Just compared stacking 100 vs 500 frames on my Jupiter shot and it's not even close

I spent two nights last week trying to get a decent image of Jupiter with my 8-inch scope. The first night, I only captured about 100 frames because I was tired and called it early. The second night, I pushed myself to get 500 frames. I stacked both sets in AutoStakkert and the difference is massive. The 100-frame stack looks noisy and soft, like a fuzzy orange ball. The 500-frame stack actually shows the Great Red Spot and some banding detail. It took longer to process, sure, but the extra data smooths out the atmospheric distortion so much better. I used to think more frames was just a minor improvement, but now I see it's the key to pulling out real detail. Has anyone else found a specific number of frames where the quality really jumps for planetary imaging?

2 comments

2 Comments

sams255d ago

My Saturn shots were the same way. The difference between 200 and 800 frames was like night and day for the ring detail.

aaron1975d ago

Wow, that's a huge jump in quality. I'm curious what gear you were using to stack that many frames. I've never managed to get 800 decent frames before the planet rotates too much.