Anything wrong with Registax for (Video) DSOs?

[Macavity]

My main object is to stack / process Video Astronomy data which (unlike classical image 

data?) tends to be a few-hundred (10s pre-stacked camera) frames, in single .AVI files.

Uhm, basically, except for subject matter, it looks rather like "planetary image" data?

Is there anything fundamentally wrong, using Registax to stack DSOs? It's often mooted

that other software (DSS, AS!2) is preferred by DSO imagers using classical techniques.

But Is there a fundamental difference in quality, or is this more about data formats?

Finally got around to organising / reprocessing my data for a "Video Messier Marathon"

-- Took quite a while to reprocess 50+ objects! But almost finished a half-marathon. 

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

It might be that the DSO oriented methods use different methods for alignment. As Registax is free, you could simply try, of course.

[Alien 13]

I used to use an old version of registax with images taken off VCR i.e. kids birthdays etc.

I would take a snippet of video with little movement using virtua dub then run it through registax to produce an enhanced still image, worked very well.

Alan

[Macavity]

Oh, I have tried Registax fairly extensively. The others less / hardly... 

Perhaps it would be "original research"? lol - I sense, with the general

(understood) quality of video images, Registax is fine for purpose.

Casually wondered if there is anything "utterly pathological" though.

And Thanks Michael - If I'm happy? No big audiences planned...