 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Artefact or not that is the question. |
|
SOFTWARE METHOD OF EXTRACTION OF MASKED ASTRONOMICAL IMAGES |
 |
|
|
PDF file
(French)
|
The software methods that
were used, to create the hidden images, are certainly not the only
possible. But they have the merit of being simple, fast and not requiring
exaggerated investments. The software are sold in all the hypermarkets.
Some are automatically even delivered during the purchase of certain
numeric scanners. Let us note that the procedures of extractions evolved a
lot, between the first images, and those which are processed today. Here
are the basic techniques used. They give good results.
We describe here the
procedures used with the software having given satisfaction. It removes
nothing from the qualities of the others.
In every case, to obtain significant images, it is necessary to only
process high resolution images; such as those supplied by the ESO from the
VLT telescopes, or from the NOAO telescopess.
Considering what was obtained, through the images of the VLT or those of
the NOAO, we can hope that the obtained results will be confirmed quickly.
In low resolution images, we are always disappointed, even if the image is
very beautiful and very significant. It is regrettably almost always the
case with the images of the HST.
Let us note as well, for certain images, that it is appropriate to make a
preliminary filtering: elimination of the noise, and of the weft of the
image...
There are no absolute rules. It belongs to the operator to feel what he
has to do. But you should never forget that filtering, and especially if
excessive, do loses information. But also, that in an image, too much
data, harms to the information. It is necessary to have the sense of
moderation. But it also shows that purely automatic processing will never
allow to reveal, what the human eye can see and seize an opportunity
during the steps of the processing. It is a question of attention. It is
necessary to be lying in wait, as a hunter. And be always ready to adapt
the processing according to what will have fleetingly been collected.
A result, whatever it is, can and must be subjected to the criticism. At
first that of the very operator. But also that of the "experts". The
problem is to know who is an expert!
Anyway, artefacts are always possible. It is thus, if possible, necessary
to make an equivalent processing on a similar image from another source.
But often the images are unique… Then we must make do!
We shall realize very quickly, that an image saturated with light does not
give valid results. It is almost always the case with photos of galaxies,
their nucleus are overexposed. All the datas are thus crushed. It is
therefore, much better to process only sub-exposed images. Nebulas give
almost always interesting results. Global nebulas also. Clusters of
galaxies are rich in discoveries to be made.
Processing of images of planets gives nothing useful. Especially, as
satellites get a close look at them.
Good hunting!
THE PROCESSINGS :
Preliminary note: I possess a Pentium II PC under
Windows 98, with 128 Mb RAM and fast high capacity hard disks. The picture
processing is always very greedy in resources. It is necessary to know
this. Some processing take a long time. It is often necessary to be
patient, even with a fast machine.
Note: We do not have English versions of these
softwares; also, in what follows, we refer to the French versions of them.
Please excuse us.
1 Ulead PhotoImpact 5.0 (or next)
|
-
In the main menu bar,
click on: File, Open, "filename", Open. The
image appears in the window. (Here it is M87, from the Internet site of
the ESO)
-
In the secondary menu bar,
click the push-button, a small half masked sun, [Luminosity and
Contrast]. The corresponding control panel appears.
|
 |
| |
Luminosity: 89
Contrast : 90
-
Other values are possible.
Certain objects appear more or less sharply.
-
To validate, click on [OK].
Afterwards we can use particular effects such as "draw outlines".
The results can be spectacular.
|
 |
| |
-
Another possibility, which
often gives good results, is to use the procedure of equalization, by
itself or better, together with furher processing:
-
n the main Menu bar, Click
"Format", "Equalize". The result is sometimes fascinating!
-
You should not hesitate to
improve it by adjusting the luminosity and the contrast.
|
 |
2 Adobe Photoshop 5.0 LE (or next) |
-
In the main menu bar, click on: File, Open,
"filename", Open. The image appears in the window.
-
In the menu bar, click on [Image, Adjustments,
Curves]. The control panel appears.
|
 |
| |
-
In the panel, a diagonal straight line appears. This
line can be modified by the operator. By clicking on this curve, at
various points, we can generate control points which allow us to make
modifications. It is enough to click one of these points, to maintain the
button of the mouse, and then by moving this point to make the desired
modifications.
|
 |
| |
-
The example above illustrates what we can obtain. It is
obvious, that the shown objects depend on the shape of the curve, that the
operator did.
-
To validate click on [OK].
-
Further processing, will add precision to the results.
-
This curve can be saved by clicking the button "Save",
then read again by clicking "Load". It is one of its key points.
|
 |
Notes:
-
The method by "Luminosity / contrast"
used with Ulead PhotoImpact is also applicable with Adobe
Photoshop. The results are strictly identical.
-
The "Curves" method also exists in Ulead
PhotoImpact : "Format, Color Mapping".
-
The "Equalization" method is also available in
Adobe Photoshop. The results are strictly identical.
But we show, by using two methods and two different
programs, that there is not just one possible algorithm, and even less
that there is only one single possible software.
The technical explanation of the obtained results is clear, even if we do
not know the algorithms used by the designers of these programs.
In any case we mind the balance of contrasts, either that of luminosity or
of shade. The shade method is the most successful. It is both powerful and
subtle. And as its use is easy under Adobe Photoshop, it is the one
that we greatly prefer. On the other hand, the fact of being able to save
the shade curves is an essential trump card.
However with Ulead PhotoImpact, the filtering procedures are more
numerous, more effective. We thus use both, as required.
In conclusion, what is essential, is that we cannot always adapt for this
kind of research a purely automatic system, and accordingly to totally
mathematical criteria (series of Fourier, unconvolution). This
necessitates ongoing "go and return" between man and machine. The human
eye is necessary to validate an image rather than another one. It is as
much Art and Science. Obviously it can also raise problems. What is
artefact, and what is not ? But the results thus obtained are to be
compared to the history of the monkey which taps randomly on a typewriter.
What is the probability that in 15 billion years it gives us "Romeo and
Juliette"? What is the probability that the images obtained, by these
means, are artefacts whereas such a coherent logic is brought forth?
|
|
|