I haven't been out for a week +, working on processing skills

[stepping beyond]

Winter storms came through and put a hold on anything outside, Frigid cold ,freezing rain, snow and rain. Even though it just last a day in the South it's still cloudy and bitterly cold {even for me with high winds}. Honing processing skills is what I do on days like these with frustration and aggravation peaking due to reg6 trying my patience for days by not responding time and time again when it gets to 97% complete. I want to learn how to use autostakkert but, I've tried and I just don't get it. Can someone direct me to an easier way? I just need to understand what I'm doing.

[Zakalwe]

Try this:

http://www.awesomeastronomy.com/tutorials/planetary-imaging/60-a-step-by-step-guide-to-processing-planetary-images

Pretty much step by step.

[Zakalwe]

Oh, and don't use Registax for stacking.

[theghettostylus]

Oh, and don't use Registax for stacking.

Why shouldn't we use registax for stacking?

I've been using registax, is the one in the link better?

[cwlindelljr]

Hello, how many of the images here are actual pictures of celestial bodies? How many are composites, or computer generated images made from data collected? Love the images here, btw.

[ollypenrice]

Hello, how many of the images here are actual pictures of celestial bodies? How many are composites, or computer generated images made from data collected? Love the images here, btw.

Where do you mean by 'here?' If you mean on SGL then all the images, to the best of my knowledge, are of real celestial bodies. Nobody on here does any 'generating.' It's important to understand the difference between generating an image and skilfully processing the real and carefully calibrated capture data with a view to maximising its quality, extracting all the information contained in it, and so on. I regard image processing as being analogous with archaeological restoration. The archaeologist finds dusty, muddy, imperfect fragments and reconstructs them so that they more closely resemble the original object. An imager collects information through different filters and assembles it into an accurate representation of the object.

Olly

[wxsatuser]

What Olly says.........only mine are still a bit dusty and muddy.

[Joves]

Great analogy, Olly.

[Scott]

Where do you mean by 'here?' If you mean on SGL then all the images, to the best of my knowledge, are of real celestial bodies. Nobody on here does any 'generating.' It's important to understand the difference between generating an image and skilfully processing the real and carefully calibrated capture data with a view to maximising its quality, extracting all the information contained in it, and so on. I regard image processing as being analogous with archaeological restoration. The archaeologist finds dusty, muddy, imperfect fragments and reconstructs them so that they more closely resemble the original object. An imager collects information through different filters and assembles it into an accurate representation of the object.

Olly

I prefer to think of it as washing a dirty window..you know its out there and you can kinda see it, you just need to clear the muck away...or maybe I'm just no good at archeology

[barkis]

Hello, how many of the images here are actual pictures of celestial bodies? How many are composites, or computer generated images made from data collected? Love the images here, btw.

No No No!, we only accept genuine celestial body images on this forum. Admittedly some look so good, they might lead you to believe they are not genuine, but

they certainly are. There's a high price to pay for those who may attempt fraudulent submissions.

One or two plagiarists too, have paid dearly.

So, in a nutshell, what you see in our Imaging sections are the genuine articles.

Ron.

[Zakalwe]

Why shouldn't we use registax for stacking?

I've been using registax, is the one in the link better?

For many reasons, Registax has been surpassed by Autostakkert.

Regi is slow, requires lots of user input and is finicky about movement in the avi file. If you are using colour data then it's de-Bayering routine uses the "nearest neighbour" algorithm which is inferior to the Autostakkert Bayer Drizzle.

AS!2 is much easier to use and orders of magnitude quicker.

Stack in AS!2 and then drop the (unsharpened!) file into Registax for wavelet sharpening.

[glowjet]

I am not into imaging, but from a layman's point of view, Olly`s clarification is right on the ball. We have so many skilful eagle eyed imagers, that those even anticipating plagiarism, would be well wise not to attempt it, especially on this forum. The resulting images you see, are the result of patience and often many hours work by the Astronomer, which we all welcome and enjoy

[theghettostylus]

For many reasons, Registax has been surpassed by Autostakkert.

Regi is slow, requires lots of user input and is finicky about movement in the avi file. If you are using colour

data then it's de-Bayering routine uses the "nearest neighbour" algorithm which is inferior to the Autostakkert Bayer Drizzle.

AS!2 is much easier to use and orders of magnitude quicker.

Stack in AS!2 and then drop the (unsharpened!) file into Registax for wavelet sharpening.

I will admit it took over an hour just for resgisatx to align a 2 min avi the other day, got bored waiting in the end. I will give the one you mentioned a try.