Integration stops d...
 
Share:
Notifications
Clear all

2022-09-02: APP 2.0.0-beta4 has been released !

Release notes

Download links per platform:

windows 2.0.0-beta4

macOS x86_64 2.0.0-beta4

macOS arm64 M1 2.0.0-beta4

Linux DEB 2.0.0-beta4

Linux RPM 2.0.0-beta4

Integration stops during "6) Integration: LNC: iter 1 performing LNC calculation..."


 See
(@kowalski)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 5
Topic starter  

Hello Guys, my integration stops (no progress) during 6) Integration: LNC: iter 1 performing LNC calculation...

(see screenshot: "1) LOAD")

It does not continue. Showing progress of "completed 28%" the whole time.

What can I do? Should I just wait some hours? (usually my PC is very fast with 32MB RAM and a new generation CPU)

The blue/white "balloons" under the "completed 28%" message are still mooving, but I don´t see any other progress..

I loaded 60 Ha lights, Masterdark, Masterflat and Masterdarkflat.

Tried also with single frames (not masters). Did not help. All frames captured with same camera & optics in the same night. This are my settings:

1) LOAD:

image

2) CALIBRATE:

image
image
image

 3) ANALYSE STARS:

image

4) REGISTER:

image
image

5) NORMALIZE:

image

 6) INTEGRATE:

image
image

additional information:

image
image

 

 

 

 

This topic was modified 2 months ago 3 times by See

ReplyQuote
(@wvreeven)
Galaxy Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1881
 

@kowalski Hi! Is there any reason not to use the defaults? You have disabled 32 bit masters in tab 2 and changed the scale stop tab 4. Possibly there are other changes as well. Please try with everything at default and let us know if that helped.

Thanks, Wouter


ReplyQuote
 See
(@kowalski)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 5
Topic starter  

Hi Wouter, it finally worked after I set everything to default as you suggested. But I also could not use the before created Masters.. Even not the 16Bit Masters. However, its a miricle to me why it did not work with LCN 1st degree..

Thanks a lot for your fast reply!

Have a nice day


ReplyQuote
 See
(@kowalski)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 5
Topic starter  

For the OIII channel with the same settings I have got this result:

image

There are crosses instead of stars.. :

Zoom:

image

🙁

 

Should I maybe enable the "neutralize background" option in 5) NORMALIZE?

(I just know it did not work well in previous APP versions)

For now I have it disabled

This post was modified 2 months ago 4 times by See

ReplyQuote
(@wvreeven)
Galaxy Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1881
 

@kowalski What camera, telescope and filter did you use to shoot the OIII data? What software to shoot those data with? What exposure time, what gain/ISO and what temperature (if the camera is cooled)? Did you make sure to use the same gain/ISO and temperature for the calibration data?


ReplyQuote
 See
(@kowalski)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 5
Topic starter  

Dear Wouter, for Ha and OIII was all the same:

- QHY268M camera cooled at -10°C

- 100/550 refractor

- 3nm HA and OIII NB filters

- Gain 56 for Lights and Darks

- Only for Darks an offset of 20 was used, whereas for all other data an offset of 10 was used

- Software: NINA

- The Gain (56) was the same for Darks and Lights BUT was different for Flats and Darkflats because I wantet to keep the exposure time for Flats and Darkflats short, therefore I increased the gain for Flats and Darkflats. But I dont think its a problem because the Histogram of Flats and Darkflats I checked and it looks good. Also I use this Flats and Darkflats always as well wirh RGB data. It always worked well so far..

It might be Flats and Darkflats are rotated by eg 1° compared to lights as i had to do them at home and not in the field..

Master Flat:

 

image

 

This post was modified 2 months ago 2 times by See

ReplyQuote
(@wvreeven)
Galaxy Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1881
 
Posted by: @kowalski

- Only for Darks an offset of 20 was used, whereas for all other data an offset of 10 was used

Any particular reason why? The offset of the lights and calibration data always needs to be the same.

Posted by: @kowalski

The Gain (56) was the same for Darks and Lights BUT was different for Flats and Darkflats because I wantet to keep the exposure time for Flats and Darkflats short, therefore I increased the gain for Flats and Darkflats. But I dont think its a problem because the Histogram of Flats and Darkflats I checked and it looks good. Also I use this Flats and Darkflats always as well wirh RGB data. It always worked well so far..

This is correct. As long as the gain, offset and temperature of the lights and darks are the same and for the flats and darkflats are the same, you're good.

What exposure time did you use for the lights? And did you make sure that the exposure time of the lights and darks was the same? And for the flats and darkflats as well?


ReplyQuote
 See
(@kowalski)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 5
Topic starter  

@wvreeven 

Its dificult here to quote for more then one sentence so I try to answer that way..

Any particular reason why? The offset of the lights and calibration data always needs to be the same.

I changed all my exposure from offset 20 to 10 but had the old darks with offset 20. Need to do new darks with offset 10..

 

What exposure time did you use for the lights? And did you make sure that the exposure time of the lights and darks was the same? And for the flats and darkflats as well?

- Of course same exposure for lights and darks (240s)

- Also same exposure time for flats and darkflats

 

In the meantime - after 10th attempt - I could get a result for the OIII as well. It worked when i have done the integration without darks, flats and darkflats at all (what is not perfect of course). But at least the Night is not wasted. I also got a result without darks (but with flats and darkflats) but then the result was bad because then I saw a "negative" vignetting in the picture.

KR

This post was modified 2 months ago 2 times by See

ReplyQuote
(@wvreeven)
Galaxy Admin
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 1881
 
Posted by: @kowalski

Its dificult here to quote for more then one sentence so I try to answer that way..

You can select the text you want to quote and then click the quote icon that pops up.

Posted by: @kowalski

Of course same exposure for lights and darks (240s)

Great! I was pretty sure you were doing that but wanted to be 100% sure 🙂

Posted by: @kowalski

Also same exposure time for flats and darkflats

Also great!

Regarding the negative vignetting result without using darks, that seems to indicate that the way you create flats may not be good enough for OIII.

Also, a quick internet search showed that this camera generally is used with a higher offset than 10. The recommended value seems to be 50 but values as low as 25 are used. You may want to consider upping that again. But I by no means know much about QHY cameras so that's just me trying to be helpful 🙂

 


See liked
ReplyQuote
Share: