Registax 4: post your reworked comparisons here.

[[1ponders]]

In the interest of keeping things easy to find I'd like to suggest that if you are doing some reworking with Registax 4, that direct side by side comparisons be posted here.

Stand alone reworked images can be pasted here or in their own thread as you like, but if in a new thread can you post a link to the old image so those that are interested can check out the changes.


This image is a reworked Endymion from the 11/05/06. I have reprocessed both images using the same settings for wavelets, gamma, B and C etc. The only difference is the one on the left was processed using Reg 3 with single point alignment and the one on the right used Reg 4 with 7 alignment points.

I don't know if I stuffed up somewhere along the line but I was definately not expecting the difference in tonal range in the two processings.


I've also been playing with an old Jupiter Avi, but I'm finding it a bit more of a challenge to get improved results.

[Dennis]

Very graphic illustration of the difference between using the R3 SAP and R4 MAPs. Nice image too Paul - very nice indeed.

Cheers

Dennis

[[1ponders]]

Thanks Dennis.

C'mon mate, you should have completed a few reworking by now (you have slept haven't you :lol: ). How about posting the comparisons here ;)

[ving]

well thats quite a comario hey!

so without reading kyour post properly i assume that each one recieved the same waveleting and other processing?

the registax4 one shows the over exposed parts more... ie makes them look even more over exposed.

[[1ponders]]

Yes ving it will be something to take into consideration when processing. You are correct the adjustments were based on the original saved wavelets and gammas from the first time I processed the image back in June.

[iceman]

I think it's a mistake to assume that ALL avi's will automatically have a better result just by processing it in R4.

In fact, over the last 2 months of beta testing R4, in some cases (of lunar avi's) i've gone back to single alignment points because R4 stuffed up on joins etc.

A lot of my lunar images have been the result of some areas with MAP processing, combined with other areas of single alignment point, or another run through with only 2 or 3 alignment point on particular areas of the frame where it goes out of the field, etc.

MAP processing can/will be beneficial for some planetary images, especially at long focal lengths where the image scale is large, but on smaller image scales it's not going to add any real benefit when you can encompass most of the whole object in a smallish (eg: 128px) alignment box.

I believe the real benefit in MAP processing will come with lunar and solar images, where the object literally fills the 640x480 frame, or in large Saturn or Jupiter images.

[Dennis]

Here is an example of R3 SAP and R4 MAPs and as you can see, there is not a lot of difference...if any. The seeing conditions were rather good at the time, and the operator also had his mojo firing on all cylinders, his chi was up and his biorhythms were in sync...

Cheers

Dennis

[[1ponders]]

Seeing is always King :)

Nope, not a lot of difference. Maybe a bit more definition to some of the smaller craters and to the floor of the large creater

[ving]

i am thinking that it will work better on saturn than on jupiter... given saturns lovehandles.... i mean rings. more places to align on, especially in bad seeing. i could be and probably am wrong tho :)

[asimov]

Heres one I took last night but haven't posted yet, I particularly wanted to do a ver.3 versus ver.4 comparison.

I just did an auto multialignment (7 points) in ver.4

Ver.4 is the clear winner to my eyes; a little bit crisper across the board than the ver.3 pic.

C9.25/900nc

(version 3 pic on the left)

[Astroman]

I agree with you john, although the differences are slight, v4 has the upper hand.

[sheeny]

hmmm I didn't think I could see much difference when I processed the images separately, so here's my comparison.

I always save my stacked image before applying wavelets, so I took an R3 SAP image from 27/10/06 and a reprocess of the same avi done with a 5 point MAP in R4 tonight.

I had trouble picking any difference between the stacked only (unsharpened) images... so... I loaded both images into PS CS2 and assembled them into the same image file. Applied an aggressive unsharp mask (500%, 2 pixel radius and 0 threshold).

There is a visible difference. The R4 version is noticably sharper I think ( the USM is a bit over the top!) but the R3 version is softer.

Al.

[[1ponders]]

I agree with Mike that I think there is going to be varying degrees of success, based on quality of the image due to seeing and transparency conditions, collimation and thermal equilibrium of the mirror, etc (you know the usual hair pulling things :P ). But I also think that there is going to be a moderately steep learning curve, particularly in the quantity and arrangement/distribution of alignment points, the use of different sized alignment boxes in a multipoint alignment, and not to mention trying all the little whizz bangin' options buttons for each step of the way.

Looks like a few fun months coming up in preparation for the next planetary apparition. Come on Saturn:)

[sheeny]

Yes, I'm sure you're right Paul. I've had a bit of a play with different size alignment boxes so far and I can tell you the results are disasterous if the alignment boxes are too small when the image is jumping around due to bad seeing!:lol:

Al.

[[1ponders]]

That was my first learning point too Al :lol: Try the smallest box on a fine feature on Jupiter, say a small dark spot :scared:

[iceman]

Nice comparisons so far. John and Al, I can see definite improvements in the v4 version.

[Dennis]

The biggest difference I have noticed so far between R3 and R4 lunar images is that for R3, to produce the best image, I have had to stack fewer frames from the avi.

