Great to have this option. The only potential issue that I can see is if you try to produce a megastack from stacks with very different sub numbers, which may lead to a noisier result as the stack with fewer subs would be over-weighted in the result (not sure I’ve fully explained that but I hope you can see what I mean).
My example had a pretty noisy stack but that didn't seem to make much difference at the end of the day however you are right, I think it is a good idea to try and keep the stacks pretty well balanced.
Thanks for this interesting video. I’m very much a novice with astrophotography but have had some good results with my SeeStar and processing in Siril. I’ve started to use the Save All Frames function in the SeeStar and stacking in Siril using the SeeStar script. When comparing the final image between the Siril stack and the stacked results direct from SeeStar I do not see any image improvement from the additional work required to do a Siril stack. That’s all just background, but what your video put me in mind to ask is; in a situation where there was insufficient data to get a reasonable image, would it be worth duplicating the light frames and creating stack 1 and a stack 2 and then combining the stacks as your video shows. In other words if I have 100 light frames and make stack 1 and then use the same 100 light frames to make stack 2, would I end up with a better final image after combining stack 1 & 2 ? Although this would seem like cheating, would it give a better result?
sorry for my delay replying, I missed this comment. No, what you are suggesting wouldn't work, each sub needs to be unique. You would be adding the same signal and noise so it would all get 'louder' but the ratio of signal to noise would remain the same.
![[ENG] Darktable 5.0 What is new ?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-gNm230e5pA/mqdefault.jpg)
Great to have this option. The only potential issue that I can see is if you try to produce a megastack from stacks with very different sub numbers, which may lead to a noisier result as the stack with fewer subs would be over-weighted in the result (not sure I’ve fully explained that but I hope you can see what I mean).
My example had a pretty noisy stack but that didn't seem to make much difference at the end of the day however you are right, I think it is a good idea to try and keep the stacks pretty well balanced.
Thanks for this interesting video. I’m very much a novice with astrophotography but have had some good results with my SeeStar and processing in Siril. I’ve started to use the Save All Frames function in the SeeStar and stacking in Siril using the SeeStar script. When comparing the final image between the Siril stack and the stacked results direct from SeeStar I do not see any image improvement from the additional work required to do a Siril stack. That’s all just background, but what your video put me in mind to ask is; in a situation where there was insufficient data to get a reasonable image, would it be worth duplicating the light frames and creating stack 1 and a stack 2 and then combining the stacks as your video shows. In other words if I have 100 light frames and make stack 1 and then use the same 100 light frames to make stack 2, would I end up with a better final image after combining stack 1 & 2 ? Although this would seem like cheating, would it give a better result?
sorry for my delay replying, I missed this comment. No, what you are suggesting wouldn't work, each sub needs to be unique. You would be adding the same signal and noise so it would all get 'louder' but the ratio of signal to noise would remain the same.