I think I may have stumbled onto something??

[Bizibilder]

The above is a reprocess of an image I took last weekend - with one slight difference.  I found a piece of software called Fitswork4 which has a deconvolution routine and this is what i used on the image above, no other processing.  I think it speaks for itself.  Below is the "best" I could do with Registax wavelets:  Both images from a stack of "RAW" frames.

[andyboy1970]

Nice piece of software isn't it.

Only does 8 bit though.

[Bizibilder]

Only 8 bit - I knew there'd be a catch somewhere!

I just did a "normal" solar process (I know this is the Lunar section  ) and it certainly brings out the granulation well:

[Daniel-K]

am i missing something? i much prefer the bottom one

[Steve Ward]

Thanks for the post Roger , just downloaded . . . 

Will have a play later , when I've trawled for a tutorial . . . 

[nightfisher]

might give this a go, cheers for the heads up

[jgs001]

Interesting, I'll take a look at that.. shame it won't run natively on my mac... I wonder if it can be "bottled"...

[allcart]

I agree with Daniel-K. The bottom pic looks sharper and better.

[Stu]

I guess a lot of this is personal preference, quite subjective. I prefer the top one because it looks more natural, the bottom one seems over-processed but I understand some would prefer it.

Zooming in, the top one shows the same, or more detail in a more natural way I think?

I'm no imager though, so may be missing something!

Stu

[Luke]

In case anyone has Photoshop, as far as I know, Smart Sharpen uses deconvolution if More Accurate and Lens Blur are selected.

Will be interesting to see how you guys get on. I tried fitswork and a few of the other free tools a while back, but couldn't improve on what I could get in Photoshop?

Good to try tools and see what works for you. Sarah gets on much better with wavelets in Registax than I do.

[Sp@ce_d]

I have to say my poor old tired eye's focus much easier on the bottom one too. In fact, I liken it to the difference in looking through our Opticron bino's for the top one and the Leica's for the bottom.  Sry

[Sp@ce_d]

Hmmm having said that.. looking at Stu's post it does look better close in. But I still stand by what I said for the whole Moon.

[Luke]

My vote goes for piccy one - for me, the craters at the bottom are beautifully crisp and Mare Crisium is fab too. The Copernicus rays in piccy two look a bit more punchy to me though?

[Luke]

John, I tried RawTherapee in my tests, which has a Mac version as well as far as I know. It looked a nice tool from my quick go with it. Worth a spin?

http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

Interesting, I'll take a look at that.. shame it won't run natively on my mac... I wonder if it can be "bottled"...

[Bizibilder]

I must admit the processing on both images is "unfinished" it's just that the detail along the terminator seems much sharper to me with this software - just another tool to add to the box.  Luke - I'll have a look at rawtherapee as well - thanks for the link.

[JamesF]

Looking at the images Stu posted, I'd say the noise is more obvious in the first image, but the pattern makes me wonder if it may be down to the JPEG file format rather than the deconvolution.

James

[Mr Bergman]

I found something really nice folks. WOW! 

Read this; 

http://www.astro-photo.nl/lunar-and-solar-deconvolution

Program here: 

http://www.phasespace.com.au/

Maybe something for the toolbox? Could be used in conjunction with a finer adjustment after Wavelets in registax, but with smaller PSF size and fever iterations. 

[Luke]

Interesting. And a link on Paul Haese using Astra Image here:

http://paulhaese.net/planetaryprocessing.html

I found something really nice folks. WOW! 

Read this; 

http://www.astro-photo.nl/lunar-and-solar-deconvolution

Program here: 

http://www.phasespace.com.au/

Maybe something for the toolbox? Could be used in conjunction with a finer adjustment after Wavelets in registax, but with smaller PSF size and fever iterations. 

[Stu]

Looking at the images Stu posted, I'd say the noise is more obvious in the first image, but the pattern makes me wonder if it may be down to the JPEG file format rather than the deconvolution.

James

It's funny what your brains/eyes chose to see or ignore. I prefer the first image, but until you pointed it out, I had totally overlooked the higher levels of noise.

Stu

[Bizibilder]

Still playing with this one!  I found the paul haese tutorial (Thanks Mr Bergman) quite interesting as it gives an insight into how Registax should be used (I reprocessed in R5 where he uses R4 in the tutorial) and managed this image.  it was finished with a gentle (very gentle!) smart sharpen and a tiny bit of unsharp mask - really trying to hold back and not overdo things.  I also made the background "bigger" to try and give the impression of the moon in space: Click image for full size!!

[Mr Bergman]

Bizibilder; I have also learnt now how to be gentle with wavelets and how to use deconvolution. I am glad that you found Astra tools helpful. ( Though the Paul Haese tutorial was from Luke )

Your last image is really well processed. One thing; ( if you guys already know this just stop reading:-))  If you switch to LAB mode in PS, select the lightness channel and then use smart sharpen/unsharp mask, you will get less noise. This is because most noise is in the a and b-channels, whilst details are in lightness. So theoretically, you could actually put a mild blur into a- and b and then only sharpen in lightness channel. Then convert back to RGB or what you had before. I have tried the lightness channel sharpening with good results, but blurring a and b is on my next to do list. Anyone tried this?  

[shirva]

I agree with comments that the bottom looked better visually but slightly over cooked in between both shots would be better and think you achieved it on latest image. ..the thing is do you want as seen by the eye or a representation of what you wish it to be.....look at deep sky images they are all done to a representation in my opinion because """"what is the true colour"""". Nice work ....Davy

[Luke]

I've tried a few tests with the free Astra Image demo and it feels a very nice tool for deconvolution, but again I can't seem to get any more out of it than with Smart Sharpen / Unsharp Mask in Photoshop. Maybe I'm not pressing the right buttons

[Mr Bergman]

Luke - I have tried the Astra image PS plugin. I tried it with good results though. 

What I did is that I used the Lucy Richardson deconvolution which is supposed to give some crispy details. Then choose gaussian or moffat, prefferably moffat. PSF size about 0,7 with roughly 6-7 iterations. That gave me nice details on my 1000mm moon at least. I used Astra tools after Registax wavelets, therefore only a few iterations. Some use Astratools instead of wavelets. 

[Luke]

Thanks for the tips! Well I think at last I may be starting to get some details beyond what I can get with Photoshop. I think where I was going wrong was to only do one hit straight from the original blurry stacked image. Doing some wavelets or Smart Sharpen or a touch of another deconvolution routine as well seems to add that little bit more   It's only a subtle difference I have so far, but I like it!

Luke - I have tried the Astra image PS plugin. I tried it with good results though. 

What I did is that I used the Lucy Richardson deconvolution which is supposed to give some crispy details. Then choose gaussian or moffat, prefferably moffat. PSF size about 0,7 with roughly 6-7 iterations. That gave me nice details on my 1000mm moon at least. I used Astra tools after Registax wavelets, therefore only a few iterations. Some use Astratools instead of wavelets.