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.
Dear Mabula, all,
While trying to calibrate data, I ran into a critical warning during the process to generate a master flat image.
I think I found the source of the issue, but I cannot solve it. A few days ago I generated a BPM and master bias for my camera. I used data obtained from a Nikon D600 dSLR full frame camera, via an ASIAIR unit to do so.Â
Using the MB frame I want to calibrate some older flat frames I made in 2021 and generate a master flat. I know this is not ideal, but I could not find the MB I made back then, so I figured using the current MB is better than nothing.
Anyway, there is some issue in combining these old flat frames and the newer MB frame. It states that it cannot properly perform the flat field calibration properly and that the flat frames require a MB with the same ISO/gain as the flat frames. But this IS the case, since my MB frame and the flat frames are both shot with the same camera and at ISO400.
The only difference is that the MB is generated with Nikon D600 data obtained using an ASIAIR. The flat frames are obtained from my Nikon D600 camera directly. I see in the dimensions header that there is some difference between the MB frame and the flat frames. Next to the flat frames it gives a range of resolutions... But when I look at the resolution from the flat frames in windows explorer, it exactly matches the MB frame (6034 x 4028).
Â
Am I doing something wrong, or is this possibly a bug in APP?
I am using the most recent version, 2.0.0-beta29.
Best regards,
Rob
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
