AstroBin

AstroBin

AstroBin

Relationship between FWHM of the individual frames and FWHM of the final stack [Deep Sky] Processing techniques · Emilio Frangella · ... · 10 · 234 · 1

_The3D_ 2.86
Emilio Frangella
...
· 
·  Share link
I am trying to understand what's the relationship, if any, between the sharpness of the individual frames versus the sharpness of the final stacked RAW through WBPP.
My latest image https://www.astrobin.com/full/q1t9sq/0/ has an average FWHM of the individual frames, measured before stacking through subframe selector, of 1.85" (around 4px at 0.46 arcsec/pixel). After the stacking process, the resulting FWHM is around 4.6px, or 2.15 arcsec. I am trying to understand if i am losing sharpness during the stacking due to some internal process (maybe imperfect star alignment?) or this behavior is to be expected. To be noted that this discrepancy is somewhat more noticeable with my C11 (which was used to take that image) versus my RC (stacks coming from the RC data are usually much closer in FWHM to the average calculated using SFS).

Does anyone have insights on the topic?
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
_The3D_ 2.86
Emilio Frangella
Topic starter
...
· 
·  Share link
One of my guesses is that compared to the individual frames, there are many more objects (like distant galaxies) of irregular shapes present in the image that might be mistaken by the algorithm for stars, skewing the result. I wonder if that could be the case.
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
andreatax 9.89
andrea tasselli
...
· 
·  Share link
No, the difference is due to the alignment (and consequential resampling) process. Beautiful image, btw.
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
Gondola 8.11
Tony Gondola
...
· 
·  Share link
There's a lot going on in the stacking process. I would not expect that math to work out perfectly on this.
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
_The3D_ 2.86
Emilio Frangella
Topic starter
...
· 
·  Share link
thanks Andrea. Is this behavior to be somewhat expected? does it factually impact the overall sharpness of the image, and if yes, can it be reduced? i think 0.4 arcsecs of loss in resolution is quite meaningful.
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
AndreVilhena 4.72
Andre Vilhena
...
· 
·  1 like
·  Share link
I believe the reason for that would be that the stacking will lower the noise floor and make the fainter sections of the stars more visible, thus enlarge then. I think the drawing below helps explaining:
image.png

In your subframe, since noise level is higher, the algorithm is seeing the star "cut" at line 1 but when you stack the subframes the noise level drops to 2, for example, and the algorithm see more of the star.  In the first case, the FWHM will be given by the distance between the two red lines and, in the second case, between the two green lines.

The drawing is not 100% accurate as in reality the "cutoff" is not so abrupt but I think you get the ideia.

In addition, if registration is not 100% accurate (and usually it isn't in the whole FOV), stars in each subframe might be spreaded a bit in the final stack. But I think generally the impact of this is not so large.

Additional note: if you take a 5 sec subframe and a 20 sec subframe for example, you'll notice the FWHM of the latter is larger than the first - that is related with the PSF drawing above.

Cheers,
André
Edited ...
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
andreatax 9.89
andrea tasselli
...
· 
·  Share link
Emilio Frangella:
thanks Andrea. Is this behavior to be somewhat expected? does it factually impact the overall sharpness of the image, and if yes, can it be reduced? i think 0.4 arcsecs of loss in resolution is quite meaningful.

*Yes, it does. It always was thus, by and large at around 10% mark. You gain, however, massively on SNR which allows for deconvolution to be applied and thus resolution regained aand then some...
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
_The3D_ 2.86
Emilio Frangella
Topic starter
...
· 
·  Share link
andrea tasselli:
Emilio Frangella:
thanks Andrea. Is this behavior to be somewhat expected? does it factually impact the overall sharpness of the image, and if yes, can it be reduced? i think 0.4 arcsecs of loss in resolution is quite meaningful.

*Yes, it does. It always was thus, by and large at around 10% mark. You gain, however, massively on SNR which allows for deconvolution to be applied and thus resolution regained aand then some...

got it, so to be expected somehow. So this brings up the next question, why is this gap much larger with my C11 compared to the RC. Playing the guessing game again, since SCTs optics usually suffer from "fatter" stars, sounds reasonable to me that the effect suggested by @Andre Vilhenamight be even stronger, hence the difference. Would be interesting to understand if we can maybe refine the star alignment configuration to try and minimize this delta, and see if it actually makes any noticeable difference in sharpness.
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
Ricksastro 1.51
Rick Krejci
...
· 
·  Share link
My theory would be that the signal of the Full Width part of FHWM is increasing as you stack so many frames, but the Maximum is not as much since some of the stars are saturated.
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
andreatax 9.89
andrea tasselli
...
· 
·  Share link
Emilio Frangella:
got it, so to be expected somehow. So this brings up the next question, why is this gap much larger with my C11 compared to the RC. Playing the guessing game again, since SCTs optics usually suffer from "fatter" stars, sounds reasonable to me that the effect suggested by @Andre Vilhenamight be even stronger, hence the difference. Would be interesting to understand if we can maybe refine the star alignment configuration to try and minimize this delta, and see if it actually makes any noticeable difference in sharpness.


SCTs suffer from a minor level of spherochromatism (as most cats do) which isn't there for purely reflective optics (end flatteners/reducers do not add meaningfully to that), so your scattering of FWHM is larger because, while the central wavelength is well within boundaries (i.e., diffraction limits) this may not be equally applicable to the shorter wavelength where seeing is most effective in broadening the wings of the FWHM profile. I'm talking here about L values rather than specific color filters but it would be instructive to look at how they distribute between R, G and B.

I don't think that the reduction of the noise floor makes any difference to that, btw.
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
Gondola 8.11
Tony Gondola
...
· 
·  Share link
…..and don't forget that the stars in each subframe are not perfect. This is averaged out in the stacking process but adds to the degradation.
Like
×

Sorry :-(

Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
×

Share this forum post

Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.

Close
×

Post editing not available

This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.

To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.

Go to Settings Close
 
Register or login to create to post a reply.
×

Warning!

This operation will reload the current page. If you have any unsaved information in a form, it will be lost.

You can also dismiss this window, and your operation will be applied at the next page navigation.