With the MAP functionality of R4, I seem to get equally sharp results using 2 to 3 times the number of frames from the avi.

Cheers

Dennis

[Dennis]

Hello,

Here is an R3 / R4 comparison using Plato as the subject matter. As expected, when the seeing is very good and you have good data, there doesn’t seem to be too many differences between using a SAP and MAP’s.

Cheers

Dennis

[iceman]

I'd agree with that, Dennis.. MAP seems to be best suited to the nights where you have a boundary layer and/or average seeing where you gets "waves" of fluctuation across the image, where some of the image is sharp while other parts are blurry. MAP processing will combine the sharp parts of each frame so that the final result is sharp.

When the seeing is very good and the image is stable across the field already, then MAP processing won't help much if it all.

[ving]

i had a quick squiz at it last night... definitely easy to use and quick. just a word of warning tho for those wanting to use the MAP function. you need 24 bit colour on your screen. i had 16bit and it kept crashing... took me ages to figure out it was my own settings doing it.

i ran one of my old avis (some crater... pythagorus i tink). it was a really bad avi and v.4 had problems finding good alignment points with the estimate function. it found 15 points but couldnt hang on to them. i manually picked 4-5 points that were fine tho.

did anyone try the function where registax finds points for you? what did you think?

[asimov]

Well yeah, my submitted photo(s) in this thread had an auto 7 point alignment. I'd rather pick my points manually though.

[Dennis]

Here is a nice example of where the use of R4 MAP’s has clearly improved on an R3 SAP image of Tycho. Have a look at the line of cratelets between the top left corner and the 10-o-clock position on Tycho’s rim. Much sharper in R4 due to the use of 12 MAP’s – auto selected by Registax. Same avi, just the use of MAP’s that make the difference.

Cheers

Dennis

Original 1600 frame avi acquired on 18th Feb 2006.

[ving]

nice denis.
r4 the clear winner there as you say.

[joe_smith]

I hope people were not thinking version 4 will let you put images in one end, and masterpieces come out of the other end. Going by the results it dose improve the images a bit, makes them seem more in focus and shaper to me. at least is not making them worse. For something thats given away for free for all the hard work that goes into it, I take my hat off to them. As time goes by people will start to master it and find out new tweaks and so on its only been out there a couple of days. My verdict for the pics here version 4 is unreal.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thum bsup::thumbsup:

[[1ponders]]

I grabbed an old saturn avi and ran it through Reg4 with default settings and a 64 alignment box. Reg4 created 6 alignment points. Only light wavelets applied in the end. A reference frame was created.

The original avie was set at 320X240 pixels frame size. The right hand image has been processed in PS and is the best of a series of 12 different Reg3 processing runs from when the avi was originally taken.

For me, I see a definate improvement in the noise and sharpness of the CD. I haven't bothered to colour balance the new one.

[Dennis]

A very nice, and promising comparison Paul - I'm looking forward to the Saturn season, and some good weather!

Cheers

Dennis

[[1ponders]]

I know what you mean. It is getting just a bit frustrating. Atm I'm sitting out the back with the Orion pointing at the sun, well where the sun would be if this damn cloud would just :mad2::mad2::mad::mad2::mad2: go AWAY :tasdevil:, trying to get a few shots of these new spots.

[Ric]

Hi all, I've reworked one of my lunar images from early in October.
At first I couldn't see any difference but after a while I saw that there are some subtle differences.
R4 definitely gets the seal of approval but I still have a lot to learn with the software and its use, should be fun.


cheers

[ballaratdragons]

Here is the 44 page manual if anyone wants to use it:

http://195.207.179.28/RegiStax4UserManual_Revision1.pdf

[davidpretorius]

I like it, finally got around to trying it out.

Some split RGB from 4th June 2006

aligned on the moon, moons shadow and grs.

Also had a little play with gamma before finishing in PS

Gee it is starting to smell like jupiter season again!!!!

[iceman]

top stuff Dave, can't wait for the next few months.

[matt]

I've had no joy with R4 at all.

Whenever I use it to process Saturn or Jupiter (MAP) I end up with something that looks like a Picasso!:lol:

Say I use three alignment points to process Saturn. Well, at the end of the process when it gets to wavelets, the three different alignment boxes don't line up in the right place.

Also, each box appears more or less sharper than the other:shrug:

Got me completely mystified

[davidpretorius]

interesting matt, mind you i have only played with it for 10 minutes so far?

I will keep an eye on it with varying conditions over the next 6 months

[ving]

could be the size of the alignment box you are using matt. I have had problems using the smallest on some moon shots. its like it couldnt hold. then when i move to the next size up its ok...

:confused:

[davidpretorius]

yes, i has 32 on the shadow and moon and 128 on the grs. I have prefiltered them with ppmcentre's quality sort so that the 300 frames were all pretty good!

[matt]

Cheers Ving.

I'll experiment with the size of the alignment box and see how I go.

Might have to print up the instruction manual.

Ken, that link to the pdf doesn't work.