I did 2 renditions of the triffid nebula, one native resolution then reduced for web, the other drizzled x2 then reduced for web 41 minute aquisiton of 30 sec exposures with 30 darks
the difference, in particular the star size and fine detail is startling. Only issue is with a 21 mp camera (183mc pro) when drizzled the image has to be saved in 16 bit first in DSS as the autosaved image is 720mb large and Photoshop even with 16 gb ram can't open due to memory issues
Pic 1 is standard, pic 2 is drizzled
Thanks Lewis, it is exactly that the stars and the extra resolution. I'm not a PI user but that's no biggie as my photoshop fu is high, I just wish I had the computing power to work the giant tiff DSS spits out in its autosave when it's drizzled. I dread to think what 3x drizzle would be like lol
I generally do not use drizzle with my ASI294 on the C9.25 SCT, but it makes a quite visible difference on the ED72 using the same camera. The star shapes are much nicer. But you really need a heap of subs or the noise it introduces can be quite intrusive.
Hi Chris
Drizzling works better with a smaller tube for starters as the camera can undersample, then in DSS in the lights setting choose 2x drizzle, and process as per normal. Then SAVE the image as a 16 bit tiff because the autosaved version will not open as in the case of my camera a 21 mp image is 750mb plus after processing in DSS and in its 32 bit state Photoshop will not be able to open it.
Photoshop the saved 16 bit version as per the normal processing steps
Hope that helps