NGC 3184 - Drizzled and Not

[MarkAR]

Hi all, been playing around with my data and Pixinsight and couldn't decide whether drizzling would be good or bad.

So I processed both as closely as possible, just a slight variation at the end with Histo and Curves. The main thing to look for is star and galaxy shape and resolution and also background noise.

My camera and scope give me 1.454 arctics per pixel.

Should I drizzle ? I don't know but the Mrs says the drizzled one looks better.

NGC3184_Driz_RGB3_ABE_Fin.tif

NGC3184_LRGB.tif

Edited May 4, 2020 by MarkAR
Wrong non drizzled tiff.

[ollypenrice]

6 minutes ago, MarkAR said:

Hi all, been playing around with my data and Pixinsight and couldn't decide whether drizzling would be good or bad.

So I processed both as closely as possible, just a slight variation at the end with Histo and Curves. The main thing to look for is star and galaxy shape and resolution and also background noise.

My camera and scope give me 1.454 arctics per pixel.

Should I drizzle ? I don't know but the Mrs says the drizzled one looks better.

NGC3184_LRGB.tif 6.59 MB · 0 downloads NGC3184_Driz_RGB3_ABE_Fin.tif 27.78 MB · 0 downloads

I think you'd get more interest if you posted good-sized JPEGs of each. Downloading isn't always very fast in some places - like this one!!!

Olly

[MarkAR]

Good Idea Olly.

First one is drizzled.

[CloudMagnet]

I would honestly say that I prefer the bottom version. Mainly down to the smoother background but that is personal preference. In terms of the galaxy itself, I don't see much material difference in detail- I think if you matched the brightness of the galaxy in both pictures it would give a fairer comparision.

Still a great picture either way

 

[MarkAR]

1 hour ago, CloudMagnet said:

I would honestly say that I prefer the bottom version. Mainly down to the smoother background but that is personal preference. In terms of the galaxy itself, I don't see much material difference in detail- I think if you matched the brightness of the galaxy in both pictures it would give a fairer comparision.

Still a great picture either way

 

Cheers mate, non drizzled is a bit smoother in the background and I did miss the brightness tweak a little. 

[michael8554]

7 hours ago, MarkAR said:

1.454 arctics per pixel.

Should I drizzle ?

Is it sleeting there 😆   ?

Michael

[MarkAR]

Dopey spellchecker. 🤪