22-04-2018 AR2706 Quark & AS!3 Options

[Ewan]

Sorry mod's if this is in the wrong place but does show some stacking comparisons.

Hi, just found a 2 pane mosaic showing a little more AR2706 expanse, not much more sorry but thought I'd share anyway.

Also I have been testing AS!3 options for stacking solar images, the examples may help new comers in deciding what setting they may find of use using the stacking software.

I have to admit even I found some of the tutorials on AS!3 options to be lacking in description shall we say ;-)

Anyway it appears that a larger AP size can make quite a bit of difference to the outcome, I would normally use an AP of around 40 but now on it will probably be a fair bit higher. Obviously the more images stacked ie 40% over 10% will cause some blurriness but it will also handle sharpening a little better & control the noise somewhat.

Anyway I hope this may be helpful to some of you & your solar endeavours.

Atb

Ewan

PS I actually think one of these is better than my original AR2706 Topic posting but aw well lol

[Ibbo!]

Thanks for the comparsions

[David Smith]

Interesting comparisons. I have to admit I have got into a bit of a rut lately just using the setting I know will work, rather than actually experimenting to get the best from the data. Thanks

[Ewan]

9 minutes ago, David Smith said:

Interesting comparisons. I have to admit I have got into a bit of a rut lately just using the setting I know will work, rather than actually experimenting to get the best from the data. Thanks

Fairs fair Dave so did I, had some time to kill & I always kept 'meaning' to do it but never bothered.

Just shows what data can be hiding in your captures though, I know now I will probably go with 200 AP, surprised me I can tell you.

Atb

[Ewan]

Btw the image was loaded once with a flat frame taken after the capture.

The image was re analysed each time to make sure the settings selected were stuck to then new AP's applied, then stacked. Into IMPPG for a mild sharpen. The sharpening was done on the first image then that setting was saved in IMPPG for use on the resulting stacks, I just loaded each into INPPG, applied that same setting then saved to keep the process the same for each one.

[David Smith]

4 minutes ago, Ewan said:

Fairs fair Dave so did I, had some time to kill & I always kept 'meaning' to do it but never bothered.

Just shows what data can be hiding in your captures though, I know now I will probably go with 200 AP, surprised me I can tell you.

Atb

Yes, I tend to use an AP of 50 but will have a go with a few different options now.

[Lowjiber]

Wow!  That is really good information.  Thanks for sharing your experiment.

I have a tendency to err on the smaller size APs, thinking "smaller is better".  Your data above shows that I was dead wrong.

Thank you very much... I just bookmarked your post and will refer to in the next time the clouds cooperate.

Clear Skies

[Ewan]

2 hours ago, Lowjiber said:

Wow!  That is really good information.  Thanks for sharing your experiment.

I have a tendency to err on the smaller size APs, thinking "smaller is better".  Your data above shows that I was dead wrong.

Thank you very much... I just bookmarked your post and will refer to in the next time the clouds cooperate.

Clear Skies

Thanks John.

I am not saying it will work for everyone but having tried it on older data from last week I got the same results, like you I always used small AP thinking it will look more at the smaller 'grassy' looking detail but it does not seem the case.

Hope it goes well for you mate.

Atb & clear skies.

[Pete Presland]

Interesting comparisons regarding AP size, to be honest all the images are superb!

[Lowjiber]

9 hours ago, Ewan said:

Thanks John.

I am not saying it will work for everyone but having tried it on older data from last week I got the same results, like you I always used small AP thinking it will look more at the smaller 'grassy' looking detail but it does not seem the case.

Hope it goes well for you mate.

Atb & clear skies.

It may interest you to know that I repeated your experiment today with similar results.  I used a really bad AVI that was laying around in my trash bin.  I used the same data from IMPPG on each of eight different AP sizes ranging from 24 to 400. 

I kept track of how many alignment points were used for each change in AP size.  It was interesting to note the obvious... the one with an AP size of 400 only had 15 alignment points when I put them in the image. LOL

I won't post the images here, but I'll send them to you if you want them.  Just drop me a PM with your email address and I'll send 'em.

I also pushed the envelope even more afterwards by stacking one image (my 9th) at 50% of the 1000 frames just to see what happened.  The edges were slightly "smudged" and the minor amount of noise in the AVI was pretty much modulated by stacking so many frames.

I also wrote it up in another forum where I started off by providing a link to your original post.  Here's the link... http://www.astronomyforum.net/solar-astrophotography-forum/250511-dumbing-down-details-autostakkert-huh.html#post1058637735

This whole thing was a good exercise that I found really interesting.  I thank you for this idea and the thread.

Clear, Dark Skies

[Ewan]

Glad to have helped a little:-)