It erks me to bother such fine folk, but I'm fed up with myself.
I have spent many many hours, trying to figure out how to stack in Registax.
I have read several basic how-to's and read many threads here.
I can not for the life of my figure out how to do my align point/s, as to stack several images.
The best I can get has been supplied. I am really lost. If I do a single align point, it completly stuffs up, just random mess. If I do multi align points I can get a reasonable image in the middle, yet the outside spins.
What am I doing wrong?
Here is the processed stack, and an example of what I was trying to stack..
Like I said, I have spent literally hours trying to stack a decent image. Asking here was a last resort....
Sorry if I am just being a noob, yet I feel I am almost out of options...
How long are your subs? are you guiding? If your shots are of slightly different fov or drifting through the field with comma etc it will make the subs un uniform so your align points will be slightly out of wack.
For wide field shots like that I would strongly suggest using DeepSkyStacker instead of RegiStax. I'm no expert with RegiStax, so I'm sure it's possible, but when I last used it, it wasn't designed for wide field shots. DeepSkyStacker should do it for you quite easily and you can save RegiStax for planetary and lunar work.
I might be wrong here, but 2 things. It looks like your using an Alt az mount, so youll get field rotation. The stacking software will have to be able to compensate for rotation, not just up/down movement.
And, it looks like registax is made for planetary and not suitable for DS starfields.
How long were your exposures in these pics???. If you're using an alt-az mount, which it looks like, I wouldn't be taking anything longer than 15-20secs per sub. Otherwise you'll get what you see there, rotation of the field. Then you just take more exposures and stack those. So you can get something with those short subs, max out your ISO...the higher the better.
How long were your exposures in these pics???. If you're using an alt-az mount, which it looks like, I wouldn't be taking anything longer than 15-20secs per sub. Otherwise you'll get what you see there, rotation of the field. Then you just take more exposures and stack those. So you can get something with those short subs, max out your ISO...the higher the better.
It's Registax. I am surprised I got, such a good picture using it.
I love this hobby. At every turn, you think you have reached the limits of your equipment, you then realise you can improve your own techniques.
See asto deep sky photo forum, for my results after using the correct software... Deep sky stacker is tops!! It will take pride of place on the desktop next to Registax.
Edit~ That's got to be one of the all time NOOB moments.... Using the wrong program, I must have spent literally 6 hours on all attempts until asking here...
On a side note, don't anyone get me confused, REGISTAX is the most awesome program ever!!! This was entirely my fault.
Last edited by Lumen Miner; 13-08-2009 at 09:03 PM.
Reason: Such a "I'm an ediot moment"
I know it was Registax, Mitchell, but that wasn't the question I asked
I asked about the length of your exposures and the rest of your camera settings when you took the piccies, and suggest a few ideas to you.
I'm glad DSS worked though....I use it myself and it's a good program.
Oh!! Sorry to sound flippent, I thought I had put details in the original post. I did not, sorry for the confusion. My bad.
It was 14, 20 sec exposures. I was trying to keep them short to avoid rotation. I am building a barn door, so hopefully when I get a remote / build one I can take some longer shots....
I don't mind taking lots of small 20 secs exposures at the moment, as it gives me something to do... Click the button. The shots were at ISO 800 as I found at ISO 1200 I get lots of hot pixels. I noticed just now though that Deep Sky removes them?!?? Do you think I should go to 1200 and give it another go?
Thanks for you help, I do really appreciate it.
Sorry, I am not always as clear, as I would hope to be on the internet.
Sorry i'm a bit old fashion...
