#1  
Old 16-01-2011, 11:03 AM
BlackWidow's Avatar
BlackWidow (Mardy)
Seeing Stars

BlackWidow is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Adelaide Australia
Posts: 610
Image Stacking & Exposure Question

OK I am still new to the photo processing thing. I have been getting some good images using my LX200 and a De-Rotator, but have some questions. I am taking 10 or 20 images at a set ISO for a set exposure time and then taking some darks and have a light box, so add a few flats. I then use Deep Sky Stacker to stack the images. I then process curves etc in photoshop...

I know that taking an stacking shots will increase data and image quality. However digital errors are not that random so why cant I just take less shots, Say 5 shots and keep re-naming them and stack again and again with those 5 images. Would I then not be introducing less mount error etc, or is this what is done and I have been missing this all along?

Also I am not sure about comments that stacking more and more shots makes up for short exposures? If I have one single 30 sec exposure and keep adding more and more 30sec exposures I just end up with a better quality (dense, more data) 30 second shot. I have not seen that stacking keeps building on the detail gained by longer exposures. Am I missing somthing here in the settings?

I have been getting some nice shots that I am happy with. No hubble shots, but as good as many I have seen on the net, and not as good also. But I just stoped last night and relised I was doing all this stuff and it was working. But then I thought I had made an involentary sound like a sheep! then the light bulb came on and hence came this Post...


Ready to be taken to the next level.

Seeing Stars
Mardy
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 16-01-2011, 01:35 PM
irwjager's Avatar
irwjager (Ivo)
Registered User

irwjager is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 532
Hi Martin,

Some answers to your questions;

Quote:
I know that taking an stacking shots will increase data and image quality. However digital errors are not that random so why cant I just take less shots, Say 5 shots and keep re-naming them and stack again and again with those 5 images. Would I then not be introducing less mount error etc, or is this what is done and I have been missing this all along?
Unfortunately there's no such thing as a free lunch. The stacking process typically involves an algorithm that determines the 'most appropriate' value for each pixel.
There are many ways of doing that (median, mean, kappa sigma, and hybrids).
The important thing is though that the more data the algorithm has to work with, the better it can estimate the 'most appropriate' value for each pixel.
Presenting the same 5 images over and over will simply get you the same 5 results over and over. Presenting the 5 images, plus the stacked image will, depending on the chosen algorithm, yield something that isn't any different at best, and suboptimal at worst.
Here's a simple example

Let's say we're stacking 5 pixels using a median algorithm.
Let's say the values are as follows;

1 3 2 9 8

The median of these values is 3

So let's add 3 to our stack

1 3 2 9 8 3

Median is still 3

Add that again

1 3 2 9 8 3 3

Median is still 3

etc.

Do the same for mean

1 3 2 9 8

Mean is 4.6

So let's add 4.6 to our stack

1 3 2 9 8 4.6

The mean is still 4.6

Add that again

1 3 2 9 8 4.6 4.6

The mean is still 4.6

etc.

Quote:
Also I am not sure about comments that stacking more and more shots makes up for short exposures? If I have one single 30 sec exposure and keep adding more and more 30sec exposures I just end up with a better quality (dense, more data) 30 second shot. I have not seen that stacking keeps building on the detail gained by longer exposures. Am I missing somthing here in the settings? http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/..../confused2.gif
It's very easy to create a long exposure shot from a short exposure shot. Simply multiply the pixel brightness by whatever factor you want to lengthen your exposure by.

However, as soon as you do that, you'll also notice that the noise has been multiplied by that same factor and has become much more pronounced.

And this is where the multiple exposures come in. By stacking the multiple shorter exposures, you will have reduced the noise sufficiently to allow for multiplication of the signal without the noise getting (noticeably) worse.

Quote:
I have been getting some nice shots that I am happy with. No hubble shots, but as good as many I have seen on the net, and not as good also. But I just stoped last night and relised I was doing all this stuff and it was working. But then I thought I had made an involentary sound like a sheep! then the light bulb came on and hence came this Post... http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/..../shrugging.gif
There are always best practices and the well trodden paths to a quality image, however, if you're happy with your the quality of your shots, then that's great!

It's always good to keep learning though - one day you'll come across something that you can incorporate into your workflow to produce something that's even better.

Hope this helps,
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16-01-2011, 02:39 PM
mill's Avatar
mill (Martin)
sword collector

mill is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mount Evelyn
Posts: 2,922
The only way you could reuse shots is if you have an high dynamic object like M42 etc.
Here is a sample of 5X5 Second RGB i took to check my filterwheel after i fixed it (stopped turning).
I used a stacked image with minimal processing, then i processed the original stacked image and processed it till i hit some noise.
After this i did blend the minimal processed image in the fully processed image and for a 25 Second shot i think it doesnt look bad.
First the stacked image without processing.
And second after the above processing (Quick and dirty job at that ).
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (M42stacked.jpg)
30.3 KB22 views
Click for full-size image (M42processed.jpg)
173.0 KB22 views
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16-01-2011, 02:42 PM
BlackWidow's Avatar
BlackWidow (Mardy)
Seeing Stars

BlackWidow is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Adelaide Australia
Posts: 610
Thanks Ivo. You have gone to a great deal of detail in your response that has made a great deal of sense. Maths not being my strong point, I did have to go back in thought to remember rules of average. Now I can understand the need for more lights to be stacked. I have been playing around with targets using lower ISO and longer exposure before error becomes a problem. I find my shots to have less noise and better contrast, all target related however. I have just built a light box and used it for the first time on Eta Carina. It does seem to help flatted the field better than combining a Blur background image.

I guess when you mentioned the shorter exposures staked allowing creation of longer exposure in the software, I am guessing this refers to allowing more data to be pulled from the image with Curves and processing without the introduction of more noise..


Thanks again for your info

Seeing Stars
mardy
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 05:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement