Went back and forth between stacking 50 frames vs 200 frames on a nebula shot

I was processing a photo of the Orion Nebula from last month and kept debating if more frames was worth the extra noise reduction time. Ended up going with 120 frames as a middle ground and the detail came out way better than I expected. Has anyone else found a sweet spot for stacking where you stop seeing big improvements?

2 comments

2 Comments

michael88017d ago

Hard disagree on that. More frames always helps, especially if you're trying to pull out faint dust and dark nebula details that barely register above the noise floor. I've tested 300 frames against 100 on the same target and the difference wasn't tiny, it was obvious in the fainter outer regions of Orion. The stacking algorithm averages out satellite trails and cosmic ray hits way better with a bigger pool too. Plus that extra time in DSS is nothing compared to waiting for clear skies again. 120 is fine for a quick result but calling it a sweet spot is selling yourself short.

anthony_lane5517d ago

The "more frames = better" thing falls off pretty fast after a certain point. With a bright target like Orion, you hit diminishing returns around 80-120 frames depending on your camera and light pollution. After that you're mostly just adding more noise reduction time for maybe 2-3% improvement in detail.