WIERD!!

[vlaiv]

6 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Obviously the stack.....but, regardless of the processing that went into it, my point was normally, when I integrate my subs I use the STF the way it was meant to be used--so you can see the image and make decisions about cropping, and where to place the DBE points, and well, you know.  That is why screen stretches are valuable...essential actually unless one likes working blind.  This is my point....in every other instance...bar none, the STF screen stretch of the newly integrated stack ALWAYS looks superior to the STF screen stretch of an individual sub.   Everything you have said may be right....but it doesn't change the fact that this is an unusual, hence "wierd" occurrence.  I did process this data and it came out OK--over processed as was my won't 2 years ago, but yes, the stack CAN be made to look better than the single sub.  Can you imagine how much better if the stack started out looking better instead of blurry and faint?

I think that main problem is that you expect STF to always perform the way you are used to. It might not be the case with automatic tools. You can also do manual screen stretch - one that does not alter the data but shows what is there. With auto stretching - you get what algorithm "thinks" is a good stretch, but you will do a better job, especially if you have experience in stretching the data.

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I think that main problem is that you expect STF to always perform the way you are used to. It might not be the case with automatic tools. You can also do manual screen stretch - one that does not alter the data but shows what is there. With auto stretching - you get what algorithm "thinks" is a good stretch, but you will do a better job, especially if you have experience in stretching the data.

That is what STF is.  I could use the histogram and live preview--but its the same-the histograms end up looking identical.  You are forgetting that the STF DOES always perform a certain way for me--except this time.  I say again...this is very unusual for me...When something happens 1 out of a thousand times, one must appreciate the occurrence as unusual....hence wired.  To be clear, the unusual occurence is a integrated stack not looking appreciably better than a single sub

[vlaiv]

9 minutes ago, Rodd said:

That is what STF is.  I could use the histogram and live preview--but its the same-the histograms end up looking identical.  You are forgetting that the STF DOES always perform a certain way for me--except this time.  I say again...this is very unusual for me...When something happens 1 out of a thousand times, one must appreciate the occurrence as unusual....hence wired.  To be clear, the unusual occurence is a integrated stack not looking appreciably better than a single sub

My only concern is that your claim can be misinterpreted as:

"10h of integrated stack is worse than single 30min sub".

It might be that you did not intend to say such thing, but such thing can be easily concluded from your posts, especially when you claim:

Quote

No question.  The stack is terrible to my eyes.  Garbage.  I won';t even process it.  The single sub shows promise, the stack looks terrible. 

and also:

Quote

The stack sucks---I won't even process it.   The level of detail visible in the single sub is MUCH more than the stack.  details completely disappear in the stack!!!

When in fact, what you are saying is:

"To my eyes, STF of stack looks much worse than STF of single sub, and for that reason I'm going to create split image to show what both look like under same level of stretch in order not to mislead people that single sub can be better than whole stack and that science is rubbish and all that ...."

[Rodd]

15 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

My only concern is that your claim can be misinterpreted as:

"10h of integrated stack is worse than single 30min sub".

It might be that you did not intend to say such thing, but such thing can be easily concluded from your posts, especially when you claim:

and also:

When in fact, what you are saying is:

"To my eyes, STF of stack looks much worse than STF of single sub, and for that reason I'm going to create split image to show what both look like under same level of stretch in order not to mislead people that single sub can be better than whole stack and that science is rubbish and all that ...."

Correction....and one with an important distinction.  What I am saying is, the stack looks worse than the single sub and that is the only time EVER that that has happened to me.    I will sport a challenge here.  I challenge anyone to post a single sub stretched by screen stretch (STF) that looks better than a integrated stack using that sub. (some  good faith here...no stacks created with obviously;y bad subs just so the stack looks bad!).  Try it.  Post a single sub and a 10 hour (or 5 hour to avoid confrontation) stack.  Post FITs and I will use the STF to screen stretch and look.  I bet that the stack will look better 99.99999 % of the time.

[Rodd]

Well--you guys were right in two respects at least--there were inferior subs in the Ha stack, and I only ended up using 7 out of 20 to no deleterious effect.  Thanks.   

[vlaiv]

8 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Well--you guys were right in two respects at least--there were inferior subs in the Ha stack, and I only ended up using 7 out of 20 to no deleterious effect.  Thanks

I'm glad you decided to process your data after all. Nice image!

[Kinch]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I'm glad you decided to process your data after all. Nice image!

Agree 100%. 👍

[Rodd]

5 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I'm glad you decided to process your data after all. Nice image!

Thanks Vlad--I feel like a pebble has been removed from my shoe that I didn't even know was there!  

[Rodd]

1 minute ago, Kinch said:

Agree 100%. 👍

Thanks Brendan

[ollypenrice]

Post deleted. I hadn't seen the second page! Nice result.

Olly

Edited July 12, 2020 by ollypenrice

[Rodd]

5 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Post deleted. I hadn't seen the second page! Nice result.

Olly

Thanks Olly.