Narrowband is very useful. But no matter how many hours of data, it cannot gather the range of data of broadband. What it can do is scrub light pollution and provide very revealing imagery of structure that emit certain wavelengths. Those are both its strengths and weaknesses.
It should totally be called the brain nebula! Thanks for the great videos. Your content has me really enjoying using Siril. If I ever switch to a mono camera, I'll be sure to give LRGB a try. What an amazing hobby where we can peer back in time, thousands of light years and chisel out these wonderful images. Clear skies.
I agree. If you hunt in deep space, you can pick up objects from much further back than that even. I know I've imaged galaxies a half billion light years away.
Just recently changed from OSC to Mono. Decided to try LRGB before investing in any narrowband filters. i live in Bortle 5, so I see arguments for both filter types. We will see. Thanks for this. And great to hear that you are Canadian. Clear skies, eh!
Thank you! I've always been curious at what level of light pollution narrowband techniques really become necessary. I imagine anything above B3 would probably benefit from narrowband.
What a gem of an informative video! If you go to Adam’s Block images, he’s is all rgb. And totally proves your point. Most people don’t realize that Adam Block is. just now, starting to image a narrow band …
Absolutely agree with you. I think it's great though that software image processing techniques are getting better and can allow more broadband imaging. I see narrowband as a way to capture information that can emphasize a particular thing like Hydrogen or Oxygen gas. Scientifically it is very interesting to see this information in a way that tells you a story. Like M 31, always shot as a broadband target but narrowband gives a hint of the other things going on there. I saw an image with a huge oxygen cloud I never knew existed. However when I look at Orion and its great nebula I can only dream about the astonishing variations of pinks and whites and wonder what my narrowband images from Mississauga will look like. It will still be beautiful but it will be missing interesting information. I am happy I can get some reasonable images for my friends and family and I enjoy the tinkering of the rig as a diversion. I will always love the images we can get from dark skies and the equipment we have now.
You're exactly right, and on to something. Narrowband is frequently confused for giving sharper information by new imagers. It doesn't give sharper images. In fact, it always gives less information. But it does hone in on specific emissions, which may give the appearance of more refined detail. But since narrowband makes it possible to image from urban areas, it's definitely worth it. It has uses under dark skies, too. One of the most beautiful images I ever saw of Andromeda was shot all in Ha.
I love this compare and contrast (pun intended) video. I agree the majority of today's shooters are in areas of increasing high light pollution where the author admits it's just not a thing in his locale. This makes LRGB much more difficult where I'm curious on how to mitigate other than shooting around the location/phase of the moon. And targeting objects when they're at a high enough altitude to escape the thick of the light pollution
To my knowledge, there is no really good way to do LRGB under light pollution. LRGB filters will let all the light pollution through. The only real defense--apart from narrowband techniques--is to get beneath dark skies.
Thanks for sharing your valuable insight. It's like listening to a well-constructed story with your channel 😀 great work! I live in a very light polluted area and only use OSC, I go out to a dark(ish) sky site some 1.5 hrs away from me for imaging. That works out well for me, I get much better data and save time despite the long drive. I am thinking of getting a mono camera and LRGB filters in the long run but i've recently splashed out for an ASI533 MC pro so it might be quite a long run
The 533MC is a spectacular camera. You'll get a lot of good use out of it. You'd get about 25% more efficiency out of an LRGB setup on a 533M, but even so you can't go wrong with the 533C. It's just such an excellent sensor for astrophotography.
I've really liked trying to blend LRGB for the depth and SHO for the enhanced detail of certain structures. I'm doing LDN 914 right now which has mostly emission and dark nebula in the area. The SHO looked way to flat by itself, and the LRGB data looks amazing. But when blended I'm seeing a totally new result however the blending process is proving challenging. I'd love to see your attempts or strategies at doing something like this.
Could be a project to tackle once I get the second observatory built. I mostly shoot LRGB when I have clear skies since it gathers so much more information.
Very inspiring. I really need to find a weekend and book that in my calendar. Shooting from home in Bortle 6/7, my photos only really became good once I had modded my DSLR and started using filters. But I always dream of shooting without filters under really dark skies.
I was also going to ask about the LRGB vs. OSC and wondered if you're shooting more LRGB because of quality, time, or camera sensor format and suitability. I am looking to move to the Ares or Artemis for mono. I also noticed my OSC image of the Crescent (maybe someone misspelled Croissant? 😀) showed no hint of the Oiii at 80 minutes from a Bortle 4 location. Although at just 80 minutes I can't be sure if that's just not enough data yet either. Love your images and I'm learning a ton from your channel. Please keep it up.
