Klaus that is quite cool! Nicely done.
I wonder what we can take from that though in regards to increase of statistical SNR? And if the test will hold up across more than one sample image and differing types of targets/fields.
I get the sense that each stacker sort of has its own way of going about things, and some stuff you can't change, while others may let you. For example DSS allows you to turn off normalizaton for sigma rejection (the ST guideline), but I think in ASTAP it might be built in. However, ASTAP does give you a number of choices for OSC file translation, whereas in DSS it is fixed. Bayer interpolation can often differ, as can frame alignment and alignment interpolation too.
No statistical analysis, but a couple months ago I anecdotally compared different bayer algorithms for my OSC-SHO Rosette. For me, as well as some others who checked it out on CN, the ASTAP detail seemed cleanest. I have also noticed that some of the funky color gradients I am getting with my Newt (still working on that) seem easier to deal with out of ASTAP.
Each of these was processed to completion in ST as reasonably matching as possible (ST being dynamic and all).
Top left is DSS bilinear. Top right is DSS superpixel. Bottom left is DSS Bayer drizzle (bicolor only, I didn't have my SII filter here). And bottom right is ASTAP but with the AstroSimple interpolation rather than bilinear. Looking at the explanation of Han's algorithm on the website it seems to make sense. Other than that I use the ST guidelines of no color alterations.
-
- Rose quad CFA comparo.jpg (491.73 KiB) Viewed 6825 times