Binning or just resizing

[Chefgage]

I have a canon 200d that I image with. This produces an image of 6000x4000 pixels. 

So from a processing point of view (after stacking the images) is it best to leave the image size as is and then start processing and not resize the image at the end.

Or resize the image to 1920x1080 (to be viewed on monitor/TV) and then start processing.

Or bin the image say 3x3 and then start processing.

Is there any advantage in the three scenarios I have shown?

[DaveS]

As it's a Bayer matrix binning will be somewhat more complicated. than for mono. Myself I'd leave it as is unless your processing PC is running out of storage or power. There's no need to scale to 1920 x 108-0 for display, as a lot of monitors / TVs are 3840 x 2160 nowadays.

[Seelive]

57 minutes ago, Chefgage said:

I have a canon 200d that I image with. This produces an image of 6000x4000 pixels. 

So from a processing point of view (after stacking the images) is it best to leave the image size as is and then start processing and not resize the image at the end.

Or resize the image to 1920x1080 (to be viewed on monitor/TV) and then start processing.

Or bin the image say 3x3 and then start processing.

Is there any advantage in the three scenarios I have shown?

These are crops of an unprocessed M31 image taken with my 200D and a 400 mm lens and saved as JPG images.  On the left is a 'zoomed-in' view of the full 6000 x 4000 pixel image, on the right is a 'zoomed-in' view from the 3 x 3 binned 2000 x 1333 pixel image.  I know which I would prefer, but without zooming-in ('pixel peeping') you probably wouldn't notice any difference of the un-zoomed images on a PC screen.

 

[Chefgage]

1 hour ago, DaveS said:

As it's a Bayer matrix binning will be somewhat more complicated. than for mono. Myself I'd leave it as is unless your processing PC is running out of storage or power. There's no need to scale to 1920 x 108-0 for display, as a lot of monitors / TVs are 3840 x 2160 nowadays.

I don't usually bother as it makes no difference what size the image is as the monitor/ TV will still display it but only at the monitor/TV resultion.  I am just wondering if my TV when downsampling the 6000x4000 image is making it worse than if I just resize or bin the image in processing.

[Chefgage]

40 minutes ago, Seelive said:

These are crops of an unprocessed M31 image taken with my 200D and a 400 mm lens and saved as JPG images.  On the left is a 'zoomed-in' view of the full 6000 x 4000 pixel image, on the right is a 'zoomed-in' view from the 3 x 3 binned 2000 x 1333 pixel image.  I know which I would prefer, but without zooming-in ('pixel peeping') you probably wouldn't notice any difference of the un-zoomed images on a PC screen.

 

Thanks for that. I think a bit of experimenting is in order. Still trying to get my head round when or if to bin the image. Or is resizing the image a better option or not to do it at all.