Quote:
Originally Posted by janoskiss
Yeah sure once you're above a certain threshold. But only then; as you were implying with your "broken record" comment. Otherwise we would not need tracking. We'd just take short snaps, or a video even of deep sky and stack like mad, like panetary imagers do.
...
@Camelo yeah I know about Gimp 2.9 and I have the sources sitting on my computer, but the dependencies for compiling it on my current system are a pain I'm yet to be prepared to deal with. I'm quietly hoping Gimp folk will finaly release a stable 2.9 version (at long last: it's been 10+ years wait for more-than-8-bit-colour support).
|
Yes and no...if the noise has higher values than the background sky (underexposed) then you can still stack a lot of subs and reduce the noise, it just takes more subs. The noise reduces with the square root of the number of subs, whereas the signal is additive. Exposed optimally, the noise is swamped by the values of the background sky.
Just to blur the boundaries, lookup lucky imaging...it's basically where small sensors suitable for planetary imaging (high sensitivity, very low read noise) are being used with fast scopes and taking lots (thousands) of short exposures and getting some really interesting results with DSOs
For testing GIMP development, look into virtualisation platforms such as Virtual Box, VMware Player or similar. You can then install one of the more cutting-edge distributions into the virtual machine, with all its dependencies, without messing up your running system