I only have the one observatory right now, though I am planning to build another soon. I have the SCT mounted in it, and it has too much focal length for the pixel size of my OSC. Plus, during short summer nights it is more advantageous to use an OSC with LRGB filters as it captures information faster.
I am still atomished looking at your great pictures with the C8. And having such almost perfect stars (thanks to Pixinsight, right ?). You did not use a focal reducer ? Neither a corrector ? Wauuu. Fantastic. Clear skies
@@SKYST0RY I am using it with a Canon and I am having issues to find the good backfocus which should be about 105mm. Well, I have to try to reach it but my stars are all around alongated. Very bad looking. So I try to crop as much as I can. Hopefully I would be able to buy a Mono camera (294 or 355 or Ares, don´t know). All the best.
I guess one argument for narrowband filters regardless of your level of light pollution, is if your goal is to contrast the emissions of two closely colored lines, like Ha and SII. I think would be hard in LRGB, but I am no expert :) Great video as always!
Absolutely! If you're trying to devide out light by element (or, more accurately, by the frequency of light it emits) that would be an excellent use. If the goal is just to enhance perceptual differences, though, you could probably accomplish that via specific hue-range enhancement and separating out the high frequency information and enhancing that information in the relevant region of the image.
@@SKYST0RY @tostativerdk If you shoot LRGB, but add just a little bit of integration time with some narrowband filters - you can use that tiny bit of data from the narrowband to isolate the scientific data regions - then those images (when aligned/registered to the LRGB stacks - can be used as masks to isolate the HA, Oii, Hb, Sii or other areas .
Excellent video! Thank you so much for putting it together. I learned a lot from your explanation. As an amateur astronomer, I agree that your conclusions have a high probability of being correct, but I believe it’s difficult to definitively claim one method is superior to the other without controlling certain variables. To truly substantiate your conclusion, an experiment comparing LRGB and narrowband imaging under identical conditions would be warranted. Imagine setting up two identical telescopes, capturing the same target simultaneously, one using narrowband filters and the other using LRGB filters. Both setups would need the same integration time, and other factors like processing techniques would need to be consistent as well. This kind of side-by-side comparison could provide more concrete evidence. I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on this approach!
You are right about the conditions for the experiment, but it would be very expensive to conduct. Setting up an identical rig is beyond my financial ability. The experiment itself is unnecessary, however, because in this case there is already a great deal of data available and the answer is found in the math derived from that data. Imagine a graphical represention of the visible spectrum of light. Divide that spectrum up into three fields: R, G and B. The R, G and B each cover roughly a third of the field, giving total coverage. R covers all the information in the red field; G covers all the information in green field, and B covers all the information in blue field. Now imagine a narrowband Ha filter is placed over the R field. It only allows a tiny sliver of the R field through it: that part that coincides with that specific frequency of light. The same would apply to Sii and Oiii. In practice, no matter how much integration time one accumulates, one can never get as much information with narrowband filters because they can only collect information within the sliver their field. You may get very complete information, but even if you reached a SNR of 100%, it will only be 100% of that sliver of that field with a narrowband filter. Narrowband has two real strengths. It allows the photographer to scrub light pollution. And it allows the photographer to target specific emissions. It is the latter which often leads to the erroneous conclusion that narrowband filters provide sharper images. Only high frequency information can provide sharpness. The illusion of sharpness comes from narrowband filters providing information on very specific emissions, narrowing down reception within a target. Depending on the photographic goals, this is both a hindrance and an aid. But everything in photography has a cost and a benefit, so that is to be expected.
First off, just wanted to say I’m a big fan of your channel-been a subscriber for a while now. Your videos have been super helpful, especially since I’ve been planning to get the ZWO 2600 color camera myself! I watched your latest comparison, and while I really appreciated the effort, I felt like the images presented were a bit subjective. That said, your explanation of the math behind the difference between broadband and narrowband really got me thinking more about it. It definitely gave me some new angles to consider. One thing that might need more digging into is the idea of sharpness in narrowband images and how much atmospheric or optical factors could play a role beyond just the filter differences. Just to clarify though, I wasn’t suggesting buying a second telescope-it was more of a “what if” thought experiment in an ideal world. But who knows, maybe a company like ZWO would be willing to loan such equipment to some great TH-camr 😉willing to experiment. Thanks again for the great content, looking forward to more! Cheers
@@rickmavrovich6349 It's totally okay. The entire scientific process is based on doubt, questions, experiments and revisions. It's the right way to the facts. Barring a means to do a study with more exacting standards, just do a meta-analysis of LRGB images from appropriate skies vs narrowband images. If adequately exposed and shot in appropriate skies, and processed with sufficient skill, LRGB will always convey more complete information than narrowband. Bear in mind more complete isn't always desirable. It depends on the goals. I will address this more in a future video.
I’m sure some people like the look of narrow band and sure I like SHO as much as the next guy but I definitely prefer the look of LRGB with all its subtle nuances. There’s still no substitute for dark sky’s
I shoot in both LRGB and Narrow band from bortle 2 skies and for me and maybe because i use a RASA 11 my images are cleaner and more defined in HSO i use LRGB to add stars , I used a Color camera and dual, tri and quad band filters and those images were OK but when i switched to MONO even my LRGB images were so much better yes it take me more time to produce an image , but i guess if HSO and MONO are good enough for 90% of the Large scopes doing work by major space agencies its good enough for me!
Bear in mind professional astronomers, whether with NASA, ESA or ground based observatories, are shooting for science, not beautiful images. For them, mono sensors, IR sensors, and other specific sensors are more useful due to the fact they are more flexible regarding whatever filters are applied to the imaging.
Of course it is.... but I live in a highly light polluted area. My only way would be many short exposures.... same as I'm doing now for rgb images. I use narrowband as a way to still enjoy the hobby.
What about LRGB vs OSC, in terms of time efficiency? I know that shooting monochrome preserves / obtains more detail, but can LRGB obtain superior results in the same amount of integration time as OSC? (I only have experience with OSC, but am weighing monochrome.)
I didn't include OSC in this video because it's different enough from LRGB that it should be considered a different technique altogether. With an OSC, one is basically shooting RGB so the sensor is less efficient without a L channel, but it is shooting all the primary channels at the same time so there is no time lost in changing filters and refocusing after a filter change. LRGB is faster, but when you factor in things that take time (such as filter changes and refocusing) it's not radically faster, and how much depends on your filter change/refocusing/dithering strategies. I think LRGB would be about 25% faster on average. There are times mono is especially useful. The L filter is extremely fast compared to an OSC (something like twice as fast, or a whole F stop). So on nights when I have limited time (as in there are clouds rolling in, and I only have a couple hours), I might just shoot a target on the L channel. The outcome will be black and white but it can still produce a nice image.
Nice explanation, I don't disagree, but I dont know how to reconcile the explanation with this: say that we you shoot nebulae, like Carina or Tarantula, I find that no amount of LRGB will show you what a couple hours of Ha can. The difference is day and night.
I'll test that some time, though it may be that Ha allows frequencies specific to your object to stand out. Which means that information is still in the LRGB information, too, and perhaps it can be teased out via editing techniques.
The video is not about subjective preferences. It's about quantity of data, which is objective. Narrowband must always contain less information because it constricts all light not within its bandpass range. This gives NB images an appearance of sharpness that doesn't arise from more information but from constriction of information.
I enjoy capturing images in OSC Narrowband filters. My goal is to create an image using the HOO or SHO pallet. To me it is an art form and I shoot emission and planetary nebulas with the intent of creating a false color image. I also create images using Narrowband Mono data from telescope live.
Your goal makes that the right technique for you. There are plenty of good uses for narrowband and other types of filters. It is also possible to create HOO and SHO and other palettes using RGB and LRGB data.
i am fairly new to this hobby and only shoot in OSC from my bortle 7 backyard. I use narrowband, but to get better images, could I shoot narrowband for say 8 hours and combine that with 8 hours with just a UV/IR cut filter? Or would i get to much light pollution noise with the UV/IR Cut? I love the LRGB images, but don't have the money to invest in a mono camera, filter wheel, filters, etc. Love the channel BTW. :)
I live under a Bortle 6 sky with lots of sky glow. I can still shoot nice pics without using a narrow band filter. However, I also live 1.25 miles downwind from a large oil refinery and when it is operating I cannot image. I get a lot of noise. I mean a whole lot. Even using single band filters pick up so much noise I can't get anything usable.
Interesting. I've been wondering at what point use of narrowband would really become essential. What do you think causes the noise? I am thinking low SNR due to particulates in the air.
Enjoyed the video. When using monochrome and putting LRGB together do you vary the intensity of each channel to bring out the fainter details? I'm ignorant to combining mono LRGB images.
