5/30/2023 0 Comments Topaz denoise astrophotographyThey might not even explicitly state the features are AI based. And pretty soon other software will follow. Photoshop already incorporates AI like features with it’s content aware fill functions. There’s currently an AI web based tool called Star Fixer that can correct your stars for tilt or coma. I expect we’ll see a lot more AI based features added to software processing tools over the coming months to year. It’s here to stay whether we like it or not A good image processor will know and understand how to use masks to control what’s happening to their images, and will apply the effects of the tool in a way that doesn’t lead to misinterpretation of the image data that was captured. I think I fall somewhere in the middle currently along with others that believe the power is in the users hands to wield the software and tools at our disposal in such a way as to not ruin the integrity of the captured image, but to limit the tools use for what it was intended. Others that are new to the hobby, argue that it’s fun to use and effective at getting them good results with little effort. Traditional image processors are very vocal at not using any software that adds new data that didn’t exist in the image you took, and this pertains to Denoise as well as sharpening. The debate is whether or not software like this should be used at all, and if so, should it be a requirement to disclose you used it? Right now the results of this discussion are a mixed bag. When this sharpening is applied, it can have strange adverse effects if overused, or used improperly. Topaz Denoise AI is chiefly at the front of the discussion because it’s extremely good at removing noise from the image, however some of the Denoise settings come with an added feature of AI sharpening. There’s a massive debate happening right now across astrophotography Internet forums over whether or not AI based tools should be used in processing your astro images. With the edge/limb appearing darker and redder because of longer sight lines through cooler higher layers.The debate over AI (artificial intelligence) based tools in astrophotography "Why does the Sun shine? Fusion!" becomes "Why does the LED light bulb shine? Electricity!", highlighting the incompleteness.Īnother crosscheck is seeing how the non-uniform appearance of the Sun (limb darkening) is handled. Which then might be probed with "A 5-year old asks: what color is that shirt?". what color is the ball?", it's not uncommon for first-tier-U physical-sciences graduate students to answer with variations on "it doesn't have a color it's lots of different colors it's rainbow color", reflecting misconceptions around color perception. Presented with "A 5-year old asks: The Sun is a big hot ball. With colorful thermal IR images of ears as radiators, and false-color images of skin parasite distribution (thus mud baths) and so on. Now imagine a traveling exhibit on elephants. Years ago, NASA did a traveling museum exhibit on the Sun with lots of colorful images, but not a single white Sun. Would it seem odd to suggest adding a true-color visible-light photo? What if the authors color graded such a photo to hide a less marketable, say greenish cast? Imagine an article about a newly energy-efficient light bulb, which included only false-color thermal and near IR images - "Look, less waste heat and wasted light!". does not really mean much here impossible to directly observeĪs misconceptions are common around the Sun, sunlight, and colour, it can be helpful to crosscheck concepts by swapping the Sun for a more familiar object: a light bulb, display, wall, shirt, or elephant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |