From: "doodlebun" <gbleser@bellsouth.net>
Date: September 28, 2009 10:28:54 AM MDT
To: Astro_IIDC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Astro IIDC, Registax, Ninox, LR Decon, a Jupiter image, and more...
First, Milton, thanks for the info on converting uncompressed .mov to uncompressed .avi's. I will try that to see if it makes a difference.
Personally I really don't think that if you know how to use Astro IIDC properly you do not need to drive yourself nuts with pre-massaging your files with Ninox, a command line interface, or even fooling with Registax... The concept is that instead of choosing the best looking frame as a reference frame, you should create a reference frame for more precise registration of images in the stacking process. Perhaps you can understand what I'm talking about by reading this comment the professional planetary photographer Trevor, in New South Wales, Australia sent me in response to my Astro IIDC vs Registax comparison:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor (from IceInSpace.com.au)
Interesting comparison Dave,
I have never heard of this Astro IIDC, prior to you mentioning it.
I use Rgistax V5, but not for much of my processing. Birds ninox program does a top job of centering and cropping. With good data I am only using Registax to create a reference frame, with extremely light wavelet application. Following stacking, again I use very light wavelet application.
Most of my sharpening is done with LR Decon in Astra Image Pro 3 with final sharpening in Photo Shop CS4.
I suppose there are many ways to skin a cat but I think there are much better ways to process than to rely solely on Registax, although it is a most excellent program.
Regards
Trevor
-----------------------------------------
now me again...........
Until somebody shows me some comparison processed images to verify Trevor's claim, I feel this is simply too much time spent in the Planetary Beauty Parlor. Or perhaps Milton might look at Ninox and tell me that Bird (the developer of Ninox) has found the promised land with a stacking algorithm to die for. You can easily understand that my wife Gail hates command line interfaces and does fine on her own with Astro IIDC.
I really don't think I can get a better result that this Jupiter I posted last weekend at http://gallery.mac.com/davidbleser#100176/Jupiter-20RGB-20set-20four-209-15-09&bgcolor=black
---------------------------------------------
Incidentally, I unchecked the box in ASTRO IIDC that blurs the frames with a warning that "some fine details may be lost". Instead I allow a small amount of noise in the image all the way to photoshop. Once in photoshop I put a Gaussian blur of about 0.25 pixels on the final R, G or B images. This has worked better than using the noise reduction schemes inside Astro IIDC.
Also I have now got religion. Even with a 14 inch scope, I have noticed that it really isn't a good idea to go with 60 fps on Jupiter.
And the reason is that at that speed the brightness control has to be set at about 750-800 which is just too noisy. And even then image is rather dark, especially the blue one. So it seems 30 fps is the sweet spot with a C14 @ f/25 with a brightness control being set to around 450-500.
Finally I should mention that Trevor uses a DragonFly2. The camera is less noisy than the DMK but are the images noticeably better? I think the jury is still out on that one as I have read alot of chatter but I have seen no direct comparisons. Of course, if Milton said: "Dave, get that camera because you will get the low noise 60fps you so badly desire", it would be different. But I don't think he will say that.
And Jeff, I appreciated your commentary. Let's stay with the Mac. Thanks for listening to this rant.