StarTools

Hi

as @Stefan B mentioned, Isiril but only for Stacking, I've tried also Lpro + Lextreme either splitting channels or NBAccent, but usually align them in DSS. Alignment of the stacks , as fas as I can tell, doesn't affect the stacks themselves. simply gets cropped if they're in different position.

I would suggest you try to do the same you were doing to align with Siril stacked files

Carles.

@Carles Thanks, I will play around with Siril to see how it would be done.

@Stefan Makes sense with DSLR to hold off; I started with my Canon T5i unmodded, switched to QHY168C cooled and never looked back; budget of course is always a factor.

I find a noticeable difference going from L-Enhance (still a great filter) to L-Extreme. Tighter Ha/OIII spectral lines, cleaner data as no fuzzy Hb to muddle things, better color and tighter stars.

Love your M45 with ASTAP; pretty much the same improved result I got with Siril; color and detail really "pop". Will slowly be re-processing my data using Siril.

Thanks guys.
Nick

Those look pretty cool. But, I can't see how stacking with DSS should be any different from Siril, ASTAP, or APP, unless the settings are different, and then of course that's the reason. PI can do very customized calibration formulas, but all the others should be virtually the same basics?

Hi Mike,

can't tell you the reason but Ivo once wrote that the Astap stacks look identical to stacks from PI which he repeatedly recommended for pre-processing (but not for post ). So I guess there are differences. Sorry I can't tell you more but I just do not have any expertise in this. But I can tell that I reproducibly got better results with Astap compared to DSS although I applied the recommended settings from the Startools website.

Regards
Stefan

Echo what Stefan said; don't know why but took the eastern veil with 6h40m integration (L-Extreme), stacked in DSS (ST settings) and Siril, identical process flow in ST and got a better result with Siril (less noise, brighter color, sharper detail). Of course, getting more nitpicky as I advance into post processing and every tiny detail gets noticed now but hey, we are obsessed after all!

Tried other targets (narrow, broad) with comparable results. Obviously your experience may vary but I've heard others with similar recent comments.

Basically, I now use both software to create two stacks, run into ST and compare; best result wins; still like and use DSS.

Nick

Alrighty then. I guess I'll have to start trying that and do some compares. I like DSS' speed over ASTAP (which I still use for a good number of tasks), and that it doesn't litter your computer with newly converted FITS files.

Really the formula should be quite similar or identical, again absent getting fancy and custom in PI.

I think DSS defaults to a 2.5 kappa, while ASTAP is 2.0. They may use different raw readers (dcraw, rawlib, etc), which could be important to my files as I use DSLR. I suppose bayer demosaicking could be somewhat different?

I'll have to see what ASTAP would do with my normal D5300 data of lights, flats, and bias. ASTAP does not have a bias/offset tab. I suppose I would put my bias in the dark flats tab, and probably also the same files in the darks tab in order to get the proper formula.

Hmmmm. Worth a stab if so many are saying there's a noticeable difference. I'm wondering why.

A while back I wrote a post about the differences in stacking
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2176&hilit=ASTAP+SIRIL

DSS vs Sirl vs ASTAP.

Results are very different. Perhaps the worse one is DSS in that stack at least.

But always better compare. Even though, PI supposed to have a really good stacker.. so no idea.

@Mike in Rancho Give it a go at Siril. I use only Scripts, so don't tweak anything at all.

Carles.

@Mike in Rancho Quote, I suppose I would put my bias in the dark flats tab, and probably also the same files in the darks tab in order to get the proper formula.

Correct bias goes into Dark flats in ASTAP as you don’t use both bias and Dflats in processing I remember asking Hans this very question regards bias frames Mike .

Regards Dave