fits or raw files f...
 
Share:
Notifications
Clear all

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.  Before I release it, I will make sure that everything is working properly and then I will release it.

fits or raw files from stellarmate?

3 Posts
2 Users
1 Reactions
2,933 Views
(@pootle)
Brown Dwarf
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4
Topic starter  

I'm using stellarmate and currently I have it set to convert the files immediately to fits files (the raw files are not saved). This is useful for monitoring.

The resulting fits files seem to process fairly well through APP.

Would processing from raw files improve processing at all?

I am using a Canon EOS Ra camera

PS: The fits files contain the raw sensor data - but only the image area, not the full sensor area


This topic was modified 4 years ago by Iain Malcolm

   
ReplyQuote
(@wvreeven)
Quasar
Joined: 8 years ago
Posts: 2134
 

@pootle Hi Iain,

I have imaged with a DSLR and Ekos myself, albeit some years ago. Ekos does a really good job converting and both raw and fits files give the same results. In this particular case, the same metadata (like telescope used, the observer and which filter used) are stored in the raw and fits files so that's no reason to revert to using raw files either.

I'd suggest sticking with fits files since to my best of knowledge they are more widely supported than Canon raw files.

HTH, Wouter



   
ReplyQuote
(@pootle)
Brown Dwarf
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 4
Topic starter  

Thanks Wouter, I'll carry on using FITS for now.



   
ReplyQuote
Share: