Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

AviStack V2....

beamish

By beamish
in Imaging - Discussion

Recommended Posts

beamish

beamish

Posted
Posted

,.... is available for group testing via the Avistack Yahoo group. Just wondering if any folks have been able to run some avi's thru it yet ?

There's a 72 page English manual which I think I'll start over the wk/end.

Over and over I keep seeing comparisons twix this (albeit V1.81) and Registax (normally V4) and Avistack does seem to have the edge, so, I'm gonna swat up and give it a go.

Any thoughts ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply
neil phillips

neil phillips

Posted
Posted

Interesting Karlo keep us updated how you get on, what im interested in, is what new features on V2 are considered superiour to the earlier offering, one always hopes for a leap in software performance dont we, so thats something i would certainly be interested in, version 1 was good

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick Smith

Nick Smith

Posted
Posted

Hi Karlo

I have put quite a few AVIs through AS v2 and compared with the Registax 5 images. My initial thoughts regarding AS v2 compared with v1.81 are:

1. It deals with videos where there is noticeable drift a lot better

2. The image sharpness is maintained torwards the outside of the frame better (and better than R5).

3. It is way, way quicker. You can disable the display and this speeds things up massively.

4. The workflow is incredibly simple compared with R5. Also the default settings seem to be bang on.

Before using AS v2, I was very much an advocate of R5 vs AS v1.81, but I have now changed my opinion. For the good seeing AVIs I have tried there is very little difference in the output between the two softwares (except for the points above). However, when I processed this average-seeing video of the Gassendi area I was surprised by how much better the resolution of tiny craters in the Mare area was with AS compared with Registax (see below). On the left is the AS version, the right is R5. Notice how many of the very small craters that just appear as smudges or specks in the R5 version are actually resolved as tiny pits in the AS2 version. I should point out that this was not just a quick run through R5, but used several reference frames and took some time to nail down the processing parameters. AS2, on the other hand, was run straight with the default values, about 15 minutes work in total.

I can't state unequivocally thar AS2 will be better on every image, but I will certainly be running my videos through both bits of software in future to see which works best.

original.jpg

Cheers

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riklaunim

riklaunim

Posted
Posted

Well, I did some moon images with 16-bit DSI III Pro and I would say that using 16 bit gives better images than 8-bit DMK21 images. As for AviStack - it tracks and stacks better than Registax (which sometimes looses faint stacking area) but it takes longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
beamish

beamish

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well i had a go at AS2 last night with some old Luna avi's- god ! talk about learning anew !

AS 2 does appear to be quicker than what I remember of AS1 and more so if you turn off "preview"

Still trying to find my feet with it, but I'll certainly stick with it for the time being .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rwg

rwg

Posted
Posted

Just having a play and it certainly is faster than the old version, although the final stacking is terribly slow with the preview turned on (but fast with it turned off).

It's certainly easier to use too - the default settings just seem to work and it picked initial alignment points nicely too. However, I haven't yet worked out how to get the post-processing working - I think I may have skipped past it. I can play with the settings, but they don't seem to preview.

Unfortunately it still only uses a single CPU - with so many modern computers having 2,4 or even 8 cores these days, it would have been nice to use them all to speed things up. It's certainly the sort of task that ought to lend itself to multi-core calculations.

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mick UK

Mick UK

Posted
Posted

Can anyone please tell me why, when i try to open an avi video file it tells me "codec not supported!!" (in the codec box itself it says the codec is DX50)...How do i change the codec, and to what codec do i need to change it to, or what type of file should i convert the original into?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brianb

brianb

Posted
Posted
Over and over I keep seeing comparisons twix this (albeit V1.81) and Registax (normally V4) and Avistack does seem to have the edge

Avistack v1.81 is so much better than Registax v5.1 for surfaces (lunar, solar) that there's really no contest ... except for speed. I haven't tried Avistack v2 and cannot do so as I refuse Yahoo's terms & conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rwg

rwg

Posted
Posted
Avistack v1.81 is so much better than Registax v5.1 for surfaces (lunar, solar) that there's really no contest ... except for speed. I haven't tried Avistack v2 and cannot do so as I refuse Yahoo's terms & conditions.

You've confused me Brian, since I didn't see any T&Cs to sign up to - while some groups are private and you can only see the messages when subscribed, the avistack one seems to be public, and the post that announces 2.0 links back to downloads on the avistack.de site.

I won't link directly to the downloads, but the post in question can be found here : Yahoo! Groups

Robin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick Smith

Nick Smith

Posted
Posted
Well, I did some moon images with 16-bit DSI III Pro and I would say that using 16 bit gives better images than 8-bit DMK21 images. As for AviStack - it tracks and stacks better than Registax (which sometimes looses faint stacking area) but it takes longer.

Hi riklaunim, I have never considered the DSI III to be a planetary cam. If you would like to post those 16-bit vs 8-bit examples, I would be very interested

Cheers

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickH

NickH

Posted
Posted

It's a 285 chipset, and not fast...but the dynamic range will be higher for sure (and noise floor/per image probably lower)

Have used a 314L on solar full disc shots, but the Lumenera 2-1 still skins it alive..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick Smith

Nick Smith

Posted
Posted
Can anyone please tell me why, when i try to open an avi video file it tells me "codec not supported!!" (in the codec box itself it says the codec is DX50)...How do i change the codec, and to what codec do i need to change it to, or what type of file should i convert the original into?

If you have not already found them there are a couple of files you need to download. Here is the link:

http://www.avistack.de/index.html

Cheers

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick Smith

Nick Smith

Posted
Posted
Avistack v1.81 is so much better than Registax v5.1 for surfaces (lunar, solar) that there's really no contest ... except for speed. I haven't tried Avistack v2 and cannot do so as I refuse Yahoo's terms & conditions.

I beg to differ here Brian. There is actually very little difference, which is why I posted the comparison above.

Workflow wise, the main difference between Registax and Avistack is that Avistack forces you to create a reference (or average) frame at the beginning of the process. Registax does not do this but, nevertheless, it is essential to create a primary reference frame prior to initial alignment and a secondary reference frame before optimisation and stacking if you want decent results. I believe a lot of the "AS is superior to Registax" comparisons are using a sub-optimal workflow in Registax, so you are not really comparing apples with apples.

Although I posted this example where AS was slightly better, there are other instances where there is little or no difference or R5 produces better results. I believe that certain seeing conditions are Registax friendly and others favour Avistack, which is why I'll be using both bits of software in future.

Cheers

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NickH

NickH

Posted
Posted
Cheers Nick

I was wondering if it didn't have a blindingy fast download speed I didn't know about. As you can imagine, I have tried a few large format cameras on the moon, but the 2-1M remains my workhorse.

Only the Infinity 3-1 will satisfy you Nick...15FPS with a 285 chipset cooled...very yummy...but very £7500 too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nick Smith

Nick Smith

Posted
Posted
Only the Infinity 3-1 will satisfy you Nick...15FPS with a 285 chipset cooled...very yummy...but very £7500 too!

Too right Nick. Julian from Framos did offer me the demo unit for a "knock-down price", but I still would have had to hock the C14 to get it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.