Semi processed moon

[Demonperformer]

OK, have finally got around to processing some images I took of the moon a couple of weeks ago. When processed, I get some of the image as expected and some of it like it was originally. This latter bit is all down the right hand side of the image, so suspect I am doing something stupid with the settings, but can't see what. Only attaching small part of image as it should explain what I mean.

Any suggestions gratefully received.

[blinky]

In registax there is a button that says 'Do All' or words to that effect - have you hit that?

[Demonperformer]

Found a bit called 'Processing area' on input page and played which was set to 512. It offers 'full' as an option, but this caused an 'out of memory' error message. However, trying 1024 seemed to solve the problem.

Thanks

DP

[David Galvin]

Registax 4 or 5?

If I remember correctly you may run out of memory if the box is to large, depends on your computer, and it will slow down the processing run too. Try making it a little smaller and see how it behaves. Select 'Show Processing Area' on the Wavlets page . Four small markers will show the work area of your image.

When happy with the image select 'Do All' and the complete image will be processed, this will remove that blurred part of your image.

I hope that this makes some sense and moves you a step along the learning curve.

[Demonperformer]

Many thanks David ... found the 'do all' button now and it does exactly what it says on the tin ... now wondering if there are bits on some of my double star images [like more stars] which would benefit from reprocessing ... only one way to find out ... this image processing lark is a very steep learning curve, isn't it?

BTW, I am apparently using Registax version 2.1 ... it's what came with the camera.

[David Galvin]

Registax version 4 and 5 have been out for a while so might be worth downloading. from the Registax website. Personally I would get used to 4 and then try 5.

Keep them coming mate.

[Demonperformer]

Thanks for the suggestion, David. I've had a look and [i know it's contrary to your advice] decided to go straight for v5. As I am only just beginning to learn the program, I thought I might as well start with the latest as it is all new and obscure to me at the moment, rather than learning v4 and then having to relearn v5. I've had a quick play but have not started wading through the manual yet. At least if I've jumped the wrong way [a] I still have v2.1 to fall back on, and I can download v4 when I come to that conclusion and start again:).

[David Galvin]

No problem with using version 5 other then some say that it is buggy although I have never had a problem with it. Keep at it and see what it can do. :-)