18 replies to this topic

[LiamMcD71]

Hi All

 

I have noticed that there seems to be a tendency for the 'pros' here on the forum to lean towards using AS!3 as opposed to AS!4?

 

In Andrew's comprehensive FAQ he mentions AS!4, but I see lots of folk referencing AS3! in their workflows - when AS!4 has been out for some time now.

 

Any reason for this that would be useful info?

 

Many thanks!

[Borodog]

Not really. AS4! is radically improved.

[LiamMcD71]

Ok, great, thanks Mike.

[dcaponeii]

I'm not sure how you're reaching that conclusion.  AS!4 is light years ahead of AS!3.  Just make sure you download the lastest version (I think that's _11 although _12 is supposed to be in progress.)

[Borodog]

4.0.12 is out now, Don.

[Tulloch]

Hi All

 

I have noticed that there seems to be a tendency for the 'pros' here on the forum to lean towards using AS!3 as opposed to AS!4?

 

In Andrew's comprehensive FAQ he mentions AS!4, but I see lots of folk referencing AS3! in their workflows - when AS!4 has been out for some time now.

 

Any reason for this that would be useful info?

 

Many thanks!

It may just be that the old "pros" are stuck in their ways and haven't seen the need to upgrade (yet). While AS!4 is better than AS!3, both programs do essentially the same thing (AS!4 does it quicker) so it's not essential to upgrade.

 

I've seen some people still using Registax for stacking, where AS!x is far superior...

[dcaponeii]

4.0.12 is out now, Don.

Thanks Mike
 

[Tulloch]

4.0.12 is out now, Don.

 

Thanks Mike

This is the version that correctly handles field derotation on rgb videos correctly on the planets and the Moon.

[marcovalerio1]

I realize that this is a quite vague question, and I haven't found the time yet to investigate this systematically, but has anyone else observed that integrating the same exact video in AS!3 and AS!4, with the same noise robust settings, same advanced settings, same number of frames integrated and same alignment points, so same exact parameters, produces a slightly noisier result on AS!4 than AS!3?

I am using an ASI224MC, so I am talking about color videos.

[dcaponeii]

I realize that this is a quite vague question, and I haven't found the time yet to investigate this systematically, but has anyone else observed that integrating the same exact video in AS!3 and AS!4, with the same noise robust settings, same advanced settings, same number of frames integrated and same alignment points, so same exact parameters, produces a slightly noisier result on AS!4 than AS!3?

I am using an ASI224MC, so I am talking about color videos.

No

[Borodog]

I realize that this is a quite vague question, and I haven't found the time yet to investigate this systematically, but has anyone else observed that integrating the same exact video in AS!3 and AS!4, with the same noise robust settings, same advanced settings, same number of frames integrated and same alignment points, so same exact parameters, produces a slightly noisier result on AS!4 than AS!3?
I am using an ASI224MC, so I am talking about color videos.

No. You’ll need to post examples.

[marcovalerio1]

Absolutely, I thought I'd ask in case anybody was informed of a known issue there, but as soon as I can find the time, I'll do a couple test integrations and post here (or in a new thread if I'm advised to do so).

Thanks!

[marcovalerio1]

OK, here's an example. I can reproduce this with all my videos. Here are 2 plain integrations linked in PNG, unsharpened and then sharpened with the same (excessive) Registax settings to show the issue. As you can see the AS!4 image has significantly sharper noise, and an hint of a checkerboard pattern down-left on the planet, reminiscent of a debayering issue. Both problems are absent on the AS!3 image. All settings, including debayering, are the same between the 2 programs, and I even set the noise estimator to manual and 6 to match AS!3, even though I see this artifact in Automatic estimator as well.

You might want to download the AS3 vs AS4 png and look at it at scale 1:1, since it's an uncompressed composite of the two sharpenings.

 

AS3 stack

 

AS4 stack

 

AS3 vs AS4 sharpened

Edited by marcovalerio1, 28 February 2025 - 10:06 PM.

[Borodog]

Certainly looks noisier, but I can't replicate it. You're sure you don't, for example, have the Limit feature left on by mistake in AS4? Or one of the experimental features turned on in 4 and not 3, like horizontal and vertical blur? The AS4 image is noisier, but it also seems sharper. See for example the shadow. It looks as though fewer frames have been stacked, even though you say they were identical.

[RedLionNJ]

Here's a quick comparison I generated between AS3 and AS4:

 

 

If there is a difference, I don't see it.

[marcovalerio1]

Certainly looks noisier, but I can't replicate it. You're sure you don't, for example, have the Limit feature left on by mistake in AS4? Or one of the experimental features turned on in 4 and not 3, like horizontal and vertical blur? The AS4 image is noisier, but it also seems sharper. See for example the shadow. It looks as though fewer frames have been stacked, even though you say they were identical.

25% frames in both programs, so yes, same number of frames unless I am understainding the percentage row of lineedits wrong: that is 25% of total runtime of the video, not 25% net of quality assessment, right? If it is of total runtime, then they are the same number of frames.

[marcovalerio1]

Here's a quick comparison I generated between AS3 and AS4:

 

AS3vs4.jpg

 

If there is a difference, I don't see it.

However I think you applied noise reduction upon sharpening here, is that the same NR setting, or you eyeballed them to make them look the same?

[ToxMan]

I've used 3 versions if you go back to AS2, and like the most recent version. It's easy to batch, too.

[RedLionNJ]

However I think you applied noise reduction upon sharpening here, is that the same NR setting, or you eyeballed them to make them look the same?

Identical settings for both images. What would be the point of a comparison, otherwise?