Ive been playing with a number of methods for processing Saturn and came across the Registax linked waveletes method.
I found it interesting to compare the Autostakkert image against that of the Registax image with linked wavelets. I think in the latter image the hexagon is better defined while there appears more data in the belts becoming apparent. I should add that I feel this processing is aimed more at planetary detail than that in the rings.
Comments?
I think your first image is probably closer to the mark than the 2nd. Reckon processing really should be sympathetic to the quality of the seeing. Over cooking ordinary data makes for a very grainy look and adds unwanted artifacts. Really good data actually requires very little processing. For sure experimentation is the best way to learn and work it out for yourself. Personally I mostly go with Castrator, AS, R6, Astra Image Pro then finish off with CS4. Then there is Birds most excellent ninox which I use if I capture 16bit Fit data instead of avi.
I think the best advice I could give is to record on paper what you do so you have a record of what works and what doesn't work for each particular target.
Thanks for all the comments. I agree with them all. I also preferred the first as I feel that it processes the data and is more faithful and sympathetic to the subject. I was just trying out the method from the Internet that I had seen and it really was to get a better image of surface detail. I find that the second image increases the apparent contrast such that you can actually see the planet through the gap in the rings, the hexagon appears slightly better but I don't think I've Captured any surface detail other than artifacts.
I know it's very subjective but to make sure I know what I've done, I do a screen capture of all the programs I use and save them as jpegs in the same folder as the final images. Thus I have a complete record of my bumblings in this process.
Thanks JJJ and Trevor for your advice on methodologies.
Allan
I think your first image is probably closer to the mark than the 2nd. Reckon processing really should be sympathetic to the quality of the seeing. Over cooking ordinary data makes for a very grainy look and adds unwanted artifacts. Really good data actually requires very little processing. For sure experimentation is the best way to learn and work it out for yourself. Personally I mostly go with Castrator, AS, R6, Astra Image Pro then finish off with CS4. Then there is Birds most excellent ninox which I use if I capture 16bit Fit data instead of avi.
I think the best advice I could give is to record on paper what you do so you have a record of what works and what doesn't work for each particular target.
