rdm<p>I have a question for the <a href="https://aus.social/tags/Astrophotographer" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Astrophotographer</span></a> and <a href="https://aus.social/tags/Mathematician" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Mathematician</span></a> folks out there.</p><p>What is the smallest number of frames you could perform a drizzle transform on? </p><p>Could you, for example, perform it on two frames, and then submit that image to a livestacking process?</p><p>Does this idea even make sense?</p><p>As for "Why do this?", I am looking at the <a href="https://aus.social/tags/SmartTelescope" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SmartTelescope</span></a> world, and wondering if you could perform the resolution increase in conjunction with live stacking, without resorting to post-processing. This is to attempt to allow a software-only capability upgrade, while still maintaining the convenience.</p><p>I figured I'd ask here first, because (conceptually) it seems almost too simple.<br> <br><a href="https://aus.social/tags/astronomy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>astronomy</span></a> <a href="https://aus.social/tags/Astrodon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Astrodon</span></a> <a href="https://aus.social/tags/DumbQuestion" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>DumbQuestion</span></a></p>