Stacking moon photos

[Larry Cunningham]

Please have pity on a neophyte astrophotographer for asking what is probably a naive question.

I'd read about using Lightroom and then Photoshop to align and stack a series of moon photos to obtain a sharper representation. Using my Canon EOS M5 and my Sigma 150-600mm zoom lens on a sturdy tripod, and using the Pluto Trigger as an intervalometer, I took 24 images of the full moon at 2-second intervals. As an example, here's the first image (I shot in RAW, this has been converted to highest-quality JPEG for uploading):



I tried the Photoshop method I read about, as follows:

1. Using intervalometer, take a sequence of 12 or more photos of the moon. Maybe one photo every two seconds. Use reasonably fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur.
2. In Lightroom, do initial global adjustments.
3. Select all images, then select "Open as layers in Photoshop" in the "Photo... Edit in..." menu.
4. In Photoshop, select all layers and choose "Edit... Auto-Align Layers".
5. With all layers still selected, choose "Layer...Smart Objects... Convert to Smart Objects
6. Choose "Layer... Smart Objects... Stack Mode... Median" (could also try Mean)
7. Flatten Image; File... Close (and Save).
8. In Lightroom, do any needed final edits, including cropping and other correction

I tried this method using varying numbers of images in the series, from all 24 to only 3. Every attempt resulted in failure; I wound up with a badly blurred image that looked like a victim of motion blur.

Can anyone give me a hint as to what I did wrong using this method?

After further research, I downloaded and installed RegiStax. I followed the FAQs for that application to the letter (at least I'm fairly sure I did), but I always wound up with the same result: After loading photos (I tried this with 8 photos, then just 3 photos), I set Alignment Points, then clicked Align, and then the software simply stalled. It never made it past 0% on the progress bar. I waited for more than 30 minutes and nothing happened. I had to cancel each attempt by killing the application with Task Manager. I tried reducing the number of photos, and tried reducing the number of Alignment Points (my last attempt before giving up after an entire afternoon of wrestling with the software used 25 alignment points).

I know RegiStax is a complex bit of programming, but I can't get past Square One. Any hints as to what I'm doing wrong here?

Can anyone suggest some other way I can stack a series of moon photos that actually works to produce a sharper image?

In case it makes any difference, this is on a Dell XPS 8900 with 16GB of RAM, Windows 10 Home with all the latest updates, the Adobe Creative Cloud subscription with all the latest updates (I use the "Classic", not the "Cloud", version of Lightroom), and a copy of RegiStax freshly downloaded from the official Web site.

Thanks for reading; any assistance appreciated!

Larry

 

[Andy01]

I am also a rank amateur at night photography, but in my experience it is probably not necessary to use either stacking or a tripod for full(-ish) moon photography.

I generally use a larger aperture, much faster shutter speed and higher ISO and just hand hold. I have also found that in many cases an extreme full moon is a bit boring compared to a 3/4 - ish moon.

Here is an example with my M5 and 100-400L ii





Colin

 

[Larry Cunningham]

Thanks for the suggestions. I was actually set up to do a moonrise time-lapse, and that bit turned out fairly well. I got a fun video of the moon rising, plus one multiple-exposure shot out of it. For those shots, I used a wide-angle zoom.



After getting the time-lapse photos (426 exposures overall), I mounted the big zoom, cranked it up to 600mm, and took 24 exposures of the moon hoping to stack some or all of them to improve the sharpness. No real luck with that so far.

Larry

 

[Mystic38]

1/60th is just too slow..

would recommend 1/500 and up...

I had just received the Olympus 75-300 and this is the second shot i took..

its an unprocessed, single shot ooc jpeg with 1/250th and already its losing definition.



details:

camera : OMD EM1-II

lens : Olympus 75-300 @ 300mm (600mm effective)

exposure : iso 800, 1/25 @f8

settings : 2sec self timer

 

[Larry Cunningham]

Why is 1/60 sec. too slow? Motion blur? I had everything on a good sturdy tripod and used a wireless remote. I shot the image below before dawn this morning, used 1/60 sec., and it seems reasonably sharp (considering the lens I had available, anyway ;-) ). Other than converting to JPEG, this is straight out of the camera.



Larry

 

[Lyle Aldridge]

. . .

