GH6 Full Moon HHHR (tripod) HR vs Preserve Details 2.0

SrMi wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

SrMi wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Val_K wrote:

Nice photo!

How did the HHHR turn out better than HR if there are both on a tripod?

HHHR probably takes less time than tripod HR. For completely static subjects I expect tripod HR to be better. But the moon is not as static as one may think. Point with a good zoom to the moon sometime on a tripod, go away for 30 seconds-60 seconds and see how much the moon already moved off frame!

FYI:

HHHR takes 16 sec, tripod HR takes 9 sec, approximately (1/800 sec).

HHHR takes 16 shots and selects 8 best, HR takes probably 8 shots.

Are you talking about 16 second to take the shots or 16 seconds to go end to end with the processing? Because the processing of the shots is not the same time it takes to take the shots.

Finally on the HHHR shots it's quite possible it aligns some shots with the moon more shifted and by the registration process effectively "shift it back."

It is the total time from shutter press to the end of the assembly. The time from shutter press to start of computation is always less than a second in my test (1/800 sec shutter speed, sensor readout speed is likely the limiting factor).

So the original message / comparison really doesn't apply. We need to see if the shots being taken are taken faster vs tripod HR.  We also need to see if there's a chance for registration of part of the hand held shots that could minimize detail loss when the moon moves.

Raist3d wrote:

SrMi wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

SrMi wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

Val_K wrote:

Nice photo!

How did the HHHR turn out better than HR if there are both on a tripod?

HHHR probably takes less time than tripod HR. For completely static subjects I expect tripod HR to be better. But the moon is not as static as one may think. Point with a good zoom to the moon sometime on a tripod, go away for 30 seconds-60 seconds and see how much the moon already moved off frame!

FYI:

HHHR takes 16 sec, tripod HR takes 9 sec, approximately (1/800 sec).

HHHR takes 16 shots and selects 8 best, HR takes probably 8 shots.

Are you talking about 16 second to take the shots or 16 seconds to go end to end with the processing? Because the processing of the shots is not the same time it takes to take the shots.

Finally on the HHHR shots it's quite possible it aligns some shots with the moon more shifted and by the registration process effectively "shift it back."

It is the total time from shutter press to the end of the assembly. The time from shutter press to start of computation is always less than a second in my test (1/800 sec shutter speed, sensor readout speed is likely the limiting factor).

So the original message / comparison really doesn't apply. We need to see if the shots being taken are taken faster vs tripod HR. We also need to see if there's a chance for registration of part of the hand held shots that could minimize detail loss when the moon moves.

The acquisition time is about twice as fast with HR than with HHHR (i.e., not counting the computation time). This makes sense as HR likely takes 8 shots while HHHR takes 16 shots.

However, HHHR can pick the first 8 shots from the 16 taken so that the relevant acquisition time (time from the first to last shot used) may be the same.

AURA PA wrote:

Far too much noise present in the HHHR file for ISO 100. There is visible grid pattern in the HR file indicating camera movement. Seems motion compensation does not address this.

Which mode was set in Motion Blur Processing?

Interceptor121 wrote:

As explained I applied sharpening to the HR shot until possible and then applied the same to the HHHR but this shot could not take that same amount of sharpening

So this is with a much milder sharpening applied

the shots were taken with motion compensation MODE2

The same pattern in the detail-free areas remains - just not so obvious. And at a lower screen mag., it's a much more interesting and informative image - more like the photos you would see of the full moon from large aperture telescopes. Below, a screen shot of the orig. 100% HHHR image @ 50% screen mag:

Interceptor121 wrote:

Pete Berry wrote:

Interceptor121 wrote:

As explained I applied sharpening to the HR shot until possible and then applied the same to the HHHR but this shot could not take that same amount of sharpening

So this is with a much milder sharpening applied

the shots were taken with motion compensation MODE2

The same pattern in the detail-free areas remains - just not so obvious. And at a lower screen mag., it's a much more interesting and informative image - more like the photos you would see of the full moon from large aperture telescopes. Below, a screen shot of the orig. 100% HHHR image @ 50% screen mag:

What were you expecting exactly? A completely clean image out of a shot taken with a zoom lens in a light polluted area?

you go figure

What?! WTH gave you THAT idea?

Just showing that you can make a basically un-viewable @ 100% HHHR image - due to your above noted limitations - into a more viewable and informative one by reducing the mag. only - that's  significantly better than the 100% 25MP  "straight" 400mm image you shot.