here is the raw data and from top to bottom blue, then green, then red and then from left to right, soft wavelets (1.0, 1.0, 5.8, 9.1, 11.8, 18.6), medium wavelets (1.0, 1.0, 5.8, 13.8, 29.3, 45.5) and then finally hard wavelets (1.0, 1.0, 5.8, 25.3, 50.2, 79.8).
All of the colours had roughly 300+ images stacked. The next processing step is to try 200 stacked and then finally 100 stacked. The less stacked, the better quality ones you are stacking, but less favourable for wavelets etc
Top line 99 stacked
next line 199 stacked
last line 300+ stacked
again from left to right, soft, medium and hard wavelets
Looking at the blue channel, as you can see, the 99 stacked frames may be sharper, but starts to get splotchy when the wavelets are pushed too hard.
So again it is a matter of trying to see which is best mix of number of stacked frames in combo with the wavelets.
I have found you can push the wavelets a little harder introducing a slight splotchy look and then in astra image, the ME deconvolution will clean it up.
" I have found you can push the wavelets a little harder introducing a slight splotchy look and then in astra image, the ME deconvolution will clean it up."< Quote by nice Taswegian.
Yes Dave, but this is providing its a bmp & not a jpg, is this correct?
I've been reading deconvolution is worthless on jpg's. Mine are all jpg's right from the getgo from registax. I can't transfer from lappy to desktop computer as a bmp.
I wanted to hear to the contrary! 
Oh well....The sooner I get a damn external hard disk or memory stick the better!