I almost always shoot 60 second subs on the SCT. The color is later balanced using the Linear Fit tool in PixInsight. However, I can add additional LRGB data from any discreet channel later in the developing process if useful.
As an experiment, what if you shot LRGB until you were happy with the amount of data, then you shot narrowband until you were happy, then integrated all the data. Would adding the narrowband increase the contrast without losing the subtle color gradients - could you play with the transparency of the layers to get an image that shows more than LRGB alone or narrowband alone?
It may work but there is a far more efficient way to increase specific contrast. Separate the low and high frequency information. You can do a very fine separation for extremely fine sharpness increase, or you can do a complete separation for a more dramatic increase. Then amplify the high frequency information or duplicate the high frequency layer and adjust transparency of the duplicated layer. Frequency separation is an extremely powerful tool and often neglected. Go to this playlist for a complete workflow on the technique: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html
Absolutely. Narrowband makes beautiful images and scrubs away light pollution. But it's not desirable. I think of it as an unfortunate but often necessary compromise. It doesn't, however, produce better images of emission and planetary nebulae. Nice images, sure, but at significant cost in time and substantial change to image characteristics.
@@SKYST0RY i think if you had to deal with light pollution gradients from multiple sessions in bortle 7 8 or 9 you might re evaluate :) as a very non scientific example, i have similar results from 1 hour on crescent nebula in dual narrowband compared to 8 hours osc (not lrgb but comparable) at bortle 6. Yes, many many other factors probably impact my results, but its a no brainer for me that dual narrowband >> osc. Not same as lrgb but comparable.
@@SKYST0RYIt is more of a preference. I use NB filters with the intent to create an SHO, HOO like image. I use Narrowband Normalization and sometimes the Foraxx Utility and GHS to bring out the details of the Nebulosity. Some prefer the so called Natural look and I can appreciate both methods but it depends on your preference.
I agree that the simple rule of "shoot emission nebulae in narrowband and everything else in LRGB" is too simplistic and is bad advice. I would disagree, however, that LRGB is inherently better than narrowband. They're different, and which is preferable is a matter of intent and taste. The contrast in narrowband, which you discount, also allows for the bringing out of fine structure that is just not available in LRGB. But LRGB does provide a greater range of transitions between colors. Which is better? It depends on what you're trying to achieve, and different people will have different opinions. You also are somewhat spoiled and don't realize how big an advantage shooting from dark skies is. I am in a Bortle 6 region, and shooting LRGB is difficult and is pretty much limited to no moon periods. My subs need to be short, which means a lot more of them, and storage and processing consumes a lot of time and disk space, for results that are mediocre at best. And some fainter targets can't be seen at all, completely lost in the noise of the sky glow. That said, I have a new OSC camera, and I'm starting to do more of it. It's allowing me to look at the same old targets in a fresh way. Both LRGB and narrowband are worthy endeavors.
I completely agree that LRGB and narrowband techniques are worthy endeavors. I do not think there is a case--despite claims to the contrary--that narrowband allows one to resolve fine structure not visible in LRGB. Because LRGB lets the same information through as narrowband (and a lot more) that fine structure is there and just needs to be resolved out. If you take a look at some of my videos on separating and making use of high frequency information and synergistic sharpening, this is illustrated there. In point of fact, because narrowband is collecting less information, it's fine structure high frequency information will be weaker. Where narrowband would show a distinct advantage is if one wants to specifically define emissions from particular elements, as in sharply defining H from O within an area. A friend of mine did a remarkable image of Andromeda last year all in Ha, defining the structure of the galaxy by its Ha emissions. However, I can definitively illustrate the fine resolution power of LRGB compared to narrowband. Pop over to my Astrobin and look at the Tulip Nebula and then compare that to narrowband images of the Tulip on Astrobin, including images with far more integration time. The lack of fine detail in LRGB images most often has to do with failure to separate and adequately develop the high frequency information. The apparent fine contrast in narrowband images--leading to the misapprehension it yields sharper images--is simply due to narrowband's inherent higher contrast.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you very much for this very interesting video! Indeed, this encourages reflection on the opportunity of the NarowBand
Narrowband is very useful. But no matter how many hours of data, it cannot gather the range of data of broadband. What it can do is scrub light pollution and provide very revealing imagery of structure that emit certain wavelengths. Those are both its strengths and weaknesses.
It should totally be called the brain nebula! Thanks for the great videos. Your content has me really enjoying using Siril. If I ever switch to a mono camera, I'll be sure to give LRGB a try. What an amazing hobby where we can peer back in time, thousands of light years and chisel out these wonderful images. Clear skies.
