Okay, I don't think I was out-of-focus and nothing else I'm seeing would make me think that, and this is only on the smallest of stars.
The image is from an ASI2600MC, calibrated with flats and darks, cosmetic correction, registered, split into RGB, then normalized scale gradient, recombined, and photometric color calibration. This is NGC 7000, and it looks okay overall, but when I zoomed in to get a sense of how much noise I was going to have, I noticed all the tiny stars look like the've got a hole in the middle. If I turn off the screen stretch, the stars that show up don't show this at all, and you can see from the image that it's really only the small ones and even then not all of them. This is zoomed in at 4:1
I don't have that many frames, only 16 (10 minutes each). The only thing I can think of is the cosmetic correction because that's the only thing that would be doing single pixel corrections, but I'm not sure how it would happen so selectively.
In the end, it probably won't matter or be noticeable, but it bothers me to not understand how it got there.
The image is from an ASI2600MC, calibrated with flats and darks, cosmetic correction, registered, split into RGB, then normalized scale gradient, recombined, and photometric color calibration. This is NGC 7000, and it looks okay overall, but when I zoomed in to get a sense of how much noise I was going to have, I noticed all the tiny stars look like the've got a hole in the middle. If I turn off the screen stretch, the stars that show up don't show this at all, and you can see from the image that it's really only the small ones and even then not all of them. This is zoomed in at 4:1
I don't have that many frames, only 16 (10 minutes each). The only thing I can think of is the cosmetic correction because that's the only thing that would be doing single pixel corrections, but I'm not sure how it would happen so selectively.
In the end, it probably won't matter or be noticeable, but it bothers me to not understand how it got there.