Lucky imaging settings

[Pitch Black Skies]

Do these settings look okay for lucky imaging? Specifically the Colour Space and Output Format? I don't really understand them.

[ONIKKINEN]

I would set the Output Format to a video mode (SER maybe?) where all the frames are in a single file. If you plan on actually completing your 10 000 frame sequence with your current settings you will have 10 000 individual TIFF files.

[Pitch Black Skies]

Thanks ONIKKINEN.

It was taking too long so I stopped at about 800 frames. Each individual frame looked well. But then when I opened them in AutoStakkert this is what each one looked like ⬇️

I'm not sure what has gone wrong.

I will be trying a video output next time around.

[Pitch Black Skies]

This was causing the problem ⬇️

[Elp]

RAW16 is fine, its 16 bits colour depth which is fine. If you eventually downsample to jpg you will be at 8 bit. The higher the bit number the more colour/pixel intensity value is stored within each pixel which means more dynamic/colour range by a factor of 2 to power of (n) bits in general terms. TIFF is also fine, as Onikkinen has said SER will contain it into one video. I personally always prefer images as they will remain uncompressed and you can view each frame easily if you want, if the capture crashes midway you still have any images you captured already, video may corrupt.

[Pitch Black Skies]

6 hours ago, Elp said:

RAW16 is fine, its 16 bits colour depth which is fine. If you eventually downsample to jpg you will be at 8 bit. The higher the bit number the more colour/pixel intensity value is stored within each pixel which means more dynamic/colour range by a factor of 2 to power of (n) bits in general terms. TIFF is also fine, as Onikkinen has said SER will contain it into one video. I personally always prefer images as they will remain uncompressed and you can view each frame easily if you want, if the capture crashes midway you still have any images you captured already, video may corrupt.

Probably a stupid question but why is it 2^n? What does 2 represent? Should it not be 3, as in RGB, or 4 as in RGGB?

There is also an option for a FIT and PNG output. What do they mean?

Oh right, so it can be done by individual frames rather than video. I was thinking it could as it is essentially one less task for AutoStakkert.

[Elp]

The 2 is essentially how many binary combinations are there to represent pixel info. Power of 1 gives 2 possible outcomes either a 1 or 0. Higher powers it becomes exponential as to the amount of binary combinations therefore there is more bit depth or range of colours which can be represented. If you look at a comparison chart of white to black represented at different bit depths on a well calibrated monitor you'll visually see minimal banding/difference betweens shades of grey at 8 bit or more. In photography the general consensus is to shoot at a reasonable bit depth so the pixel data is retained and dynamic range is not lost.

RGB is generally processed at 8 bit or 16 bit. HDR images at 32 bit but 32 bit processing options in software is usually limited.

Fit is an image format which stores detailed pixel data, so detailed you can probably setup your next imaging session based on the data it stores and there isn't really a limit to how much data they can store. Astro cameras tend to have this option by default. A lot of software however cannot open or process fits so you'll need something like Fits Liberator to open and level stretch each image one at a time (it's why I recommend tif because at least you can use Windows default image viewer to scroll through your images).

Png is another image format which can save quality files with minimal compression compared to jpg (which is the last format you want to use for astro images, okay for saving for uploading to internet or if you want to keep your files sizes reasonable).

 

[Pitch Black Skies]

4 hours ago, Elp said:

The 2 is essentially how many binary combinations are there to represent pixel info. Power of 1 gives 2 possible outcomes either a 1 or 0. Higher powers it becomes exponential as to the amount of binary combinations therefore there is more bit depth or range of colours which can be represented. If you look at a comparison chart of white to black represented at different bit depths on a well calibrated monitor you'll visually see minimal banding/difference betweens shades of grey at 8 bit or more. In photography the general consensus is to shoot at a reasonable bit depth so the pixel data is retained and dynamic range is not lost.

RGB is generally processed at 8 bit or 16 bit. HDR images at 32 bit but 32 bit processing options in software is usually limited.

Fit is an image format which stores detailed pixel data, so detailed you can probably setup your next imaging session based on the data it stores and there isn't really a limit to how much data they can store. Astro cameras tend to have this option by default. A lot of software however cannot open or process fits so you'll need something like Fits Liberator to open and level stretch each image one at a time (it's why I recommend tif because at least you can use Windows default image viewer to scroll through your images).

Png is another image format which can save quality files with minimal compression compared to jpg (which is the last format you want to use for astro images, okay for saving for uploading to internet or if you want to keep your files sizes reasonable).

 

I see, and is 1 on and 2 off? Or would 1 be one shade of colour and 2 another shade of that colour?

With 16 bit having the broader dynamic range, would it be superior to use that always instead of 8 bit?

[Elp]

I think reading up on bits, bytes, binary etc will make for some interesting reading for you . Really you don't need to understand it in great detail, I don't myself. In essence the higher the bit depth the greater range of colour/shades can be captured/displayed/defined. Generally yes, capture at 16 bit, you can always change down to 8 bit when post processing.

 

[Pitch Black Skies]

1 hour ago, Elp said:

I think reading up on bits, bytes, binary etc will make for some interesting reading for you . Really you don't need to understand it in great detail, I don't myself. In essence the higher the bit depth the greater range of colour/shades can be captured/displayed/defined. Generally yes, capture at 16 bit, you can always change down to 8 bit when post processing.

 

Sounds exhilarating 😅. Seriously though if know any good astrophotography beginners books you can recommend I will check them out. I have Every Photon Counts. It's really good but like any book, it doesn't cover everything.

[Elp]

Tbh most of what I know I've learned on the way through life having always been interested in tech and computers, most of AP I've learned from other people be it YouTube (Trevor Jones Astrobackyard/Cuiv the lazy geek/Dylan Star Stuff) or forums such as here CN's etc, though you also learn more via actually trying it out for yourself. Only really started imaging AP seriously recently so still learning. Don't know much regarding books, Turn Left at Orion comes recommended but i believe that's for learning the sky. From the imaging side you may take in a lot by learning about Photoshop processing techniques and general photography workflows. Hope that helps a bit.