Sequator photo stacking software software#

I think the noise improvement is still obvious and the detail is improved in the nebula stacked in B (all images stacked together). We need to stack ALL images each time we compose a stacked image of a target to do it justice. We can’t save time if we want the best image. I think the first experiment and the second both show that the latter is the best course of action. What do you think this result shows? Does it confirm the first experiment? Should we do partial stacks and then combine them to save time or should we do a complete stack of all the images to get the best result? Let’s look at a close up of each image and see how the details compare when inspecting more carefully: A. The second image seems less noisy although not such a big difference this time. I think the difference in image quality can be seen. Will we verify the result we just got above? A: Combination of two stacks (482 and 218 images) B: Stacked all 700 images in one go Process B will be a stack of all 700 images done in one go. Process A will stack two groups, one of 482 images, and the second of 218 images, and then combine the two stacked images together. Let’s this time experiment by using the same process as above and stacking 700 images of a different target, (the Iris Nebula), in two different ways. Test Two: astrophotography stacking with many more images It appears from the first test, that this is not going to be such a good idea! This idea occurred to me because sometimes I might take 1000 images and one stack will take a long time to complete but if I broke it down to stack each night’s images separately I could then stack them together at the end, saving time. It would appear from this test that we shouldn’t combine images into groups and then combine them. But, what will the result be? Comparing two groups stacked separately then combined vs one stack of all images Side by side overall view 40 images stacked in one go all together 40 images were divided into two groups of 20 stacked and then the stacked images combinedĪs can be seen the image on the right is much noisier! The images have not been post-processed in photoshop as this is a direct comparison. It doesn’t really save time but seems more convenient and would allow me to check my progress as I went along. The reason I think this could save time is that if I image a deep sky object over several nights I could stack it after each session and then combine them later rather than waiting until I have finished all my photography on one target and then stack the images altogether.

This should show whether it is possible to separately stack smaller groups of images and combine them later rather than all images in one go.

Sequator photo stacking software software#

Learn more about Sequator and other software I use for astrophotography stacking.įor the second image, I am going to do the standard astrophotography stacking method where I will stack ALL 40 images in one go.įinally, we’ll compare the differences between these two processes.Īfter we have a look at the results it may be necessary to run further experiments to answer this question:Ĭan I divide a large number of images into separate stacks and then combine them together to produce the same or better quality then stack all the images together in one go which may take a long time? Then, I’m going to combine the two stacked images by again stacking them in Sequator. I’m going to stack these 2 groups separately so that I have two stacked images. Experiment in Astrophotography Stacking: Group Stackįor my target, the Needle Galaxy, I’m going to choose 40 images and I’m going to divide them into 2 groups of 20 each. By comparing the final result I may be able to figure out if there is a quicker way. So I’ve decided to run a couple of experiments, the first of which will be testing different astrophotography stacking processes to achieve the final image.

I’m wondering if there might be a quicker way to do this by using fewer resources on the computer to achieve the same quality in the final image. I took 5 hours of 30-second shots is a total of 600 separate photos! The last time I stacked about 700 or so images that I had taken it took well over an hour to stack them in Sequator (the software I usually use for my astrophotography stacking). When I photographed a nebula recently I used my alt-az mount and Celestron 130slt telescope. Ideally, for an amazing picture of this stunning nebula, I would need about 10 hours or more. Recently, I took photos of the Iris Nebula, and so far, I’ve taken about 5 hours’ worth of 30 second images. Astrophotography stacking is a process I do all the time, and one thing I’m finding is that my images require many hours of imaging.