Thank you all!
This is a great comparison of the two techniques, I've been experimenting a bit with AstraImage but usually return to Registax.
What I find really interesting is the slight change in colour cast for these images, was this deliberate or just an artifact of the processing technique?
Thanks for posting, Andrew
Tulloch for the second run I changed the handling of colors a bit. Now I apply some saturation on both PS and RS6, then play a bit with the channel mixer.
Wow, the Mars #2 images has one of the most detailed Olympus Mons I've ever seen in an Earth-based image of Mars. The caldera and general slope and scarf profile is like the Viking Orbiter images! A 40-Km shadow computed just right for the Sun angle.
Once upon a time, way back in my first encounters in observing Mars with some huge telescopes and photographs of Mars for those times (40+ years ago) we only dreamed to see such images of the Red Planet. Only HST and Mars orbiting machines showed us such clear and details of the surface of Mars. Now it seems like some amateurs casually produce them at a whim.
Say, what kind of a telescope did you use, Hubble? It must be cold up there in orbit......
Oops, a 14" Dob!!!!!
In the past someone mused about, I paraphrase, “if only Einstein had a modern hand calculator in his younger life, how much more could he have achieved.” Maybe if he had my laptop he could have resolved his General Relativity theory! If one would use similar analogy in astronomical terms, we may compare the photographs and their new-age images of professional astronomers of the past, say just a few decades ago, to the electronic images of today’s amateur astronomer using modest equipment; such a deal, we may say. How much more would we know if they had the same technology?
Jeff I wonder about it constantly, thank you for the kind words!
Thanks for the helpful information! Since there are two factors at play here: 1.5x drizzle and deconvolution, would you mind do other experiment? i.e., compare the results of RS6 wavelet vs Astraimage deconvolution, both with 1.5x drizzled stack.
Of course! I made a comparison with the first Martian image. The only difference was sharpening, wavelets (my usual settings vs. decon). The rest of the post processing was the same in RS6 (saturation) and PS (levels, curves, exposure, smart sharpen, colors, etc.). In the version processed with wavelets the details seem to be less and with more artifacts. In addition, the blue channel seems displaced by the different focus it presents with respect to the rest of the channels. It seems that deconvolution reduces that: