Astrophotographers hangout. Invite friends and notice chat bar on bottom.
I need some help, here. Does anyone know how to get all subframes regardless of their scores to stack in Deepskystacker? I have tried the "Register Above a Threshold" feature and set the threshold low enough to be lesser than the lowest-scoring subframe but it seems to arbitrarily select its own threshold. What gives?
I never use that. I check to see that a random frame has at least 7 good stars in it.
Jump in chat real quick
You bailed out....
OK DSS to the best of my knowledge, will not stack frames if the stars are not somewhat round and there are at least a min of 7 stars.
Do you know how to check the star count of each frame before you start?
Hi, Russ - missed your messages, but thank you for responding. Yes, I set it for maximum star detection. There has to be a way to stack all checked subs that meet a certain, user-inputted, threshold, but I have tried that and it keeps selecting its own threshold.
I will be heading out soon to image on this last night here but the information will be particularly useful for when I return home and can take the time to work the problem out. Any thoughts or ideas will be greatly appreciated.
Bob, I am already trying that. Even with selecting 100%, fewer than 50% are stacking. It has something to do with the scoring and I can't seem to get around it.
Have you looked at each image to make sure the stars are round?
Well I am thinking that the wind played a part and so DSS is rejecting less-than-perfect subs, but the point is there should be a way around the rejection process, which is what I thought the "stack 100%" and "check above a threshold" features were all about.
if the stars actually are a little too oval try the comet stack settings and see what you get. That process looks at different things the user sets for alignment and is not reliant on round stars.
I think I have stumbled upon a solution. I checked the "Cosmetic" settings and somehow at some point the "detect and remove hot/cold pixels" options were unchecked. I checked them and re-registered the same 40 subframes and instead of 18 frames stacking, 39 did. (Image is ngc-7293, posted.) This seems to be the answer, as other images where substantially less than all subrames stacked are now yielding the same results.
Well, who would have thunk it? Now...take screen shots of each settings tab so you can reference it if this happens again.
It makes no logical sense, really. But it does the trick, nevertheless. Just one of those things that make you go, "hmm."