Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Software and Computers
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 14-06-2007, 07:05 PM
little col
gosh i love imaging

little col is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: manchester uk
Posts: 286
Question dslr imaging advice

i have been imaging for about 6 months now (probably about 3 days with the uk weather)i think i am now ready to start imaging in raw mode on the 300d but as i have never used this setting i was wondering how much info am i losing in jpeg and how does imaging in raw effect stacking and processing
thanks colin
p.s may be a weeek before this rain breaks away to even get the scope out
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 14-06-2007, 07:23 PM
rogerg's Avatar
rogerg (Roger)
Registered User

rogerg is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 4,563
RAW is a bit more of a pain to process because in most cases you need to do some amount of conversion, and the file sizes are so much bigger.

RAW will undoubtedly give you clearer images but the degree to which you notice that would vary.

I used to image in JPG until I got the hang of the DSRL imaging and then moved on to RAW. I now only use RAW, really just because I know it's best and so I have the best chance of getting a good result. I was never particularly dissatisfied with my JPG results due to the JPG usage but the RAW is that bit crisper.

A large benefit of RAW is the use of dark frame subtraction is much more accurate. I would expect JPG compression would tend to negate the usefulness of dark frames because the low level noise in the background might be "compressed out" by the JPG format, meaning a subtracting of a dark frame would remove some noise and introduce some more of it's own (the subtraction would not be a perfect match).

My 2c worth.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 16-06-2007, 07:43 PM
little col
gosh i love imaging

little col is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: manchester uk
Posts: 286
cheers roger i think i may stick to the jpeg for a while longer as it seems that there is alot of more processing to do with raw which is very time consuming ,
colin
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 16-06-2007, 08:43 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 9,021
Col if you are going to use RAW you must manually take dark frames, the in camera noise reduction isn't applied to RAW images.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 17-06-2007, 11:22 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Try deep sky stacker... it handles raw and dark frames.
I have been very happy with this program as it allows short sharp exposures even if your mount is not up to scratch for long tracking.
alex
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-06-2007, 09:54 PM
g__day's Avatar
g__day (Matthew)
Tech Guru

g__day is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolite View Post
Col if you are going to use RAW you must manually take dark frames, the in camera noise reduction isn't applied to RAW images.
Wow! Is that for certain Phil on all Canon's? I'd expect if its an included feature or RAW then it must be useful. What was you source of intelligence on that startling bit of information?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20-06-2007, 10:16 PM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Try deep sky stacker... it handles raw and dark frames.
I have been very happy with this program as it allows short sharp exposures even if your mount is not up to scratch for long tracking.
alex
Alex, yourself and some others keep recommending Deep Sky Stacker.

I have not been able to get a good result from it once! All I ever get is a totally over-exposed images and a big mess. I gave up trying it after about the 20th attempt.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 21-06-2007, 09:54 AM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Posts: 12,812
The newer Canon models will take Raw and Jpeg similtaneously and also have three setting in Custom setting to allow you to set what mode of dark frame subtraction you wish to use.

This works very nicely.

Leon
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 21-06-2007, 12:00 PM
g__day's Avatar
g__day (Matthew)
Tech Guru

g__day is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,902
Agreed, but is it for sure on a 400D thata RAW shot, with a dark frame automatically subtracted - isn't actually doing anything as said above - or has this been addressed? Anyone know from a definitive source for sure?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 21-06-2007, 12:45 PM
leon's Avatar
leon
Registered User

leon is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Posts: 12,812
To be honest with you, I really don't know if the 400D dose it but my 5D dose, and also the 30D that I use, has those functions

Leon
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 21-06-2007, 12:49 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by acropolite View Post
Col if you are going to use RAW you must manually take dark frames, the in camera noise reduction isn't applied to RAW images.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g__day View Post
Agreed, but is it for sure on a 400D thata RAW shot, with a dark frame automatically subtracted - isn't actually doing anything as said above - or has this been addressed? Anyone know from a definitive source for sure?

Thanks!
Dark frame subtraction (In Cam Noise Reduction) is most certainly applied to RAW frames if switched on in the custom settings.
Here I've posted two frames, both 1 hour long exposures taken in RAW mode on the 20Da. The first has no noise reduction applied, the second has noise reduction turned on (which takes the total time for the complete frame to 2 hours).
These were both straight out of the camera and only resized for the forum.

As can be seen, the first has more noise but does not exhibit much amp glow because the amp is switch off during the exposure.