I agree. If you hunt in deep space, you can pick up objects from much further back than that even. I know I've imaged galaxies a half billion light years away.
Just recently changed from OSC to Mono. Decided to try LRGB before investing in any narrowband filters. i live in Bortle 5, so I see arguments for both filter types. We will see. Thanks for this. And great to hear that you are Canadian. Clear skies, eh!
Thank you! I've always been curious at what level of light pollution narrowband techniques really become necessary. I imagine anything above B3 would probably benefit from narrowband.
What a gem of an informative video!
If you go to Adam’s Block images, he’s is all rgb. And totally proves your point.
Most people don’t realize that Adam Block is. just now, starting to image a narrow band …
Interesting. I had no idea.
Adam Block has a new Fast Track Training for Narrowband now.
Absolutely agree with you. I think it's great though that software image processing techniques are getting better and can allow more broadband imaging. I see narrowband as a way to capture information that can emphasize a particular thing like Hydrogen or Oxygen gas. Scientifically it is very interesting to see this information in a way that tells you a story. Like M 31, always shot as a broadband target but narrowband gives a hint of the other things going on there. I saw an image with a huge oxygen cloud I never knew existed. However when I look at Orion and its great nebula I can only dream about the astonishing variations of pinks and whites and wonder what my narrowband images from Mississauga will look like. It will still be beautiful but it will be missing interesting information. I am happy I can get some reasonable images for my friends and family and I enjoy the tinkering of the rig as a diversion. I will always love the images we can get from dark skies and the equipment we have now.
You're exactly right, and on to something. Narrowband is frequently confused for giving sharper information by new imagers. It doesn't give sharper images. In fact, it always gives less information. But it does hone in on specific emissions, which may give the appearance of more refined detail. But since narrowband makes it possible to image from urban areas, it's definitely worth it. It has uses under dark skies, too. One of the most beautiful images I ever saw of Andromeda was shot all in Ha.
Thanks for such a fact-based overview of LRGB imaging.
I love this compare and contrast (pun intended) video. I agree the majority of today's shooters are in areas of increasing high light pollution where the author admits it's just not a thing in his locale. This makes LRGB much more difficult where I'm curious on how to mitigate other than shooting around the location/phase of the moon. And targeting objects when they're at a high enough altitude to escape the thick of the light pollution
To my knowledge, there is no really good way to do LRGB under light pollution. LRGB filters will let all the light pollution through. The only real defense--apart from narrowband techniques--is to get beneath dark skies.
Thanks for sharing your valuable insight. It's like listening to a well-constructed story with your channel 😀 great work!
I live in a very light polluted area and only use OSC, I go out to a dark(ish) sky site some 1.5 hrs away from me for imaging. That works out well for me, I get much better data and save time despite the long drive. I am thinking of getting a mono camera and LRGB filters in the long run but i've recently splashed out for an ASI533 MC pro so it might be quite a long run
The 533MC is a spectacular camera. You'll get a lot of good use out of it. You'd get about 25% more efficiency out of an LRGB setup on a 533M, but even so you can't go wrong with the 533C. It's just such an excellent sensor for astrophotography.
I've really liked trying to blend LRGB for the depth and SHO for the enhanced detail of certain structures. I'm doing LDN 914 right now which has mostly emission and dark nebula in the area. The SHO looked way to flat by itself, and the LRGB data looks amazing. But when blended I'm seeing a totally new result however the blending process is proving challenging. I'd love to see your attempts or strategies at doing something like this.
Could be a project to tackle once I get the second observatory built. I mostly shoot LRGB when I have clear skies since it gathers so much more information.
Very inspiring. I really need to find a weekend and book that in my calendar. Shooting from home in Bortle 6/7, my photos only really became good once I had modded my DSLR and started using filters. But I always dream of shooting without filters under really dark skies.
I was also going to ask about the LRGB vs. OSC and wondered if you're shooting more LRGB because of quality, time, or camera sensor format and suitability. I am looking to move to the Ares or Artemis for mono.
I also noticed my OSC image of the Crescent (maybe someone misspelled Croissant? 😀) showed no hint of the Oiii at 80 minutes from a Bortle 4 location. Although at just 80 minutes I can't be sure if that's just not enough data yet either.
Love your images and I'm learning a ton from your channel. Please keep it up.
I only have the one observatory right now, though I am planning to build another soon. I have the SCT mounted in it, and it has too much focal length for the pixel size of my OSC. Plus, during short summer nights it is more advantageous to use an OSC with LRGB filters as it captures information faster.
