Registax 5 vs Registax 6

[Jupiterholic]

About a week ago I shot the Ptolemeus region of the moon. The avis I shot were a little overexposed which led to some really bad pixellation artifacts appearing on the final images in registax 5 (which I have been using up until now). I had to use gaussian blur tool to get rid of these for my final mosaic, leading to a softening of detail.

I decided yesterday to have a go on the same avi's with Registax 6, something I've avoided due to its unreliability and frequent crashes. Needless to say these software problems still seem apparent and it crashed a lot and sometimes processed the avis with some 'crazy paving' style artifacts, sometimes without. But in the end I found the right settings and managed to process them all and they didn't seem to display the pixellation problems of the registax 5 versions.

The results are much better with V6 I think. If you can put up with the pain of slogging through V6's numerous instability issues it seems to deal with Avi's a lot better than V5.

Just thought I'd post the results for anyone thinking of trying V6.

Final mosaic here:

Final Jpegs directly after processing:

[Grotemobile]

After what i have just seen, it might be

worth giving it another go.That is quite

a bit of difference in the 2 pictures.

Steve.

[Pete Presland]

what happened to the images?

[Jupiterholic]

I deleted them from imageshack. They weren't in any 'violation' (must be a stock imageshack display when images can't be linked to), just cleaning up my imageshack pages. To be honest I didn't think it would matter as this thread hadn't generated much in the way of interest. But trust me, the quality difference was well in favour of Registax 6

[Pete Presland]

I deleted them from imageshack. They weren't in any 'violation' (must be a stock imageshack display when images can't be linked to), just cleaning up my imageshack pages. To be honest I didn't think it would matter as this thread hadn't generated much in the way of interest. But trust me, the quality difference was well in favour of Registax 6

i have been using reg6 myself and it certainly has improved some of my images as well.

[RogerTheDodger]

When I use registax I usually try it it both 5 and 6 just see if it comes out differently.

[Jupiterholic]

When I use registax I usually try it it both 5 and 6 just see if it comes out differently.

Blimey. Not sure I have enough hours in the day to process the hundred of captures I take of the moon on both versions.

I found the comparison in the dusty recesses of my laptop. Just in case anyones mildly interested.

[WayBig]

R6 comes out quite a bit sharper. Did you select the same number of frames, the same wavelet and other processing settings?

I've tended to stay away from R6, i've had problems with it, but your pictures could tempt me back.

[Jupiterholic]

In R5 I would usually ask it to keep all frames within 90-95% quality and then let it go to the end automated.

I know you can use it in a much more refined way and select the frames you want to lose but for some reason I could never get it to work like that for me and was happy to do it by using the percentage quality method. I was usually left with between 200-700 frames.

In R6 however for this mosaic I told it to keep the best 400 of each (roughly 3,000 frame) capture. So every pane is 400 frames basically.

Admittedly it could be the way I was using R5 that is part of the problem. But these captures were overexposed and R5 was producing very pixellated final results which I was having to reduce post processing. Something R6 definitely did not. The over exposure didn't seem to affect the stacking process and final jpegs were much smoother while still containing about the same amount of frames.

[Pete Presland]

i found the biggest difference was when the wavelet settings were used, reg 6 just seems to pull more detail out