad!
My main problem in the South West UK is them Injecting the sky with reflective particles that leave a thin layer hanging about for days, clear blue sky's are disappearing. According to the UK's Met Office recently their video "injecting the sky" says its a reflective layer, but i'm guessing the particles don't only reflect on one side. Astro photography and our health and the health of trees and plants, is doomed if this continues.
I agree it is an outrageous idea
Thanks for explaining this so well.
One note on pronunciation: it’s dee-bayering, not duh-bayering.
Thank you
Good Work, thank you!
The reality is, if you were in a space craft near the nebulas, they wouldn't look like the Hubble photos. However, as it is highly unlikely I will be booking a trip to Orion any time soon, you can go as hard as you like mucking about with the colours to show off pretty patterns in the clouds as it's all fantastically outside my normal every day life.
Where I get upset is the Milky Way/landscape photos such as in the recent annual awards, utterly garish if not downright repulsively over processed. The Milky Way does not look like a psychedelic spew, I've seen it & it's white when not drowned out by light pollution or the moon.
Very pretty and wonderful, it does not need to look like a rollercoaster careering about a colour palette to impress.
I sure do agree, some people overprocess photos in my opinion. Then again, others will say my pictures are overprocessed as well! We all have our own preferences and when it comes to astro they definitely don't align :D
@@the_space_koala absolutely, I'm just trying to avoid the Disneyfication of the heavens - have fun looking up!
Not just another pretty face, your very knowledgeable, impressive.
Thank you for saying that
I love the images produced by astrophotographers. Myself am only a visual observer and am okay with what i can only see with my naked eyes thru the telescope.
I admire visualists that can actually see all those details… I know some do and that’s an incredible skill
Hmm. I used to work with NASA colleagues on space projects. What should I think about this title?
if you watch like the first 60 seconds you'll see the reason for the title! :)
@@the_space_koala OK, I get the point. Our international NASA group took the first infra-red pictures of our universe from the IRAS satellite, a cooled monochrome unit that allowed full colorisation of the final images. The colours are mathematically genuine - hence my concern at seeing the title. Thanks for the reply 🙂
Awesome 🤩
Thank you! Cheers!
I'm a fake, love the subject however don't really want to buy into it. Its really great to enjoy what others achieve and all the work that goes into it. Light pollution is a big problem and star parties are very interesting which as a inventor brings me to the idea of building a mobile observatory with living quarters. That and camping would be an adventure on its own but I'd leave the astrophotography up to others.
Well don’t be a stranger when you need a tester for your mobile obsy 😋
I do EAA and do one shot color photography. Emission nebula almost always shows up as red. Reflection nebulae vary. Dark nebulae are shadows. "Astrophotographers" are not photographers. They are artists. That is why any random one hundred "photos" of most emission nebulae look so different from each other. Thumbs up, just the same.
This is a hard topic, there’s a fine line between artistic freedom and just pure making stuff up when it comes to astrophotography. I personally try to stick to the realistic look
Great video, thanks for the explanations! You have now a new subscriber.
People who freak out about those colors should read the book "The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth from Our Eyes" by Donald Hoffman. Reality is not what we think and color images are just a simple example of this. :-)
Thank you for being here! I’ll be sure to check out this book!
Even after proper explainging astrphotography properly, those ignorant people still won't understand it.😂
Well I sure hope those who want to learn will find my explanation useful 😁 for closed minded people there’s no hope whatsoever
Excellent video and explanation
Never went to moon.
Nasa means to deceive.
Large movie studio.
Why so much helium?
Hahahaha
nobody even spoke about the moon landing
I’ve never understood why image editing software does not allow to map each filter to a specific wavelength, instead of an entire channel
Maybe there is some software limitations, but that should be possible to overcome
On the recording side you have this information if you use narrowband filters on a monochromatic sensor. However, our hardware (think screens) is only able to display colors as a combination of the colors red green and blue. We do not have pixels that can light up in any given color, just these 3 for the most part. We can get any color we want by combining intensities of these 3. I hope this makes sense
@ yes and no. Say I shoot Ha, OIII and 390nm narrowband. Say I want to have Ha and OIII exactly matched to their wavelengths, but want to map the 390NM to 420nm in order to have a “realistic” colour for my image. The software should be able to do that, and screens can show millions of colours (think wavelengths), so I don’t see why this is not possible.
I have actually asked the Pixinsight guys a few years ago and their answer was the nobody had ever asked them that question, which to me is even more puzzling!
So I reckon it’s not a hardware challenge, just a “we’ve always done things this way” kind of response. Imagine not having to colour calibrate your images with the tedious online tools you mention in the video, what a relief!
But They Did Lie About Neptune,Its More The Color Of Uranus..Great Video🙏🏻❤️✨🪽🔭
After the Neptune encounter, NASA published two versions of the Neptune image, one in natural color and one in false color. Both were annotated, so people could read how and why the false color image was made.
Some newspapers then proceeded the prettier picture without attaching the explanation.