Lrgb looks so smooth and natural more color
I am still atomished looking at your great pictures with the C8. And having such almost perfect stars (thanks to Pixinsight, right ?). You did not use a focal reducer ? Neither a corrector ? Wauuu. Fantastic. Clear skies
I have the Celestron reducer/corrector on the SCT. I always forget to mention it. It's always on there. To me, it just feels like a permanent fixture.
@@SKYST0RY I am using it with a Canon and I am having issues to find the good backfocus which should be about 105mm. Well, I have to try to reach it but my stars are all around alongated. Very bad looking. So I try to crop as much as I can. Hopefully I would be able to buy a Mono camera (294 or 355 or Ares, don´t know). All the best.
I guess one argument for narrowband filters regardless of your level of light pollution, is if your goal is to contrast the emissions of two closely colored lines, like Ha and SII. I think would be hard in LRGB, but I am no expert :)
Great video as always!
Absolutely! If you're trying to devide out light by element (or, more accurately, by the frequency of light it emits) that would be an excellent use. If the goal is just to enhance perceptual differences, though, you could probably accomplish that via specific hue-range enhancement and separating out the high frequency information and enhancing that information in the relevant region of the image.
@@SKYST0RY @tostativerdk If you shoot LRGB, but add just a little bit of integration time with some narrowband filters - you can use that tiny bit of data from the narrowband to isolate the scientific data regions - then those images (when aligned/registered to the LRGB stacks - can be used as masks to isolate the HA, Oii, Hb, Sii or other areas .
Excellent video! Thank you so much for putting it together. I learned a lot from your explanation. As an amateur astronomer, I agree that your conclusions have a high probability of being correct, but I believe it’s difficult to definitively claim one method is superior to the other without controlling certain variables.
To truly substantiate your conclusion, an experiment comparing LRGB and narrowband imaging under identical conditions would be warranted. Imagine setting up two identical telescopes, capturing the same target simultaneously, one using narrowband filters and the other using LRGB filters. Both setups would need the same integration time, and other factors like processing techniques would need to be consistent as well. This kind of side-by-side comparison could provide more concrete evidence.
I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on this approach!
You are right about the conditions for the experiment, but it would be very expensive to conduct. Setting up an identical rig is beyond my financial ability. The experiment itself is unnecessary, however, because in this case there is already a great deal of data available and the answer is found in the math derived from that data. Imagine a graphical represention of the visible spectrum of light. Divide that spectrum up into three fields: R, G and B. The R, G and B each cover roughly a third of the field, giving total coverage. R covers all the information in the red field; G covers all the information in green field, and B covers all the information in blue field.
Now imagine a narrowband Ha filter is placed over the R field. It only allows a tiny sliver of the R field through it: that part that coincides with that specific frequency of light. The same would apply to Sii and Oiii.
In practice, no matter how much integration time one accumulates, one can never get as much information with narrowband filters because they can only collect information within the sliver their field. You may get very complete information, but even if you reached a SNR of 100%, it will only be 100% of that sliver of that field with a narrowband filter.
Narrowband has two real strengths. It allows the photographer to scrub light pollution. And it allows the photographer to target specific emissions. It is the latter which often leads to the erroneous conclusion that narrowband filters provide sharper images.
Only high frequency information can provide sharpness. The illusion of sharpness comes from narrowband filters providing information on very specific emissions, narrowing down reception within a target. Depending on the photographic goals, this is both a hindrance and an aid. But everything in photography has a cost and a benefit, so that is to be expected.
First off, just wanted to say I’m a big fan of your channel-been a subscriber for a while now. Your videos have been super helpful, especially since I’ve been planning to get the ZWO 2600 color camera myself!
I watched your latest comparison, and while I really appreciated the effort, I felt like the images presented were a bit subjective. That said, your explanation of the math behind the difference between broadband and narrowband really got me thinking more about it. It definitely gave me some new angles to consider.
One thing that might need more digging into is the idea of sharpness in narrowband images and how much atmospheric or optical factors could play a role beyond just the filter differences.
Just to clarify though, I wasn’t suggesting buying a second telescope-it was more of a “what if” thought experiment in an ideal world. But who knows, maybe a company like ZWO would be willing to loan such equipment to some great TH-camr 😉willing to experiment.
Thanks again for the great content, looking forward to more!
