15th Feb 2024: Astro Pixel Processor 2.0.0-beta29 released - macOS native File Chooser, macOS CMD-Q fixed, read-only Fits on network fixed and other bug fixes
7th December 2023: added payment option Alipay to purchase Astro Pixel Processor from China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and other countries where Alipay is used.
[Solved] 1.077 - Calibration Error Warning But Needed Files are Present
I installed 1.077 and got the calibration error saying flats could not be calibrated correctly without a bias, or dark-flat, or both of the correct gain and offset, etc. This was using multi-filter, single session, 140 flats - 20 each L, R, G, B, S, H, O. Master Darks, Master Flat Darks, Master Bias, BPM loaded with matching offset and gain. I use 139 / 50 for gain /offset for LRGB, and 200/50 for SHO. When loading the master calibration files I specified that they should be used with the appropriate filters. E.g., there were two BPM files loaded, one 139/50 and 200/50, but I specified the 139/50 was for LRGB and the 200/50 was for SHO. Same for the master darks/flat darks/ bias.
I loaded the same files in 1.075 and it works OK with no warnings, so I'm back to 1.075 for now.
Do I need to build new master dark / flat dark/ bias / bpm with 1.077?
Thanks,
Rowland
This topic was modified 4 years ago by Mabula-Admin
First of all, BPMs are not gain / offset, exposure, temperature dependent, so there is no need to use different BPMs if you are calibrating data from the same camera.
I think I can only reproduce your problem if you upload some of your lights for the L, R, G, B, S, H, O filters and their masters to calibrate them.
Nothing has changed in this regard between 1.075 and 1.077 so are you 100% sure that you loaded everything correctly when processing in 1.077 ?
You can upload it here and I will have a look as soon as possible:
I did inspect things and they looked OK, and to the best of my knowledge I reloaded the same data into 1.075 and no warnings. It makes sense that the BPM is independent of gain and offset. I just have a set of my "current calibration files" for each gain/offset/temperature combination and load them all.
I'll try to reproduce with a small data set and upload if successful in doing so. Right now 1.075 is processing a large data set so it will be a little while before I can do this. Thanks!
But... from your workflow, I think I can already guess why it goes wrong though...
Let me explain: you are enabling to scale the MasterDarkFlat, probably, because it does not match the flats, right?Why else use scaling.
But you don't provide bias/masterbias. Scaling can only be done when you provide bias/masterbias, so scaling can't be done and thus the provided calibration data warrants a warning, (the contents, in this case, can be more clear). I will check tomorrow though.
You are correct about why I am scaling the MasterDarkFlat - but I did include a MasterBias, as you will see when you look at the uploaded file. I just use the MasterDark button and select all my calibration files. APP automatically recognizes the MasterBias and puts it in the right place.
If you load the masterbiass, masterdarks and BPMs for all channels it works as expected. The right ones are matched because APP will match them on the gain value.
As soon as you load those masters for a specific filter, then a bug is indeed triggered:
As you can see, the flats have H & G as filters, and the masters have Green and Hydorgen-alpha, because of this they are not matched... I will fix this a.s.a.p
Again you trigger a bug by using filter assignments of only 1 letter ;-), should work though... 😉
Thanks again for reporting.
Mabula
This post was modified 4 years ago by Mabula-Admin
You are correct about why I am scaling the MasterDarkFlat - but I did include a MasterBias, as you will see when you look at the uploaded file. I just use the MasterDark button and select all my calibration files. APP automatically recognizes the MasterBias and puts it in the right place.
You will not get a critical calibration warning next time (I hope... 😉 ), the one-letter filter assignments are converted to a logical full name for both the flats and the masters and then matching works correctly. Scaling is enabled as well and applied because the masterbias is assigned as well.
I will soon release a 1.078 beta version so you can test 😉
As far as I remember I've always used single letter filter names. Maybe the names were converted to longer ones internally when the masters were created.
If I ignore the warning in 1.077, is the calibration still carried out correctly, or should I use 1.075 until 1.078 beta is released?
As far as I remember I've always used single letter filter names. Maybe the names were converted to longer ones internally when the masters were created.
If I ignore the warning in 1.077, is the calibration still carried out correctly, or should I use 1.075 until 1.078 beta is released?
then matching will not work and thus you will get a warning (which is a good thing here).
You can still use 1.077, but when you load the frames, don't use the filter header tag but choose the preset filter names as provided like Green and Hydrogen-Alpha, then all should work fine.
If you persist on using the filter header tag when loading the frames, then it is best to go back to 1.075 for now and wait for my new beta release. Think that will be provided within 1-2 days time.
