Hey All,
I recently came across the concept of over/under sampling. Checked out my rig on astronomy.tools and see I am under sampling quite a bit.
In this case, I have seen that drizzling could help this, to some extent.
Tested it out and it seemed to be somewhat better at 2x drizzle.
When drizzling 2x, do you typically use the stars from that also? The reason I ask is a found a video deep diving into it mentioned maybe the stars are better in a 1x drizzle. Then just remove stars and use nebula from 2x?
Thanks!
📷 image.png
Drizzle when undersampling?
Respectful Engaging
Well, when drizzeling I tend to keep my equipment under covers.
Can’t see the stars in the rain anyway.
Trey Wood:
Hey All,
I recently came across the concept of over/under sampling. Checked out my rig on astronomy.tools and see I am under sampling quite a bit.
In this case, I have seen that drizzling could help this, to some extent.
Tested it out and it seemed to be somewhat better at 2x drizzle.
When drizzling 2x, do you typically use the stars from that also? The reason I ask is a found a video deep diving into it mentioned maybe the stars are better in a 1x drizzle. Then just remove stars and use nebula from 2x?
Thanks!
📷 image.png
Why would you?
That doesn’t make any sense to me but my best advice is to just try it both ways and compare.
To your basic question, yes, when you’re under-sampled, you can apply drizzle.
I have exactly the same issue you have. I have a WO RedCat 51 which I use with an old ZWO ASI 1600 (3.8 micron pixels) . The issue nowadays is that most CMOS sensors come with tiny pixels which are not compatible with short focal length scopes like the RedCat 51.
The undersampled pixelated stars are almost impossible to fix in post processing. The only solution that has worked so far for me (and it is very dependent on how good your seeing conditions are) is drizzling x2.
Here is a comparison of the same RGB master stacked using 1x Drizzle and 2x Drizzle. As you will see, the difference when applying Drizzlex2 is quite noticeable.
Well Written Helpful Respectful Concise Engaging
Drizzling helps when undersampled. I have found it to be a significant benefit, but I am a pixel peeper and those of my images are intended to be viewed by pixel peepers. There are some trade-offs, but I do it every time under the conditions and the objects I am working with.
Why not drizzle the stars? In my rigs, where I use drizzle, the smallest faintest stars are sometime 1, 2 or 3 pixels in extent. If you like your stars looking like little boxes and “L”s then don’t use the drizzled stars. When I drizzle, those stars yield nice simple psf forms. They actually look like stars (photographic stars). And no, simply up-sampling a non-drizzled star field will not be the same.
However, even with very undersampled data, but with a very widefield intent, such as a widefield lens for landscape astrophotography, I really see no point in drizzling. At that point, the drawbacks weigh in favor of not drizzling. And if you want to print large, the the shape of the stars do not matter. It is the overall impression of the full field that is what is important.
Now for images that are not undersampled, I have also tried drizzling in that case. I will say that the drizzling absolutely did not improve detail resolution. However, I still felt that the star forms were much better and in the cases where I needed that, then I used it. Otherwise, no.
Well Written Helpful Engaging