marvindj Thanks for the clarification. So, if I put together your last 2 posts you have Live View turned off, which means that the Seestar does not filter any frames and saves everyone to its hard drive, i.e. 100% of images taken. Then you use PI to filter out any bad frames based upon your personal viewpoint looking at each frame using the Blink function. The result is then a 90% capture rate.
If I have this right, your 90% capture rate is very misleading as many folks would not be thinking they way you did this. They would read your comment and understand this to mean that with Seestar's live stacking you get 90% of the frames added to the stack by the Seestar software. But that is absolutely not the case. With the method you are using, Live View turned off, we have no way of knowing how many frames the Seestar algorithm would have rejected. I highly expect it would have tossed out a lot more frames than you did. I am not intending to be mean but I think many folks using the "typical" method of letting Seestar accept/reject frames for their live stack would think they are doing something wrong when they don't get the 90% capture rate you get.
This is just an example of the problem I have when so many folks report 90% and even 100% capture rates without explaining in detail how they measure the number. In my opinion, high capture rates with Live View tuned off is basically useless data since we all do not have access to the methodology used to manually decided whether a frame is worth saving or not. But we all have access to the Seestar's own algorithm (like it or not) to accept or reject frames.
