ecuador wrote:I still can't see an advantage of going the longer TIFF route to be able to use the "not whitebalanced" option in ST
In this case, me neither!
Thanks for uploading the median stacks.
It definitely looks like something funky is going on during stacking - the data simply isn't as deep as the "regular" non-pre-debayered stack. No question.
I don't know what the cause of that could be. I assume you pre-debayered any calibration frames as well, right?
I'm not sure if related, but by coincidence, I noticed a faint, but noticeable cross-hatch pattern in the AutosaveTIFFmedian data on 1st AutoDev, which happened to scale the image at 26% to fit the image (intentional aliasing is one of the features of the scaling algorithm in StarTools). StarTools showing a pattern like this betrays an underlying pattern (repeating artefact) at a different frequency. It's possible that it is not significant, but it's not present in AutosaveRAWmedian and I thought I'd mention it;
As a sanity check, I did two processing runs of AutosaveTIFFmedian with the exact same parameters + settings, however with the only difference choosing between the two different options when loading/activating Tracking. As expected, the option that weighs channel precision as 1:2:1 for R:G:B (because a camera with a Bayer matrix records 2x more green samples) rather than 1:1:1, provides a tiny (tiny!) bit more small detail and definition (and has the nice side effect of killing more red hot pixels than it emphasises green hot pixels). With the data quite noisy the improvement is really marginal and you'd have to look closely while before/after toggling to appreciate it though...