Timothy Martin:Oskari Nikkinen:
Stacking stacks is the least effective way of handling data in my opinion because you dont get as good a result as when stacking all the subs into one image. Its just a math thing, averaging 4 averages is not the same as averaging all the subs once (latter is better, significantly).
I see the session thing as a weakness in the software. Really calibration and stacking are two different things done at different times. Calibration happens after the imaging night and then those subs get stored for later use. Stacking happens after any number of nights, which could be months after calibration. The "black box" design of APP discourages the user to take this approach IMO.
Sub rejection rates also have nothing to do with the stacking software used. You select the method and limits of rejection and stack the frames you want - at least thats what is supposed to happen.
You can very easily save calibrated frames in APP. There’s a button in the Calibration tab to do that. Then you can stack them later with frames calibrated in prior sessions.
There’s no question PI has the better UI. If only its results were better, I’d use it.
Yes i can do that but why would i ever calibrate data in APP? It takes at least 5 times longer than with Siril, and the results are actually much worse since APP refuses to use a darkflat i had supplied. And on that note APP refuses to work with images that were calibrated in any other software so its not good for just stacking either.
What problem are you having with PI stacking results? Stacking results should be exactly the same from every software, unless there was an error in how that software was used because at the end of the day its just averaging normalized and registered subs with outlier rejection - so just math. Unless the math is done wrong by one software then all the results will look the same.
