Is my understanding that by 2x drizzle you reduce SNR by a factor of 2 because you only have 1/4th of the signal per "drizzle pixel" on average correct or am I missing something?
Thank you for starting this discussion. Highly interesting for me since I'm currently still creating very wide field work with camera lenses which is significantly undersampled. Will certainly give drizzling a try.
Clear skies
Wolfgang If we are exposing our subs correctly, our noise is dominated by the sky noise, which is the shot noise due to the sky background (square root of sky background signal). With drizzle we split all signals over more pixels. In each pixel both the target and sky signal are affected equally. Updated; However, the image signal is reduced by 4 while the sky noise is only reduced by square root of 4, so there is a S/N loss of 2X. Also, there is some additional correlation noise between the finer pixels, which increases larger scale noise somewhat more: Fruchter and Hook As I mentioned in a previous post, the finer noise grain is easier to deal with and is not as objectionable as the original larger scale noise. So visually I do not see much of an increase in noise. Again this goes to making sure we get rid of pattern noise with dithering. And as well make sure our read noise is much less than our sky background noise. But these are things we should be doing anyway. It is more complicated with pattern and read noise, as those too are divided between pixels, but not so clear how those will be affected. But one should target minimizing these noises, so if we have your sub exposure tuned in well, these noises will not result in a significant increase in noise with drizzle. Rick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Rick Veregin:
But one should target minimizing these noises, so if we have your sub exposure tuned in well, these noises will not result in a significant increase in noise with drizzle. I tried drizzling tonight for the first time and saw no noise increase due to it, but did see an improvement in detail and smoothness. I plan to use it in the future; not all the time, but when I really want to enhance a special image. It's not exactly hard from what I can see, but is a bit time consuming.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Rick Veregin:
If we are exposing our subs correctly, our noise is dominated by the sky noise, which is the shot noise due to the sky background (square root of sky background signal). With drizzle we split all signals over more pixels. In each pixel both the target and sky signal are affected equally, so the S/N is the same. The object to sky ratio does not change, but the SNR does decreases. Let's assume a uniform scene. If the sampling is increased and droplets are smaller than the original pixels, each pixel of the final image receives fewer photons than in the non-drizzled case. For example, with drizzle 2x2 and square droplets half the width of the original pixels, it takes a minimum of four dithered subframes to fill in the gaps. Thus, for a given number of subframes, each resampled pixel receives on average four times fewer photons than in the non-drizzled case, and the SNR in each is x2 lower. In addition, the noise between adjacent pixels becomes correlated, as discussed in section 7 of the Fruchter & Hook paper. How much of an increase depends on the ratio between resampled pixels and droplet sizes, i.e. how much the droplets fill the plane. CS Frédéric
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Frédéric Auchère:
Rick Veregin:
If we are exposing our subs correctly, our noise is dominated by the sky noise, which is the shot noise due to the sky background (square root of sky background signal). With drizzle we split all signals over more pixels. In each pixel both the target and sky signal are affected equally, so the S/N is the same.
The object to sky ratio does not change, but the SNR does decreases. Let's assume a uniform scene. If the sampling is increased and droplets are smaller than the original pixels, each pixel of the final image receives fewer photons than in the non-drizzled case. For example, with drizzle 2x2 and square droplets half the width of the original pixels, it takes a minimum of four dithered subframes to fill in the gaps. Thus, for a given number of subframes, each resampled pixel receives on average four times fewer photons than in the non-drizzled case, and the SNR in each is x2 lower. In addition, the noise between adjacent pixels becomes correlated, as discussed in section 7 of the Fruchter & Hook paper. How much of an increase depends on the ratio between resampled pixels and droplet sizes, i.e. how much the droplets fill the plane.
CS
Frédéric ... and we will not see more noise if we look at the images at the same size as undrizzled but should see more noise when comparing on pixel level. Your explanation fits to what I was thinking but I just couldn't express it as precise and was not sure whether I'm missing something. Clear skies Wolfgang
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Frédéric Auchère:
Rick Veregin:
If we are exposing our subs correctly, our noise is dominated by the sky noise, which is the shot noise due to the sky background (square root of sky background signal). With drizzle we split all signals over more pixels. In each pixel both the target and sky signal are affected equally, so the S/N is the same.
The object to sky ratio does not change, but the SNR does decreases. Let's assume a uniform scene. If the sampling is increased and droplets are smaller than the original pixels, each pixel of the final image receives fewer photons than in the non-drizzled case. For example, with drizzle 2x2 and square droplets half the width of the original pixels, it takes a minimum of four dithered subframes to fill in the gaps. Thus, for a given number of subframes, each resampled pixel receives on average four times fewer photons than in the non-drizzled case, and the SNR in each is x2 lower. In addition, the noise between adjacent pixels becomes correlated, as discussed in section 7 of the Fruchter & Hook paper. How much of an increase depends on the ratio between resampled pixels and droplet sizes, i.e. how much the droplets fill the plane.
