Ed Hurst
Well-known member
G'day Balt,
Thanks for your kind compliment - and also for your very interesting insights to the way in which these things tend to work.
I am not in the least surprised that small movements make a difference, or am not very surprised that the lens corrections are the culprit given that they change the geometry (and other variables) of the scene. What surprised me, if these factors are at play, is that the stacked images could display without the artefact showing, then for flattening/merging to reveal the problem. This was because I was not previously aware that what one sees on screen before flattening/merging does not fully represent the full file once flattened/merged. So the appearance of the artefact at that stage was what confused me (the image having, I wrongly assumed, appeared in its full splendour without the artefact prior to flattening/merging). Now that I know that flattening/merging actually involves performing various algorithms, and that the preview prior to that is not 'complete', it all makes eminent sense to me. I feel like I have learnt something!
Would love to chat about Sydney photography and astrophotography some time - perhaps in a Sydney pub ;-)
Warmest regards,
Ed
P.S. To everyone who suggested other solutions that I have not tried yet, I will still give them a go - they might suggest something useful for other reasons!
Thanks for your kind compliment - and also for your very interesting insights to the way in which these things tend to work.
I am not in the least surprised that small movements make a difference, or am not very surprised that the lens corrections are the culprit given that they change the geometry (and other variables) of the scene. What surprised me, if these factors are at play, is that the stacked images could display without the artefact showing, then for flattening/merging to reveal the problem. This was because I was not previously aware that what one sees on screen before flattening/merging does not fully represent the full file once flattened/merged. So the appearance of the artefact at that stage was what confused me (the image having, I wrongly assumed, appeared in its full splendour without the artefact prior to flattening/merging). Now that I know that flattening/merging actually involves performing various algorithms, and that the preview prior to that is not 'complete', it all makes eminent sense to me. I feel like I have learnt something!
Would love to chat about Sydney photography and astrophotography some time - perhaps in a Sydney pub ;-)
Warmest regards,
Ed
P.S. To everyone who suggested other solutions that I have not tried yet, I will still give them a go - they might suggest something useful for other reasons!