The second exhibits less noise but amp glow is more evident since the amp is used during the exposure for the in cam noise reduction algorithm.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (1hour-NR-off.jpg)
119.4 KB28 views
Click for full-size image (1hour-NR-on.jpg)
147.9 KB28 views
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 21-06-2007, 01:11 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by little col View Post
i think i am now ready to start imaging in raw mode on the 300d but as i have never used this setting i was wondering how much info am i losing in jpeg and how does imaging in raw effect stacking and processing
thanks colin
Hi Colin,

Ever since I switched to RAW I've never gone back to jpg. Yes it's more time consuming but the benefits far outweigh the "disadvantages".
First off you are dealing with the raw data straight out of the camera.
RAW images (in camera) are in 12 bit/channel as opposed to 8 bit for jpgs, or 4096 steps per channel as opposed to 256 steps per channel, which gives you far more room to manipulate the levels, histogram, colours etc !
Also RAW allows you to make certain adjustments that can't be made if shot in jpg (you loose information to minimise file size).

My cameras are all set to record both RAW and jpg at the same time and this is my personal preference but from memory the 300D does not have this feature, you can only save in either RAW or jpg.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 21-06-2007, 01:47 PM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Thanks for the information about the amp glow Andrew. I didn't know about that and it explains some issues we've been having over the past fortnight.

Cheers

BTW do you need to cover the telescope/lens with using the builtin noise reduction?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 21-06-2007, 01:58 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by [1ponders] View Post
Thanks for the information about the amp glow Andrew. I didn't know about that and it explains some issues we've been having over the past fortnight.

Cheers

BTW do you need to cover the telescope/lens with using the builtin noise reduction?


No you don't need to cover the scope/lens when using ICNReduction.
If you expose say for 2 minutes, the total time the camera takes is 4 min.
As you know the second half (2 min) is used by the camera to do the subtraction internally so no need to cover anything, but you do need to allow for this extra time if using a remote release timer or software.

EDIT: I do however recommend covering the viewfinder as stray light will interfere with the sensor when exposing. Even a red headlamp will cast internal reflections when the mirror is open/up in the camera.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 21-06-2007, 01:59 PM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Cheers

Do you find the internal dark subtraction of use, or do you prefer to do it manually using software?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 21-06-2007, 02:07 PM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by [1ponders] View Post
Cheers

Do you find the internal dark subtraction of use, or do you prefer to do it manually using software?
If I am spending a whole night on one object and have time to wait for the exposures then yes it's very handy, in fact Bert swears by this method.
If I'm in a hurry I'll take just straight exposures and apply the "dark stack" later.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 21-06-2007, 05:48 PM
luka's Avatar
luka
Unregistered User

luka is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,164
If you take multiple exposures that you stack later, it would make sense to take several darks and subtract them in software later and not use camera's internal dark subtraction.

Several darks averaged together in software will be a much better noise representation than only one dark image which is used by the camera. In other words your software will be doing background subtraction of averaged, more accurate dark from each of the images than if you let the camera do the job.
In theory even with two darks you should get a better result than with camera's internal dark subtraction.

Of course this only applies if the temperature/humidity conditions do not change a lot during the exposures.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 21-06-2007, 07:20 PM
little col
gosh i love imaging

little col is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: manchester uk
Posts: 286
wowzers looks like i might go for the raw methos next time , question is can you still load say 20 raw frames straight into deep sky stacker or do you need to pre process each file first , i have also had problems with ds stacker but i think it may be due to my tracking and focus in my images.
it would be good if anybody knows of a site that explains the use of deep sky stacker and its errors for future use.

p.s just to clarify if i take 3 exposures in raw what is the percentage of darks to the amount of frames i need to take?
dont forget my location is very poor for clouds and l.p
not used vthe neodymium filter on imaging yet but i am assuming it would make a big difference
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21-06-2007, 07:57 PM
Astroman's Avatar
Astroman (Andrew Wall)
<><><><>

Astroman is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Paralowie, South Australia
Posts: 4,367
You can use RAW in DSS. Works well. Dark frames depends on yourself really, you can take one after every image or whatever. I tend to take 2 or 3 before and 2 or 3 after my light frame exposures. I also do the Bias and flat frames after my imaging session is over, but this is purely my preference to do it. DSS has a helpful help file which guides you through, but I experimented and found out what works for me.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 21-06-2007, 08:31 PM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 9,021
Quote:
Dark frame subtraction (In Cam Noise Reduction) is most certainly applied to RAW frames
I've been under the misconception that it wasn't applied as most of my long exposure RAW's have been very noisy, but following your example Andrew, my 20D does appear to subtract the dark from the RAW.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement