Serious question, should you always trust the 'blue zone' advice from old-timers at star parties?

I had this guy at the McDonald Observatory star party last fall tell me to never bother stacking more than 20 frames on a DSLR because noise cancels out. I tried his way and got a decent shot, but then went home and stacked 100 frames in DeepSkyStacker and it looked way better. So who's right here, the old-school visual methods or the modern stacking techniques?

2 comments

2 Comments

shah.ben18d ago

Oh man, the old-timers mean well but that 20 frame limit is just outdated advice. In my experience you're way better off stacking as many subs as your patience allows. Those guys came up with film cameras and early digital where noise actually did pile up weird after a certain point. Modern DSLRs and processing software handle stacking way differently. I've personally seen huge jumps in quality going from 50 to 200 frames on a typical nebula target. Your mileage will vary depending on your sky conditions and gear, but don't let anyone tell you there's a hard cap. Keep stacking and compare your own results, that's the only way to know for sure.

hugobarnes17d ago

Man I still have my first stacked image where I did 15 frames because some guy at a star party told me that was the sweet spot. Looked like a blurry potato compared to what I get now with 80-120 subs. Modern sensors and calibration frames really changed the game big time. My advice is always test it yourself - I went from frustrated noob to just a regular noob by ignoring those old school rules and experimenting on my own.