Cheers
@@rickmavrovich6349 It's totally okay. The entire scientific process is based on doubt, questions, experiments and revisions. It's the right way to the facts. Barring a means to do a study with more exacting standards, just do a meta-analysis of LRGB images from appropriate skies vs narrowband images. If adequately exposed and shot in appropriate skies, and processed with sufficient skill, LRGB will always convey more complete information than narrowband. Bear in mind more complete isn't always desirable. It depends on the goals. I will address this more in a future video.
Couldn't agree more
I’m sure some people like the look of narrow band and sure I like SHO as much as the next guy but I definitely prefer the look of LRGB with all its subtle nuances. There’s still no substitute for dark sky’s
True about the dark skies. There is no greater ally in making good images except maybe altitude.
I shoot in both LRGB and Narrow band from bortle 2 skies and for me and maybe because i use a RASA 11 my images are cleaner and more defined in HSO i use LRGB to add stars , I used a Color camera and dual, tri and quad band filters and those images were OK but when i switched to MONO even my LRGB images were so much better yes it take me more time to produce an image , but i guess if HSO and MONO are good enough for 90% of the Large scopes doing work by major space agencies its good enough for me!
Bear in mind professional astronomers, whether with NASA, ESA or ground based observatories, are shooting for science, not beautiful images. For them, mono sensors, IR sensors, and other specific sensors are more useful due to the fact they are more flexible regarding whatever filters are applied to the imaging.
Of course it is.... but I live in a highly light polluted area. My only way would be many short exposures.... same as I'm doing now for rgb images. I use narrowband as a way to still enjoy the hobby.
And there is nothing wrong with that. That is absolutely one of the best uses for narrowband.
What about LRGB vs OSC, in terms of time efficiency? I know that shooting monochrome preserves / obtains more detail, but can LRGB obtain superior results in the same amount of integration time as OSC? (I only have experience with OSC, but am weighing monochrome.)
I didn't include OSC in this video because it's different enough from LRGB that it should be considered a different technique altogether. With an OSC, one is basically shooting RGB so the sensor is less efficient without a L channel, but it is shooting all the primary channels at the same time so there is no time lost in changing filters and refocusing after a filter change. LRGB is faster, but when you factor in things that take time (such as filter changes and refocusing) it's not radically faster, and how much depends on your filter change/refocusing/dithering strategies. I think LRGB would be about 25% faster on average. There are times mono is especially useful. The L filter is extremely fast compared to an OSC (something like twice as fast, or a whole F stop). So on nights when I have limited time (as in there are clouds rolling in, and I only have a couple hours), I might just shoot a target on the L channel. The outcome will be black and white but it can still produce a nice image.
Nice explanation, I don't disagree, but I dont know how to reconcile the explanation with this: say that we you shoot nebulae, like Carina or Tarantula, I find that no amount of LRGB will show you what a couple hours of Ha can. The difference is day and night.
I'll test that some time, though it may be that Ha allows frequencies specific to your object to stand out. Which means that information is still in the LRGB information, too, and perhaps it can be teased out via editing techniques.
I prefered narrowband ones. Its subjective.
The video is not about subjective preferences. It's about quantity of data, which is objective. Narrowband must always contain less information because it constricts all light not within its bandpass range. This gives NB images an appearance of sharpness that doesn't arise from more information but from constriction of information.
I enjoy capturing images in OSC Narrowband filters. My goal is to create an image using the HOO or SHO pallet. To me it is an art form and I shoot emission and planetary nebulas with the intent of creating a false color image. I also create images using Narrowband Mono data from telescope live.
Your goal makes that the right technique for you. There are plenty of good uses for narrowband and other types of filters. It is also possible to create HOO and SHO and other palettes using RGB and LRGB data.
i am fairly new to this hobby and only shoot in OSC from my bortle 7 backyard. I use narrowband, but to get better images, could I shoot narrowband for say 8 hours and combine that with 8 hours with just a UV/IR cut filter? Or would i get to much light pollution noise with the UV/IR Cut? I love the LRGB images, but don't have the money to invest in a mono camera, filter wheel, filters, etc. Love the channel BTW. :)
I can't give you an experienced based answer to this. Sorry. I live in the backwoods of Canada and have never had to deal with light pollution.
I live under a Bortle 6 sky with lots of sky glow. I can still shoot nice pics without using a narrow band filter. However, I also live 1.25 miles downwind from a large oil refinery and when it is operating I cannot image. I get a lot of noise. I mean a whole lot. Even using single band filters pick up so much noise I can't get anything usable.
Interesting. I've been wondering at what point use of narrowband would really become essential. What do you think causes the noise? I am thinking low SNR due to particulates in the air.
Enjoyed the video. When using monochrome and putting LRGB together do you vary the intensity of each channel to bring out the fainter details? I'm ignorant to combining mono LRGB images.
I almost always shoot 60 second subs on the SCT. The color is later balanced using the Linear Fit tool in PixInsight. However, I can add additional LRGB data from any discreet channel later in the developing process if useful.
As an experiment, what if you shot LRGB until you were happy with the amount of data, then you shot narrowband until you were happy, then integrated all the data. Would adding the narrowband increase the contrast without losing the subtle color gradients - could you play with the transparency of the layers to get an image that shows more than LRGB alone or narrowband alone?
It may work but there is a far more efficient way to increase specific contrast. Separate the low and high frequency information. You can do a very fine separation for extremely fine sharpness increase, or you can do a complete separation for a more dramatic increase. Then amplify the high frequency information or duplicate the high frequency layer and adjust transparency of the duplicated layer. Frequency separation is an extremely powerful tool and often neglected. Go to this playlist for a complete workflow on the technique: th-cam.com/play/PL5QNoAcKJBRP7G0psAfSFUqXvglKWidAs.html
Im sure you're right but you image in like bortle 2? People in higher light pollution areas see far more benefits.
Absolutely. Narrowband makes beautiful images and scrubs away light pollution. But it's not desirable. I think of it as an unfortunate but often necessary compromise. It doesn't, however, produce better images of emission and planetary nebulae. Nice images, sure, but at significant cost in time and substantial change to image characteristics.
@@SKYST0RY i think if you had to deal with light pollution gradients from multiple sessions in bortle 7 8 or 9 you might re evaluate :) as a very non scientific example, i have similar results from 1 hour on crescent nebula in dual narrowband compared to 8 hours osc (not lrgb but comparable) at bortle 6. Yes, many many other factors probably impact my results, but its a no brainer for me that dual narrowband >> osc. Not same as lrgb but comparable.
@@SKYST0RYIt is more of a preference. I use NB filters with the intent to create an SHO, HOO like image. I use Narrowband Normalization and sometimes the Foraxx Utility and GHS to bring out the details of the Nebulosity. Some prefer the so called Natural look and I can appreciate both methods but it depends on your preference.
I like the no gradients look :)
I agree that the simple rule of "shoot emission nebulae in narrowband and everything else in LRGB" is too simplistic and is bad advice. I would disagree, however, that LRGB is inherently better than narrowband. They're different, and which is preferable is a matter of intent and taste. The contrast in narrowband, which you discount, also allows for the bringing out of fine structure that is just not available in LRGB. But LRGB does provide a greater range of transitions between colors. Which is better? It depends on what you're trying to achieve, and different people will have different opinions. You also are somewhat spoiled and don't realize how big an advantage shooting from dark skies is. I am in a Bortle 6 region, and shooting LRGB is difficult and is pretty much limited to no moon periods. My subs need to be short, which means a lot more of them, and storage and processing consumes a lot of time and disk space, for results that are mediocre at best. And some fainter targets can't be seen at all, completely lost in the noise of the sky glow. That said, I have a new OSC camera, and I'm starting to do more of it. It's allowing me to look at the same old targets in a fresh way. Both LRGB and narrowband are worthy endeavors.
I completely agree that LRGB and narrowband techniques are worthy endeavors. I do not think there is a case--despite claims to the contrary--that narrowband allows one to resolve fine structure not visible in LRGB. Because LRGB lets the same information through as narrowband (and a lot more) that fine structure is there and just needs to be resolved out. If you take a look at some of my videos on separating and making use of high frequency information and synergistic sharpening, this is illustrated there. In point of fact, because narrowband is collecting less information, it's fine structure high frequency information will be weaker. Where narrowband would show a distinct advantage is if one wants to specifically define emissions from particular elements, as in sharply defining H from O within an area. A friend of mine did a remarkable image of Andromeda last year all in Ha, defining the structure of the galaxy by its Ha emissions. However, I can definitively illustrate the fine resolution power of LRGB compared to narrowband. Pop over to my Astrobin and look at the Tulip Nebula and then compare that to narrowband images of the Tulip on Astrobin, including images with far more integration time. The lack of fine detail in LRGB images most often has to do with failure to separate and adequately develop the high frequency information. The apparent fine contrast in narrowband images--leading to the misapprehension it yields sharper images--is simply due to narrowband's inherent higher contrast.
You seem to present subjective taste as a fact. Odd.