Can anyone suggest some other way I can stack a series of moon photos that actually works to produce a sharper image?

In case it makes any difference, this is on a Dell XPS 8900 with 16GB of RAM, Windows 10 Home with all the latest updates, the Adobe Creative Cloud subscription with all the latest updates (I use the "Classic", not the "Cloud", version of Lightroom), and a copy of RegiStax freshly downloaded from the official Web site.

Larry

Larry, your questions about Photoshop and Registax have me stumped. I haven't done any stacking with succes in Photoshop, and Registax runs fine even on my somewhat less impressive computer.

But there is also AutoStakkert! 2 as another freeware option. I've been using it recently. Based on that limited experience, it seems to produce cleaner results than Registax does. In AutoStakkert!, you set the alignment points yourself, and it seems to give great results with only about 15 alignment points, rather than the hundreds that are generated in Registax.

I do, however, still use the wavelet sharpening of Registax on the exported file from Autostakkert!. The settings in AutoStakkert! actually include an option that I think is supposed to open Registax automatically for sharpening the stacked export, but so far, I haven't been able to get that working.

 

[Larry Cunningham]

. . .

Can anyone suggest some other way I can stack a series of moon photos that actually works to produce a sharper image?

In case it makes any difference, this is on a Dell XPS 8900 with 16GB of RAM, Windows 10 Home with all the latest updates, the Adobe Creative Cloud subscription with all the latest updates (I use the "Classic", not the "Cloud", version of Lightroom), and a copy of RegiStax freshly downloaded from the official Web site.

Larry

Larry, your questions about Photoshop and Registax have me stumped. I haven't done any stacking with succes in Photoshop, and Registax runs fine even on my somewhat less impressive computer.

But there is also AutoStakkert! 2 as another freeware option. I've been using it recently. Based on that limited experience, it seems to produce cleaner results than Registax does. In AutoStakkert!, you set the alignment points yourself, and it seems to give great results with only about 15 alignment points, rather than the hundreds that are generated in Registax.

I do, however, still use the wavelet sharpening of Registax on the exported file from Autostakkert!. The settings in AutoStakkert! actually include an option that I think is supposed to open Registax automatically for sharpening the stacked export, but so far, I haven't been able to get that working.

Thanks for the AutoStakkert! 2 suggestion. I've heard of it, but haven't tried it yet. And I'll keep your other suggestions in mind as I try to some other approaches.

Larry

 

[Lan]

I tried this method using varying numbers of images in the series, from all 24 to only 3. Every attempt resulted in failure; I wound up with a badly blurred image that looked like a victim of motion blur.

Can anyone give me a hint as to what I did wrong using this method?

How do the original shots look? I'd wager that's where your issues are.

How did you focus the camera? The sample shot you've posted looks OOF to me? If you're not already doing so I'd recommend manual focus in live view, using 10x magnification. Leave the lens in MF.

I've also seen problems with heat shimmer effects, these are usually worst early in the evening when the moon is relatively low in the sky. Waiting until it's been dark for a while usually means the atmosphere is more settled. Doesn't look like your problem here though.

I don't think you need to be shooting stopped down as far as you are. I would expect you to get better results nearer wide open. 1/60th is too slow IMO.

Once you have the underlying shots sharp, try stacking them.

 

[Larry Cunningham]

I tried this method using varying numbers of images in the series, from all 24 to only 3. Every attempt resulted in failure; I wound up with a badly blurred image that looked like a victim of motion blur.

Can anyone give me a hint as to what I did wrong using this method?

How do the original shots look? I'd wager that's where your issues are.

How did you focus the camera? The sample shot you've posted looks OOF to me? If you're not already doing so I'd recommend manual focus in live view, using 10x magnification. Leave the lens in MF.

I've also seen problems with heat shimmer effects, these are usually worst early in the evening when the moon is relatively low in the sky. Waiting until it's been dark for a while usually means the atmosphere is more settled. Doesn't look like your problem here though.

I don't think you need to be shooting stopped down as far as you are. I would expect you to get better results nearer wide open. 1/60th is too slow IMO.

Once you have the underlying shots sharp, try stacking them.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I did use manual focus, with focus assist (on the Canon EOS M5, it highlights the edges of things in red). Heat shimmer wasn't an issue here, the moon was halfway up the sky on a very cold night.

My issue with that attempt, at least in part, might have been due to the lens, the only long zoom I have. I had it cranked to its maximum zoom, 600mm, and it's known to be a bit soft at that focal length.

I'd still like an explanation as to why 1/60th, on a tripod, using a wireless remote, is too slow. I've taken plenty of moon photos at that speed, and they sure looked sharp.

I would still like to know why Photoshop produced a hopelessly blurred result (it looked a lot like motion blur), and why RegiStax completely stalled when I clicked Align. Tack sharp focus or not, neither program responded as expected, and I'd love to know why.

Larry

 

[W5JCK]

I second the AutoStakkert 2 comments by Lyle, as well as using RegiStax 6 for the wavelets. I would never use PS and/or LR to stack and align. Why would you? Plenty of good apps that can do it for you in a fraction of the time and way better.

Depending on your camera settings, your individual images might get noisy. It is better to shoot very fast shutters like 1/400th sec or faster. If you have to turn up your ISO level to do so, then noise can be an issue for individual images. The noisier the images the more images you should stack. Try to get the S/N ratio higher. S/N ratio is the square-root of the number of images you stack. If you stack 25 images, the S/N ratio is 5. You stacked 24, so the S/N ratio was 4.9.

• S/N 1 = 1^2=1 image (no stacking)
• S/N 2 = 2^2=4 images stacked
• S/N 3 = 3^2=9 images stacked
• S/N 4 = 4^2=16 images stacked
• S/N 5 = 5^2=25 images stacked
• S/N 6 = 6^2=36 images stacked
• S/N 7 = 7^2=49 images stacked
• ...
• S/N 10 = 10^2=100 images stacked
• ...
• S/N 2 = 20^2=400 images stacked

At some point you will reach the point where diminishing returns will show that stacking more images isn't worth the time or effort. Just play around with your camera and lens and see how many you need to stack to get rid of the noise. It might be just a few, or it might be hundreds. But I think it will likely be in the S/N of 5 to 10.

Stacking also can yield better quality of images by giving more details. Each image you take is through 200+ miles of atmosphere, and some of the detail can get washed out. Multiple images means more detail will likely be achieved.

One bit of advice: Don't go overboard on the post processing, especially when using wavelets and sharpening the image. It is tempting to do so, but too much sharpening can look bad--really bad. If you sharpen so much that the Moon stops looking spherical and starts looking like a flat disk, then you went way to far.

Also practice on focusing. Your focus was rather soft. Some telephoto lenses, especially zoom telephoto lenses, might have soft focus. Get the focus as sharp as you can though.

--
Best Regards,
Jack
Website: http://w5jck.com/nightscapes-gallery.html
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jackswinden
Sony RX100M3, a6000, and a7

 

[Larry Cunningham]

I second the AutoStakkert 2 comments by Lyle, as well as using RegiStax 6 for the wavelets. I would never use PS and/or LR to stack and align. Why would you? Plenty of good apps that can do it for you in a fraction of the time and way better.

Why would I use Lightroom and Photoshop to stack and align images? Because they claim to be able to, and because they have functions specifically designed (and labelled as such) to stack and align images. :-| Plus (and this is a big plus), LR and PS have clear instructions, tutorials, and learning aids to guide me through whatever I'm trying to do. The same, apparently, can't be said for those freeware programs.

My (possibly fatal) issue with either RegiStax or AutoStakkert is the level of knowledge required to accomplish anything meaningful. I tried using RegiStax and got nowhere. I tried again today, with a series of sharper (at least higher contrast) images of the fourth quarter moon. I tried getting RegiStax to stack and align just three images, taken within 2 seconds of each other, and RegiStax once again, even in this simpler situation, simply stopped doing anything when I clicked the Align button.

In desperation, In one case I waited for the program to do something for more than half an hour to show any progress. The progress bar displayed 0% and never budged. The program never really crashed, it just sat there doing nothing. Every time I've tried to use the program, it has stalled when I clicked the Align button, and I'm required to use Task Manager to end the task. Until I learn why that's happening, it's futile to even launch the program.

No-one has given me even a hint as to what might be causing that, and as a result I have no idea how to get past that point. Every time I've tried, and I've tried a couple of dozen times with different numbers and types of images, the program has simply frozen. There's no point in wasting any more time until and unless I can get past that impasse.

Sorry, but at least with the freeware programs that have been suggested, it appears to be way above my pay grade to figure out how to use them.

Of course, any guidance would be most appreciated.

Depending on your camera settings, your individual images might get noisy. It is better to shoot very fast shutters like 1/400th sec or faster. If you have to turn up your ISO level to do so, then noise can be an issue for individual images. The noisier the images the more images you should stack. Try to get the S/N ratio higher. S/N ratio is the square-root of the number of images you stack. If you stack 25 images, the S/N ratio is 5. You stacked 24, so the S/N ratio was 4.9.

• S/N 1 = 1^2=1 image (no stacking)
• S/N 2 = 2^2=4 images stacked
• S/N 3 = 3^2=9 images stacked
• S/N 4 = 4^2=16 images stacked
• S/N 5 = 5^2=25 images stacked
• S/N 6 = 6^2=36 images stacked
• S/N 7 = 7^2=49 images stacked
• ...
• S/N 10 = 10^2=100 images stacked
• ...
• S/N 2 = 20^2=400 images stacked

At some point you will reach the point where diminishing returns will show that stacking more images isn't worth the time or effort. Just play around with your camera and lens and see how many you need to stack to get rid of the noise. It might be just a few, or it might be hundreds. But I think it will likely be in the S/N of 5 to 10.

Thanks for the reminder of my grad school days; I used to teach that stuff, including S/N ratios, though the subject didn't involve image processing.

Stacking also can yield better quality of images by giving more details. Each image you take is through 200+ miles of atmosphere, and some of the detail can get washed out. Multiple images means more detail will likely be achieved.

This is precisely why I'm trying to get a series of photos stacked and aligned, to improve the sharpness and quality of the final result.

One bit of advice: Don't go overboard on the post processing, especially when using wavelets and sharpening the image. It is tempting to do so, but too much sharpening can look bad--really bad. If you sharpen so much that the Moon stops looking spherical and starts looking like a flat disk, then you went way to far.

I've done minimal processing for the images I've tried to stack/align using LR/PS and RegiStax, mostly some minor contrast adjustments. These were done in Lightroom and the adjustments were synced to all the images I've been trying this with.

Also practice on focusing. Your focus was rather soft. Some telephoto lenses, especially zoom telephoto lenses, might have soft focus. Get the focus as sharp as you can though.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the softness is most likely caused by the lens I used, the only long lens I have that can even get close to a meaningfully large moon image. To get the original images, I had to crank the lens to its maximum of 600mm, and it's known to be a bit soft at that focal length. And it's that softness, in part, that I'm hoping to mitigate by aligning and stacking the images.

Larry

 

[Lan]

Can anyone give me a hint as to what I did wrong using this method?

Once you have the underlying shots sharp, try stacking them.

I would still like to know why Photoshop produced a hopelessly blurred result (it looked a lot like motion blur), and why RegiStax completely stalled when I clicked Align. Tack sharp focus or not, neither program responded as expected, and I'd love to know why.

Because the underlying shots, based on your sample shot at least, are not sharp. During the alignment stacking software relies on finding and matching details.

Higher shutter speeds are required because the high magnification means that the subject is moving through the frame faster than you might expect. How often did you need to re-adjust the camera position? More than once I'd wager!

We're just trying to pass on our experience. Whether you choose to listen to that experience is up to you!

 

[Larry Cunningham]

As I mentioned in another post, I tried again this morning and shot 12 images of the fourth quarter moon which, for whatever reason (including, no doubt, the fact that the sun's illumination is much less flat than during the full moon), are much sharper. I posted a sample image in a previous post, and it appears again below.

If that image isn't sharp enough, the zoom lens I use, which is the only lens I have that has the sort of "reach" required for these photos, isn't up to the task, and I give up. Personally, I'm convinced the images from this morning should be sharp enough to align and stack, but what do I know?



Lightroom and Photoshop didn't give me the motion blur effect I'd seen previously, but the result wasn't any better than the individual images.

As for RegiStax, it still stalls out whenever I click the Align button, so that's also a dead end.

At this point, I've reached the point of diminishing returns. I appreciate everyone's information and attempts to assist, but I can't think of anything else to try.

If anyone has even a theory as to why RegiStax stalls out the way it does, I would love to hear about it. Otherwise, I'm moving on to other projects.

Larry

 

[Lan]

As I mentioned in another post, I tried again this morning and shot 12 images of the fourth quarter moon which, for whatever reason (including, no doubt, the fact that the sun's illumination is much less flat than during the full moon), are much sharper. I posted a sample image in a previous post, and it appears again below.

That image looks massively better; and should definitely align IMO. Good job!

Lightroom and Photoshop didn't give me the motion blur effect I'd seen previously, but the result wasn't any better than the individual images.

Well that's an improvement at least...

As for RegiStax, it still stalls out whenever I click the Align button, so that's also a dead end.

Are there any sample shots supplied with the software? It sounds like the software has a problem, rather than you?

At this point, I've reached the point of diminishing returns. I appreciate everyone's information and attempts to assist, but I can't think of anything else to try.

If anyone has even a theory as to why RegiStax stalls out the way it does, I would love to hear about it. Otherwise, I'm moving on to other projects.

Don't give up, but perhaps try some other software instead?

Perhaps if you share your source images, someone with experience of that software can have a play?

 

[Larry Cunningham]

Are there any sample shots supplied with the software? It sounds like the software has a problem, rather than you?

No sample photos were supplied with RegiStax. The installation of RegiStax was simple; there were no error messages. On the other hand, as far as I can tell there's no manual, only references to rather arcane image-processing stuff. You apparently need to have a background that I don't have to successfully use the software. At least that's my impression.

At this point, I've reached the point of diminishing returns. I appreciate everyone's information and attempts to assist, but I can't think of anything else to try.

If anyone has even a theory as to why RegiStax stalls out the way it does, I would love to hear about it. Otherwise, I'm moving on to other projects.

Don't give up, but perhaps try some other software instead?

The only other software that's been recommended is AutoStakkert, and from perusing its Web site it appears even more unintuitive (with similar slim documentation) than RegiStax. I'll look at it further, but I'm reluctant to just keep installing (and learning) applications until I find one that works.

Perhaps if you share your source images, someone with experience of that software can have a play?

Below are three of the original images. I converted them to JPEG to upload here; otherwise, they've undergone only very light correction of contrast and exposure. If anyone would like to play with them, feel free.











Larry

 

[Lan]

Below are three of the original images. I converted them to JPEG to upload here; otherwise, they've undergone only very light correction of contrast and exposure. If anyone would like to play with them, feel free.

Thank you for sharing your images!

OK, I've stacked those three in Photoshop, and then had a play around in Topaz:



The advantage to stacking them is that it reduces the noise in the image, which then allowed me to sharpen the result far more aggressively than the unstacked images would have done by themselves.

Incidentally Photoshop initially wouldn't align your images because there wasn't enough overlap between them (i.e. the subject was too small), so I had to crop them. Then after auto-align I merged them by blending the top layer at 50%, then the blended the merged layers at 66%.

It's possible that if you crop them, Registax may suddenly start working? From their website :-

RegiStax 6 does :
- not support the usage of RAW DSLR files.
- have a lower limit on the size (pixels X*Y) of images (around 3000x2000), this depends greatly on the number of CPU's set and the available memory of your system.

 

[Lan]

Ignore my suggestion about cropping the images if you're using Registax; I've downloaded and installed it, and it does actually align and process them successfully on my system without doing that. It is however, a tad unintuitive... I worked it out from here:

https://www.astronomie.be/registax/previewv6singlerun.html

If you're still struggling tomorrow I'll try and give you a quick step-by-step!

Registax version given similar treatment:

 

[Larry Cunningham]

OK, I've stacked those three in Photoshop, and then had a play around in Topaz:



The advantage to stacking them is that it reduces the noise in the image, which then allowed me to sharpen the result far more aggressively than the unstacked images would have done by themselves.

Your result gives me the encouragement I needed to keep trying, at least give it one more go; thanks!

Incidentally Photoshop initially wouldn't align your images because there wasn't enough overlap between them (i.e. the subject was too small), so I had to crop them. Then after auto-align I merged them by blending the top layer at 50%, then the blended the merged layers at 66%.

During my latest attempt to use Photoshop to stack and align the images, I first cropped the (layered) images and it did improve things. However, I didn't try adjusting the blending percentages; thanks for the tip!

It's possible that if you crop them, Registax may suddenly start working? From their website :-

RegiStax 6 does :
- not support the usage of RAW DSLR files.
- have a lower limit on the size (pixels X*Y) of images (around 3000x2000), this depends greatly on the number of CPU's set and the available memory of your system.

The images I opened in RegiStax were each 6000x4000 pixels. I can try cropping them to at or near that minimum of 3000x2000 and see what happens. I was wondering whether the stoppages I've been seeing might be memory-related, but with 16GB of RAM and terabytes of available hard drive space, I would be a bit surprised. I've done some pretty heavy processing on this machine with other software, and never experienced a problem.

I'll play with this more in the morning, it's getting late here. Thanks again for helping!

Larry

 

[Larry Cunningham]

Ignore my suggestion about cropping the images if you're using Registax; I've downloaded and installed it, and it does actually align and process them successfully on my system without doing that. It is however, a tad unintuitive... I worked it out from here:

https://www.astronomie.be/registax/previewv6singlerun.html

If you're still struggling tomorrow I'll try and give you a quick step-by-step!

Registax version given similar treatment:

I've bookmarked that page and will see if that gets me past the impasse. Thanks for the link!

Larry

 

[rnclark]

Why would I use Lightroom and Photoshop to stack and align images? Because they claim to be able to, and because they have functions specifically designed (and labelled as such) to stack and align images. :-| Plus (and this is a big plus), LR and PS have clear instructions, tutorials, and learning aids to guide me through whatever I'm trying to do. The same, apparently, can't be said for those freeware programs.

Photoshop can do a great job at alignment, but not necessarily if there is distortion. For the Moon images with a fixed tripod and moving across the field, the distortion is constantly changing and photoshop will not correct the differences. (I assume LR is the same but have not used it.) It appears that in tests I have done wit CS6, photoshop will translate, rotate and scale to align images but not smaller adjustments. Even atmospheric distortions will affect the image on the scale of your lens and camera, and those distortions can occur on an arc-minute scale, even with the Moon high in the sky

My (possibly fatal) issue with either RegiStax or AutoStakkert is the level of knowledge required to accomplish anything meaningful.

I believe these are you best bet for alignment with distortions.

Sorry, but at least with the freeware programs that have been suggested, it appears to be way above my pay grade to figure out how to use them.

Look for some online tutorials and/or youtube videos.

Stacking also can yield better quality of images by giving more details. Each image you take is through 200+ miles of atmosphere, and some of the detail can get washed out. Multiple images means more detail will likely be achieved.

This is precisely why I'm trying to get a series of photos stacked and aligned, to improve the sharpness and quality of the final result.

The RegiStax and AutoStakkert programs do more than just stacking. They do lucky imaging--picking the best parts of each image to include in the final. This is what you want, not just basic stacking of photoshop.

One bit of advice: Don't go overboard on the post processing, especially when using wavelets and sharpening the image. It is tempting to do so, but too much sharpening can look bad--really bad. If you sharpen so much that the Moon stops looking spherical and starts looking like a flat disk, then you went way to far.

This is very good advice. It is too common to over sharpen (examples are already in this thread).

Some have suggested 1/60 second is too long a shutter speed. It is not. The maximum rate the Moon moves across the sky is slightly less than 15 arc-seconds per time second. So in 1/60 second, the Moon moves slightly less than 1/4 arc-second. Your camera has 3.7 micron pixels, and at 600 mm gives 206265 *0.0037 /600 = 1.27 arc-seconds, so the Moon moves less than 1/5 pixel in 1/60 second, which is quite good.

For comparison, I imaged the moon at 0.84 arc-seconds/pixel with a camera with 5.7 microns pixels, 1400 mm, and 1/100 second exposure from a fixed tripod. The Moon moved about 1/6 pixel, so similar to yours. Result from a single frame:

ClarkVision Photograph - The Near First Quarter Moon with a Telephoto Lens July 2010

A link to the full resolution image in near the bottom of the page.

Roger