Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 29-06-2017, 06:33 PM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Amateur Photon Collector

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Proserpine
Posts: 2,745
To drizzle, or not to drizzle: that is the question.

Hi all,

Since it is cloudy tonight, I thought of experimenting with the little data I have. It seems that drizzle integration works nicely even with 12 subs, as long as signal in each sub is not too weak, but more subs is always better of course. May drizzle all three channels for the current project, once I collect enough data.

Suavi
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (comp1.jpg)
108.9 KB125 views
Click for full-size image (comp2.jpg)
134.3 KB121 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29-06-2017, 06:44 PM
DJScotty's Avatar
DJScotty (Scott)
Registered User

DJScotty is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 676
Hmmmmmm.
That's an appreciable difference
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29-06-2017, 06:51 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 5,933
According to NASA (JPL), 9 subs is enough statistically for drizzle to be effective
Drizzling is good though, even if it doesn't make your detail appear it does do a better job with noise sampling and rejection plus making deconvolution more effective.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 30-06-2017, 01:40 PM
sil's Avatar
sil (Steve)
Not even a speck of dust

sil is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1,265
doesnt make any improvement when i try with PixInsight, nothing like your result, maybe cos I use 200-500 dslr frames usually? scaling my integration file gives me same result as drizzle to same scale.

eg I usually integrate 3 or 5 frames to make a cleaner temp integration, then crop this around my target and register/integrate/drizzle with this as my target but I got no improvement between the two final integration images I could notice, no extra detail, no smaller stars appearing, not noise difference, But I did notice some bright stars obtained verticle artifacts (not visible in frames or anywhere else, not lense artifacts or star streaks but look like a 1 pixel line 20pixels long drawn in difference mode, definitely a processing artifact. Admittetdly its been a while since I tested since drizzle integration was added to PI.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30-06-2017, 01:47 PM
gregbradley's Avatar
gregbradley
Registered User

gregbradley is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 15,051
Quite a dramatic improvement. What software did you use for that? What settings did you apply?

Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30-06-2017, 02:03 PM
sil's Avatar
sil (Steve)
Not even a speck of dust

sil is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Canberra
Posts: 1,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley View Post
Quite a dramatic improvement. What software did you use for that? What settings did you apply?

Greg.
Thats PixInsight in the screenshots.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 30-06-2017, 04:48 PM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Amateur Photon Collector

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Proserpine
Posts: 2,745
Yes, I only use PixInsight for all data processing these days. Standard settings for x2 drizzle integration. Scaling does give similar results to drizzle, but drizzle is more sophisticated (and more CPU involved) than scaling and because of this can recover extra detail from dithered subs and when optics and seeing are both decent, guiding is good and of course when one is undersampling.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 30-06-2017, 05:22 PM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hinchinbrook
Posts: 17,760
+1 Big fan of drizzling.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-07-2017, 09:51 AM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Amateur Photon Collector

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Proserpine
Posts: 2,745
Last night added more OIII data and now have 7 hours in total (3nm filter at f/4.5 and 1.6 arcsec pp). To my eye, drizzle has done a better job at pixel rejection than a few algorithms I tried in PI. I have not been dithering enough, only once every 3 or so subs.

Throughout the night, as the telescope was moving away from the CBD, mean ADU value dropped by 600 between the first and last sub. That's huge! Getting decent signal in OIII is a real challenge from where I live.

The image on the most right is a single 15 minute sub. The next one up is integration of 28 15-minute subs without rejection, then with rejection and the most left one is drizzled data. Looks okay to me.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (comp3.jpg)
201.6 KB64 views
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-07-2017, 10:21 AM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 5,933
Drizzling also helps with better noise sampling. I find I get smoother results from drizzling and then 50% down sampling than just simple stacking.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-07-2017, 12:19 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
Yep, I drizzle everything now. At 530mm at f/5, you end up with crunchy stars otherwise.

It takes a while, especially when you work with the number of sub-exposures that I often take for my subjects, but, the end result is well worth the time.

H
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-07-2017, 11:02 PM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,758
Hi Everyone,
The question remains about oversampling & undersampling.

I have a 10" f4 scope using a KAF8300 sensor.
It has 5.4 um pixels.

My arc-sec/pixel = 1.11
http://www.wilmslowastro.com/softwar...m#ARCSEC_PIXEL

Therefore if say - my seeing conditions are very good
I will get 2 arc seconds FWHM.

Using the Nyquist sampling theorem you need double the
arc-sec/pixel ratio - follows that to sample 2 arc seconds you need a minimum of 1 arc second per pixel.


Therefore I am slightly under sampled at 1.11.
In theory I can gain something from using drizzle.


I think that the above theory is wrong & you really need 3 x to be correctly sampled
as the pixels are square & not round like stars:
https://astronomy.tools/calculators/ccd_suitability

I certainly noticed a difference - an improvement - using 3 x drizzle
on my last image.
I got that little bit more detail when zooming in on tiny structures.

I was always interested if Mike Sidonio could gain anything by using drizzle.
I checked & he's oversampled so in theory he can't but
I would like to see the results - if only I could twist his arm.


cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-07-2017, 07:27 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,790
Allan, instead of having questions unanswered and getting lost in the maths, why don't you follow Slawomir's example and try processing some images with and without drizzle, and see if it works for your setup/combo? Who cares about definitions, it's the result that counts, no?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-07-2017, 09:37 AM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Amateur Photon Collector

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Proserpine
Posts: 2,745
I have read somewhere that sampling at 1/3 of your usual FWHM is optimal for getting the most detail from data, so I believe your observations are spot on Allan. Drizzle x3 requires more subs/better data than x2, but if it works then why not use it I like Troy's suggestion of directly comparing different methods visually and by measuring noise/SNR.

