Jupiter Dec 1st 2012 using 3x Drizzle

[Space Cowboy]

I'm a big fan of 1.5x drizzle in AS!2 and was interested to read Darryl had been having success with 3x Drizzle so thought I would try it on my best seeing night during opposition which was Dec 1st.

Using the standard wavelet settings produced a very soft under cooked image but when I applied very agressive OTT settings the result was rather pleasing. I've included the 1.5x drizzle image as a comparrison. Both were taken from a PIPP avi though I have used more saturation on the 3x drizzle image.

3x drizzle:

1.5x drizzle :

[JamesF]

Interesting. The biggest differences I can see there are down to darker colours in the first I think. Do they have the same processing (other than the wavelets)?

I'm sure someone said recently (might even have been Emil) that the 1.5x drizzle is just a 3x drizzle scaled down 2x afterwards.

James

[Kokatha man]

Heh-hee Stuart.....maybe your "very agressive OTT settings" might've been too mild!!!

I find the 3X drizzle benefits mainly from (a) good data and ( "uber OTT" wavelets - for example, if the image can handle it I will use linked wavelets and set #1 & #2 sliders to "100" with a sharpening value of "0.14"

Denoise for each of those sliders is around 50 or 60+ each, slightly more for #2 than #1...

I allways gauge my wavelets application individually for every image - settings that create heavy, darkened details etc is a sure sign you've gone too far by a fair margin, but as you say the 3X drizzle can take far more agressive applications without producing a harsh outcome.

James, Emil called 1.5X drizzle a "crippled" version of the 3X that merely downsized it to that scale at the end of the processing...

[Space Cowboy]

I may have dropped the gamma a little more on the 3x version James.

Your settings are pretty similar to mine Darryl, linked wavelets though I moved the top 4 to 100 and used denoise between 40 and 60 with 0.12 sharpening on the first 2 and 0.10 the next 2.

I'm going to try more alignment points (box 50 rather than 100) and see if that makes any difference with the 3x version.

[Space Cowboy]

This is 3x drizzle using alignment box 25 (198 points).

[si@nite]

A good result Stuart, been trying it out myself with not so good results, but will have another go soon.

[Kokatha man]

That looks pretty ok Stuart, although Emil doesn't recommend using smaller MAPs boxes on large planets.....and from that I would've thought even "100" to be "small" but I guess the important thing is experimentation!

Might be worth you trying (say) MAP's boxes of the largest size and see what that does: I start out with the maximum I can use (320) for the centre spot and then place "200" size boxes at 12 0'clock, 1:30, 3:00, 4:30, 6:00, 7:30, 9:00 & 10:30 - then I usually do an "infill" around the edge corresponding to those same clock positions of something around "140" size.....I also use a "200" in the centre to "bind" those "200's" and do the same with the "140's" - finishing up with a "Manual draw" that encompasses everything.

Done a lot of experimentation and there's not a lot of difference in outcomes.....here's a couple of the steps I've just described as an example for folks - noting that for all the "clock" positions I describe above I actually click on a point that is midway from the centre-cross to the planet's edge for the "200's" and midway from the "200's" to the edge again for the "140's" - but the red dot will not appear there exactly due to the overall screen size chosen...

The piks just show the 320, 200 & 140 Maps boxes - the manual draw around all of them isn't shown here and can be a bit tricky.....but as I said it seems there's a lot of latitude and the only things i glean from Emil is not to use too small a box on (say) Jupiter and don't start out with red colour showing on the screen edges when you select those parameters.....

[Kokatha man]

ps: the images appear in the post above in reverse order..!!!

[Space Cowboy]

Interesting info Darryl. Yes I've been using larger box sizes since Emil said about using too many especially around the limb but just thought I'd try the smaller boxes with 3x drizzle because I'm a bit of a rebel when the mood takes me.

Do you have any comparrisons with and without the manual box sizes?

[Kokatha man]

.....I think I posted some comparisons the last Jovian apparition Stuart, but as I said there seems to be a lot of latitude with Maps boxes re positioning, size and the outcomes thereof - I merely posted the above as a suggestion to try for significantly larger boxes and "suck it & see!"

Seeing rules everything imho and after that it's getting an image scale that is tailored to whatever is served up on any single night - why I've put a fair amount of time into fabricating a variable amplification barlow adjuster.....that especially for the small-pixelled ASI120MM which of course has quite a large degree of resolutions with decent framerates such that one can go to a larger resolution with a good fps still...and not require so much gain...along with varying exposure times with any one resolution anyways, although I don't find this as helpfull as changing resolutions...

Selecting the best image scale for any single night's seeing also gives the best likelihood of using drizzle as well of course..!

[bus_ter]

Mostly it looks like the colours/contrast is a little different. Detail levels look about the same.

I do like your natural processing style. I think some people over sharpen Jupiter with the Wavelets. Jupiter is supposed to look soft :-)