Jump to content

Astra Image Lucy Richardson vs Photoshop Smart Sharpen

Luke

By Luke
in Imaging - Solar

Recommended Posts

Luke

Luke

Posted
Posted

We solar folks seem to be having a bit of an Astra Image 4 frenzy, trying out its deconvolution routines :grin: A big thanks to Brian (Smerral) saying about using 250 (!) iterations.

Here is my first effort based on that, with a Quark and Tele Vue 60 shot. I hope you can see the subtle difference, you might need browser at 100% zoom. For me though the difference is small, the Astra Image one I am happy with, the Photoshop Smart Sharpen is not quite there for me so I might usually downsize it a bit and add a second lighter dose of sharpening.

14924254784_dece2c9eac_o.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrRobin

DrRobin

Posted
Posted

Luke, that is a very small difference, but I agree, the Lucy Richardson just has the advantage. I know we have all gone deconvolution mad, but I couldn't believe how much better my solar images are shaping up using LR processing.

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luke

Luke

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Luke, that is a very small difference, but I agree, the Lucy Richardson just has the advantage. I know we have all gone deconvolution mad, but I couldn't believe how much better my solar images are shaping up using LR processing.

Robin

That's great news, Robin!

I think I might be able to sharpen the LR one a touch more, but what struck me is that I would be happy to leave it at 100% size. Most of my Quark images so far have been downsized and a shot with the 60mm I had been processing I was thinking I might need to downsize as well. I don't mind downsizing the 120mm shots as there is quite a lot of detail anyway, but I'd like to keep my 60mm shots at 100% if poss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted

That is interesting you did it through twice. I was getting no difference between 250 or 500 iterations when I tried it. I wonder what 2x 250 would have done.

Alexandra

That was two deconvolutions with different parameters of the blur (PSF width, I assume), which should differ from 500 iterations with a single PSF. Haven't tried that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luke

Luke

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Alexandra, as Michael says, I used a different Blur Kernel Size. I didn't intend to do two passes, it was just that after the first blast, the noise seemed pretty low so it looked like it could take another dose :-o But I am happy to have a starting point where I can hopefully edge Smart Sharpen! I'm not expecting a big difference, and ditto your images, because I think Smart Sharpen does a pretty good job especially considering the speed, I thnk we pay a cost in a bit more noise. I wonder if it is a flavour of Wiener?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Montana

Montana

Posted
Posted

OK OK OK I'm hooked, it does nothing for Halpha for me but for Calcium K woohoo!!! I've never been able to use Smart sharpen for this and been using wavelets, using Astra Image 4 in CaK is like using Smart sharpen for Halpha.

Alexandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted

Very curious indeed. I gather CaK tends to be noisier, so LR might be more stable than Smart Sharpen, giving better results whenever the photon count is a bit lower (as with my little LS35 compared to Alexandra's heavy artillery ;)). That might explain why several people report better results with LR, in others it is a draw, and for some PS wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.