As for twisting Mike's arm - good luck with that!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-07-2017, 09:40 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by troypiggo View Post
Allan, instead of having questions unanswered and getting lost in the maths, why don't you follow Slawomir's example and try processing some images with and without drizzle, and see if it works for your setup/combo? Who cares about definitions, it's the result that counts, no?

I have posted 2 pictures on flickr.
The first one is the full frame of Eta:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/247194...in/photostream

The 2nd one is a crop using 3 x drizzle:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/247194...in/photostream

I reckon there is more detail in the close up 2nd crop using drizzle.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-07-2017, 09:43 AM
alpal's Avatar
alpal
Registered User

alpal is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir View Post
I have read somewhere that sampling at 1/3 of your usual FWHM is optimal for getting the most detail from data, so I believe your observations are spot on Allan. Drizzle x3 requires more subs/better data than x2, but if it works then why not use it I like Troy's suggestion of directly comparing different methods visually and by measuring noise/SNR.

As for twisting Mike's arm - good luck with that!
Yes - I think the article I pointed to below is a rebuttal
of Nyquist's sampling theorem that we've all been using.
3 x is considered better than twice when considering sampling.
As for twisting Mikes arm - that was a joke -
I'm not a strongman.

cheers
Allan
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-07-2017, 10:52 AM
troypiggo's Avatar
troypiggo (Troy)
Bust Duster

troypiggo is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 4,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
I have posted 2 pictures on flickr.
The first one is the full frame of Eta:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/247194...in/photostream

The 2nd one is a crop using 3 x drizzle:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/247194...in/photostream

I reckon there is more detail in the close up 2nd crop using drizzle.
Too hard to compare apples and oranges (processed images, processed differently, different crops). Why not be a little more scientific about it, just process lum, and apply identical processing to a drizzled vs undrizzled. Compare same crop at 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-07-2017, 11:10 AM
RobF's Avatar
RobF (Rob)
Mostly harmless...

RobF is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 5,399
Really well presented investigation Slawomir, and agree the extra work for drizzle appears worth it for your set up.

Rick's posts #3 and 6 in this thread changed my thinking on drizzle:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=138224


At approx 2 arcsecs/px on my current set up, I then took the time to compare images more carefully in PI (based on some quality data from Astrofest) and realised I was almost always happy to be (quote) "trading off resolution against SNR".


An example zoomable with/without pic for my FSQ/QHY9 rig here (but not as well prepared
perhaps as your examples ):
https://goo.gl/photos/QgRWtAKxtqBFbnuM9

What I find fascinating is that the background noise often also appears more pleasing, even though you know you theoretically have less SNR (in addition to smooth stars of course). Believe that is shown in that last example.


(Dammit - Rick covered and described that better too: "Drizzle introduces correlated noise that isn't as visually intrusive.")
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-07-2017, 02:39 PM
Slawomir's Avatar
Slawomir (Suavi)
Amateur Photon Collector

Slawomir is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Proserpine
Posts: 2,745
Nice illustration Rob, stars look nicer in drizzled data for sure.

I'm wondering if purposely putting together a system that reasonably under-samples and then drizzling data is the ultimate solution for amateur astrophotographer.

As I understand it, at the same f-ratio (and same QE+read noise), undersampling system will be going deeper in the same time as opposed to a well-sampling system (say 2"pp at f/6 vs 1"pp at f/6), thus in the end one will have a higher SNR and a similar detail with undersampled and drizzled data comparing to a well-sampled data, given equal time of exposure. Or am I missing something here?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-07-2017, 03:04 PM
RickS's Avatar
RickS (Rick)
PI cult recruiter

RickS is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 10,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpal View Post
Yes - I think the article I pointed to below is a rebuttal
of Nyquist's sampling theorem that we've all been using.
3 x is considered better than twice when considering sampling.
There's nothing wrong with Nyquist sampling at 2x but the conventional use (sampling a single analog signal) isn't what we're doing.

Stan Moore makes a pretty good case that you should sample at about 3.5x for imaging: http://www.stanmooreastro.com/pixel_size.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir View Post
I'm wondering if purposely putting together a system that reasonably under-samples and then drizzling data is the ultimate solution for amateur astrophotographer.
That's what we're doing with the C300 at SRO (image scale 1.26 arcsec/pixel with seeing often down to 1 arcsec) and what I had in mind when I matched the AP140EDF with 9um pixels (2.4 arcsec/pixel with typical poor SEQ seeing.)

I like this approach because it gives you better resolution than the image scale, a big FOV and images that you can print really big.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slawomir View Post
As I understand it, at the same f-ratio (and same QE+read noise), undersampling system will be going deeper in the same time as opposed to a well-sampling system (say 2"pp at f/6 vs 1"pp at f/6), thus in the end one will have a higher SNR and a similar detail with undersampled and drizzled data comparing to a well-sampled data, given equal time of exposure. Or am I missing something here?
Alas, it's not magic, Suavi. The increase in resolution does come at the expected cost in reduced real SNR. It's just that the apparent SNR is better because of the way that Drizzle correlates noise. It effectively does noise reduction. You can get the same effect by applying noise reduction to the data from a well-sampled system.

Cheers,
Rick.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 02:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Nitecore
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement