Odd result when integrating with 'per channel and all' option  

  RSS

(@mestutters)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 25
January 15, 2019 10:33  

Hi Mabula,

I am getting an odd result in the Blue and combined Luminance channels when processing a set of subs using the 'per channel and all' option.

If I deselect all but the Blue subs and process these separately using the per channel option, the result is as expected.

Results using 'per channels and all' option:

St avg 11820.0s WC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB26 Lum 1stLNC it3 St

 

St avg 12600.0s WC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB26 Red 1stLNC it2 St

St avg 14220.0s WC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB26 Green 1stLNC it3 St

St avg 4680.0s WC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB26 Blue 1stLNC it1 St

St avg 43320.0s WC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB26 Lum Red Green Blue St

Result of processing Blue subs separately:

St avg 4680.0s WC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB26 Blue 1stLNC it1 1 St

I'm planning to capture some more Blue subs when the weather permits.  I was interested in assessing my progress to date when this issue during integration arose.  The Blue result to date is clearly rather noisy.

I thought at first that the odd result might be due to my choice of outlier rejection option but I have experimented with several of the other choices and always get an anomalous result.

The Red, Green and Blue subs are binned 2x2.  The Blue integration uses the same MB, MD and BPM is Red and Green.  I see no particular difference between the Blue MF and Red and Green MFs.

Regards

Mike


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1956
January 23, 2019 22:45  

Hi Mike @mestutters,

I see clearly that something is not right indeed. Have you checked the individual blue frames for any artefacts? what happens if you process all data without doing any calibration?

Please send me the data if you want me to have a proper look at what is happening here.

Send it to support@astropixelprocessor.com using dropbox or wetransfer.

Maybe the data triggers a bug in calibration or somewhere else or the data has a strange anomaly..

Kind regards,

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
(@mestutters)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 25
February 2, 2019 17:47  

Hi Mabula,

I am still struggling with this one.   I have managed to capture some additional Blue subs and on first processing everything seemed to work OK although I was not able to combine the resulting LRGB integrations  to achieve a satisfactory result owing to strong colour casts.  

I have been trying since to reprocess the integrations after omitting some of the lower quality subs but unfortunately have been getting similar anomalous results to the ones reported above.   I will see if I can get a repeat of the anomalous results using fewer subs and if I do I will send the data to you.

One problem I think exists is in the process of assigning Master Flats to Lights.  I have loaded separate 1x1 and 2x2 MFs for each each filter.   APP asks me to select a MF to assign a light, see screen shot, but then asks only if it should assign this MF to all lights with the same ISO/gain and dimensions.  If I agree to this it assigns the MF to the relevant lights regardless of the filter.   If  I do not agree, I have to work through my lights individually assigning the correct MF  to each one.  To me it seems it would be more appropriate to assign the MF selected until a change of filter and and only then to repeat the assignment question.  

Regards

Mike

NB:  I do have the Multi-Channel/Filter Processing option selected at Load Files.

Screenshot 2019 02 02 16.06.37

This post was modified 2 weeks ago by mestutters

ReplyQuote
(@mestutters)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 25
February 4, 2019 16:56  

Hi Mabula,

I have now managed successfully to integrate my stack of M81 subs on three or four  occasions.

I am now fairly certain that the problem I reported at the start of this thread was due to a mistake/inexperience on my part when assigning preexisting MFs to lights.

My stack of lights includes both binned and unbinned RGB frames and I have loaded both binned and unbinned BPMs, MDs and RGB MFs,  and I am using the Multi-Channel/Filter processing option.

I think my error started when presented with the dialogue box shown at the above screenshot.

To my mind, APP at this point should be asking if the selected MF should be assigned to 'all light frames  shot with the same filter, ISO/gain value and dimensions'      or  perhaps  'all <filter name> frames with the same ISO/gain value and dimensions'.      With the dialogue as it stands, if the option is selected,  MFs will be incorrectly assigned to some of the lights.

To avoid this it is currently necessary to assign MFs to each light individually, which with a stack of more than a handful of lights becomes very tedious.

I hope my assessment is correct.  

I am hoping with a bit more work I can bring out Holmberg IX irregular galaxy and the starburst features of M82.

Best Regards

Mike

Integrations successfully processed with 'Per Channel and All option'

St avg 55320.0s LNMWC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB13 Lum Red Green Blue 1stLNC it3 St
St avg 15300.0s LNMWC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB13 Blue 1stLNC it3 St
St avg 14520.0s LNMWC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB13 Red 1stLNC it2 St
St avg 10080.0s LNMWC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB13 Green 1stLNC it3 St
St avg 15420.0s LNMWC 1 3.0 none x 1.0 LZ3 NS ref qua add sc BWMV nor AAD RL MBB13 Lum 1stLNC it3 St

RGB combined image

combine RGB image v01.01.01 mod lpc cbg lpc cbg St

This post was modified 2 weeks ago by mestutters

ReplyQuote
(@mabula-admin)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 1956
February 11, 2019 22:16  

Dear Mike @mestutters,

Thank you very much for your extensive feedback here.

I will have a good look at the code of MasterFlat assignment in the mult-channel and session modes. I agree, if you choose to apply it on all, then it should be done only on the same filter.

Kind regards,

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
(@mestutters)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 1 year ago
Posts: 25
February 12, 2019 14:42  

Hi Mabula,

I might just add, in case it is not clear from my description above, that I don't think this problem occurs during initial loading and processing of a set of lights but when for some reason I've decided I would like to redo an integration with a changed parameter value.

My recollection is that the file list showed all the correct calibration frame assignments from the earlier integration but for some reason  APP thinks it necessary to reestablish the MF assignments.   I'm not clear if the original file assignments have been lost by APP despite the file list showing the correct information, or if APP thinks something has been or may have been changed such that it considers it necessary for the MF assignments to reverified.

Hope this helps

Mike

This post was modified 3 days ago by mestutters

ReplyQuote
Share: