Three times drizzle M8 seems to be the sweet spot

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Alex has attemted 3 times drizzling which spurred on this effort, Yes it takes a long time to stack and so on but the final effort after saving the image from DSS then the normal photoshop reveals so much more detail.

[Atmos (Colin)]

There is a wealth of detail in that Lagoon!
I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between what you can do with 2x2 and 3x3 drizzled data.
I've personally never seen a use for going more than 2x2 but whatever you've done has worked well

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Hey Colin
2x I couldnt get the faint nebulosity to come out without clipping

Heres one that was 2 x drizzle

[casstony]

That's interesting Nik. I've tried 2x but it didn't make enough difference to bother with. I guess I'll give the computer a workout and try 3x.

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Just be aware Tony it taxes your machine, especially if using photoshop

[casstony]

Yeah my poor old i3 is chugging along at the moment - looks like it'll take about 10x as long.

[Ant0nio (Tony)]

That's looks great Nik, there's no comparison between the two.
Cheers,
Tony

[RobF (Rob)]

This'll all be in the processing Nik. Drizzle only smooths the data and makes the noise a bit more pleasing to the eye (although total frame noise is actually increased).

You don't get anything for free. Going back to scratch and applying exactaly the same processing at each step the differences should be extremely subtle (except for 4x larger file size versus 9x).

Its fun to try all the possibilities though and keep learning new tricks.

[casstony]

I tried the 3x drizzle on one of my images and didn't get any improvement; the 10x file size really doesn't agree with my computer either

I suspect drizzle would help if I used a camera with bigger pixels, but the 3.9 micron pixels of the D5600 are reasonably small and offer good sampling with my current scopes.

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by RobF

This'll all be in the processing Nik. Drizzle only smooths the data and makes the noise a bit more pleasing to the eye (although total frame noise is actually increased).

You don't get anything for free. Going back to scratch and applying exactaly the same processing at each step the differences should be extremely subtle (except for 4x larger file size versus 9x).

Its fun to try all the possibilities though and keep learning new tricks.

Hi Rob, Agreed but I found the processing was more forgiving. DSS stacked everything the same, I just found the rounder stars rather than blocky stars made things better and seriously the image is less noisy, particularly when you then make the image smaller. I just found more detail in the nebula which was easier to bring out if it wasn't drizzled.
As for the colours that was more subjective

[xelasnave]

Hi Nik wonderful image.
I think the 3x drizzle works for me also and it may be some think it is a waste of time.
Alex

[RobF (Rob)]

Nik I realised shortly after posting I was commenting based on Pixinsight experiences, whereas you in DSS, so I'm probably not qualified to critique how those setting work out in DSS for you.

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by RobF

Nik I realised shortly after posting I was commenting based on Pixinsight experiences, whereas you in DSS, so I'm probably not qualified to critique how those setting work out in DSS for you.

No worries mate

I'm in admiration of those who have mastered Pixinsight as the interface does my head in.
I'm the traditional DSS/Photoshop person and that works very well for me.
Cheers