Quote:
Originally Posted by RickS
Is that based on a comparison of the mismatched previews?
|
I doubt a couple of pixels is going to make
that much of a difference, and I did it twice with different previews and got roughly the same numbers.
Let's stop playing guessing games now.
#1 whilst clearly the cleanest of the images, is the 57x1min exposure and has the 4.8:1 SNR - this is our midrange image in terms of SNR.
#2 has the worst SNR; it's the 5x1min sub integration.
#3 our SNR winner, is the 1x5min sub.
So "conventional wisdom" holds: if you're read noise limited, longer subs are better in terms of SNR.
But looking at these images, I question why we optimise for SNR? Honestly, which of these would you prefer to process? Without doubt it's #1.
Obviously #1 has more than 10 times the integration time than the others, but that's not the point. The point is I think we should be optimising for absolute noise, rather than SNR.