Thanks all...it's so hard to look at them side by side on a computer screen and tell one from another
Note that these are all unprocessed - just stacked and with PI's STF applied (for its sins).
They were registered onto the mono image (the smallest) so that I'd be looking at the same field...does this introduce any gremlins of its own? As the camera rotation was not the same in each case, there would have been pixel rotation involved in registering.
But indeed, #2 is from the camera with the smallest pixels...5.2 microns...my modded Canon 1100D. The pixels in images 1 and 3 are about the same size at 6.5 microns, 1 being colour, 3 being mono. I was hoping to see some differentiation between the colour and mono at the same pixel size...the Loch Ness monster of increased resolution, or just variance in seeing perhaps?
I should add that these are what you experts call "under sampled", given my scope focal length is 550mm, but when the images were captured I suspect the seeing would have been better than my resolving capabilities.
@RickS - I did the same calibration on all of them...nil
