UPDATE FROM MABULA
I have had a very rough 2 months unfortunately health wise. I was struck 3x in a row with bacterial infections. The second infection occurred  after a routine hospital checkup and I became very sick. I had to rest and take a lot of antibiotics. Once I was recovering and restarting work 1 month ago, I again became sick. The infection was not yet gone, so even more antibiotics and rest was needed. Needless to say, it took a lot of my energy and I needed a lot of rest.
Finally, the infection is really gone and my energy is coming back step-by-step now and I have started work again. I am terribly sorry to have kept you waiting for support. I will address all outstanding questions and e-mails step-by step and will be on the forum daily from today.
APP 2.0.0-beta47 will come soon as well, a lot of work was already completed before I became very ill, so the release is also nearly ready for you. Beta47 will be much faster actually. Many workflows will be more than 2x faster, mosaics can even be 10x faster than before because registration really received a major boost... all compared to beta46. Â Before I release it, I will make sure that everything is working properly and then I will release it.
Hello,
I was experimenting with the new Beta and I have noticed something when doing a crop. The image that is created seems to have much more noise than the un-cropped image. I do not know if this is unique to 1.076 (I don't think so, I may have noticed it in previous versions) but it is there. If you set maximum stretch, the original is OK (in my case) but after a crop, it's very noisy in the shadows.
Here is a link to the before and after images. Set maximum stretch and look at the shadows (dark) below the horsehead.
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Av6XXnf6tR4NySe0gY_SzVYuRFgZ?e=ZvbGJc
Please advise.
Thanks.
APP is not able to inject extra noise, it would have to do that deliberately and it's not programmed to do so (extra noise can only come from using wrong calibration data and such). I see a slightly different stretch, which is done automatically in the preview as the crop now has a slightly different overall signal. If I stretch the cropped version to have approx. the same stretch (looking at the overall brightness of the background and dust), I don't see a real difference anymore (maybe now less noise in the cropped version, which shows it's the stretching which is slightly different).
Not cropped version;
Cropped version;
Dear JM @jm (@vincent-mod),
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I have just checked, but everything is perfectly fine here. The crop operation really only crops, it does not inject noise. No pixel values are changed, if it would, it would be very bad indeed.
You might think that there is more noise because of the auto-stretching that is performed on the data with the preview filter. The autostretch manipulates 2 stretch parameters:
- the black point, B-slider
- the stretch ST-slider
If I leave the auto DPP on, this is what happens, I will zoom in with 400% (100% means each image pixel matches a screen pixel) on the shadows below the horsehead with maximum stretch of 30% BG, 2sigma, 0,0%base, first image is uncropped with max auto atretch, second image is cropped with max auto stretch, yes that does look more noisy, but is it?:
Now, if load the cropped image and apply the max auto strech, then disable the auto stretch by deselecting the auto selectbox, I will keep the stretch settings fixed for both the black point and the stretch. I now load the uncropped image and study the same field of view at 400% zoom, this is how it looks, first image is uncropped with the same stretch as on the cropped image with 30% autostrech, second image is the cropped data with the 30% autostretch. This looks completely identical :-), so nothing has changed with the pixel values by the crop operation :
Please let me know if this is clear. To study the noise, you need to deselect the autostrech. The autostrech in this case gives a different black point value on the cropped/uncropped images and is leading you to think that there is noise injected, where there in fact is none injected. All pixel values are preserved.
Kind regards,
Mabula
Ah, and I learned an even better way to show this. Thanks Mabula. 🙂
Excellent! I had somewhat suspected as much (the stretching being the issue), but I needed to hear it from the experts to confirm my expectations that indeed it was not noise.
As usual, a great product.
Thank you both for your valuable insight.
😀
