I’m certainly no expert but from what I’ve read to date , drizzling only provides real benefit in your Astro processing and final images under the following criteria
1/ Your images are Under sampled
2/ Your images are Dithered
3/ You have captured a lot of Data
4/ You are using an Astro Camera in lieu of a DSLR
I welcome other more experienced members to advise or comment on the use of Drizzle in image processing
I do it all the time when I use my oldQ and the QHY8. In my experience you need at least 20 subs and large dithering (5 to 10 pixels). I also use bayer drizzle. It's well worth the time if your image scale is let's say 3 seconds of arc per pixel. DSLR would benefit as well as astrocams. Anything that has a bayer matrix or undersampled mono.
Woth my setup on the asi183mcpro using camera lenses of the 80ED with reducer it undersamples so Drizzling is perfect for it. Using the proper focal length it needs no drizzling as it's in the sweetspot for this camera. Using the c9.25 without the reducer it oversamples so then you bin the image. (focal length perfection is between 600 and 1400mm
I haven't really managed to dither properly yet so that's still a work in progress.
I am not sure but it seems to work well with my 80 mm.
Anyways before this thread started I stacked all my Lagoon data RBGLand Ha in one lot and selected the 3 times drizzle and selcted just the region around the Triffid such that that area was only 5% of the total frame area...took 2 and a half hours to stack..this region had the worst stars ..little dashes.
And ran the final thru startools and photo shop and that result seemed much better than the Triffid that is in my image "Lagoon and Triffy".
I may try and build an image using that total stack as a main luminance and stack seperate colour stacks..but thinking about that now I would have to start over because I have not saved the frame size in DSS.
Maybe when I go back to Sydney if I get some time.
But a quick comparison definitely had the 3x much better than the 2x stack.
For the Lagoon Triffy captures I did not actively dither but given that polar alignment was crook I had a sortta built in dither.
It's so hard to know if drizzle is doing anything for me without doing a series of comparisons but my impression is it may be better and I think perhaps it works at least with the 80 mm.
I am away from the lappy so I can't post the photos and perhaps I would need to do a proper image using seperate channels to put the 3x on the same footing as the "Triffy" in my post image.
I suppose also I am doing the wrong thing as after I have done a drizzled image I bin it in Startools via the 71% option...isn't it great when you have absolutely no idea what you are doing....
Alex
Alex
Here’s some information on Startools Binning from their forum
I think it explains in simple terms what is the Binning module and why and how to bin in Startools
Hope the attached helps explain Binning
Martin
I've tried drizzle with my D5600 which has 3.9 micron pixels and it doesn't seem to give much improvement. I expect drizzle would be more useful with something like a D750 which is full frame but the same 24mp as my APSc camera.
I guess I could get the same detail from the D750 along with lower noise and better low light sensitivity, but at the expense of longer drizzle processing times?
From the info I’ve read to date , the use of Drizzle only provides a useful improvement on images under the specific conditions I outlined earlier
The use of Drizzle is not for everyone
I am , as you can probably tell, reprocessing my stuff mainly to use separate channels whereas in the past I stacked the lot and coloured then in using photo shop..I have been using drizzle and it certainly takes longer and does it help..I think so for me but I am not sure.
alex