CS
Frédéric Thanks very much Frédéric for the correction, I mispoke. Much appreciated! I'm updating my original comment. There is indeed a factor of 2x in SN as the sky background noise is the square root of the signal, so we have 4x less image photons/pixel, and 2x less sky noise, so an SN loss of 2X. Also, the noise is finer grain, so visually I typically do not see much of visible increase in noise at a reasonable viewing scale (zooming to the pixel level is pointless, as who cares about the noise when you can see the pixelation). Also, as mentioned in this thread, I often bin the image back in processing, this still maintains the FWHM advantage, better smoother stars and transitions, but improves the S/N. Regards Rick
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Andy Wray:
Rick Veregin:
But one should target minimizing these noises, so if we have your sub exposure tuned in well, these noises will not result in a significant increase in noise with drizzle.
I tried drizzling tonight for the first time and saw no noise increase due to it, but did see an improvement in detail and smoothness. I plan to use it in the future; not all the time, but when I really want to enhance a special image. It's not exactly hard from what I can see, but is a bit time consuming. Hi @Andy Wray - could you provide details of your settings please? (Was this in APP?)
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Ian Dixon:
Andy Wray:
Rick Veregin:
But one should target minimizing these noises, so if we have your sub exposure tuned in well, these noises will not result in a significant increase in noise with drizzle.
I tried drizzling tonight for the first time and saw no noise increase due to it, but did see an improvement in detail and smoothness. I plan to use it in the future; not all the time, but when I really want to enhance a special image. It's not exactly hard from what I can see, but is a bit time consuming.
Hi @Andy Wray - could you provide details of your settings please? (Was this in APP?) Sorry, but I use PixInsight and just used the standard settings. I did use the WBPP script in Pixinsight to create the drizzle files.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
By smoothing the transitions from objects to background, and being done before any post-processing, does drizzling impact subsequent processes like noise reduction, deconvolution, sharpening, star reduction, etc.?
Cheers,
Scott
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Scott Badger:
By smoothing the transitions from objects to background, and being done before any post-processing, does drizzling impact subsequent processes like noise reduction, deconvolution, sharpening, star reduction, etc.? One side effect is that the noise in adjacent pixels becomes somewhat correlated. From my own experience, this generally has marginal impact. Processes like regularize RL deconvolution, which requires an estimate of the noise in the image, still perform satisfactorily without taking into account that correlation. In the example below (already posted, likely not the best, but it's mine  ), the subs were drizzled x4 with 0.5 droplet size, and regularized RL deconvolution was applied to get matching star sizes in the three color channels (see rev. B):  In short, I would say that you can process your drizzled images normally. CS, Frédéric
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I use drizzle in WBPP in my process too, its looks better for me that the image without drizzled.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
All of my imaging systems have been well sampled, although my current system is quite a bit oversampled–even for the very best seeing conditions. With my C14 in NM, I experimented a lot with drizzling and while I sometimes liked the "smoother" looking result, I never felt that it improved on the amount of detail that an image revealed. The one thing that I have noticed is that drizzled data does seem to work better with BlurExterminator. I've noticed that BXT tends to give a slightly better, more detailed result when you start with a higher sampling rate. Perhaps you can argue that that indicates that drizzling is helping with the underlying information content in a way that's hard to detect, at least until BXT performs a deconvolution. I haven't thought very deeply about it so this is just a general observation.
John
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Andy Wray:
I'm just looking at drizzling for the first time. I just wondered how many on here actually use it? Does it help with mono images? Do I actually need to dither as well?
Any thoughts would be appreciated. i drizzled, until i discovered siril doesn't do true drizzling. true drizzle is arriving in siril 1.4 i think  |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I drizzle for one reason - to get less noise on those faintest of fuzzies that I like to image.
However, it's not that drizzled images are less noisy in a meaningful way. I resize them by 50% - down to the original chip resolution, usually with the Cubic B-Spline algorithm with smoothness value of 1 - 1.5. That cuts down on the noise in a major way. It will impact small-scale details, but old PNe usually don't have any.
Drizzle tends to reduce SNR somewhat, but so does noise, so it's a balancing act. I don't drizzle images of faint objects, unless I have 150 - 200+ 5 minute subs (and I usually have way more).
As a bonus, BX works slightly better on higher resolution images.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
So this looks to me like I should consider drizzling my data from my shorter focal length rigs (200mm, 135mm).
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I am under sampled so I always 2x Drizzle. Once my photo is finished I use integer resample to downsample 2x to make the photo my normal size. I have heard by doing so your image will be cleaner as the downsampling will take some noise out of the image.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Andy Wray:
I'm just looking at drizzling for the first time. I just wondered how many on here actually use it? Does it help with mono images? Do I actually need to dither as well?
Any thoughts would be appreciated. I drizzled everything, as I dither. Only to find out, 2 months ago, siril doesn't really drizzle, just a 2x upscale. So I stopped. Actual proper drizzle coming in next release 1.4 If you stack via other means it's almost certainly worthwhile. Or stack with and without them compare and contrast |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I think a lot of people are finding through testing that although common wisdom says do not drizzle unless you are under sampled, there is a benefit even if your sampling is correct.
I'm waiting for the next Siril release too!
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
