2023-03-15: APP 2.0.0-beta14 has been released !
IMPROVED FRAME LIST, sorting on column header click and you can move the columns now which will be preserved between restarts.
We are very close now to releasing APP 2.0.0 stable with a complete printable manual...
Astro Pixel Processor Windows 64-bit
Astro Pixel Processor macOS Intel 64-bit
Astro Pixel Processor macOS Apple M Silicon 64-bit
Astro Pixel Processor Linux DEB 64-bit
Astro Pixel Processor Linux RPM 64-bit
Problem Processing FLI Kepler Images
Looking for help using APP to process data from the FLI KL4040 or KL400. This camera is based on a Scientific CMOS chip and has large amounts of Fixed Pattern Noise. I have been trying to process the subs with APP and getting tons of strange artifacts in the calibrated and integrated images, as well as warning messages about being unable to normalize many of the subs. I'll post a zoom of a calibrated image as well as an integration, will submit links to the FITS files later. Done without Adaptive pedestal, using matching darks and bias-calibrated flats. Images were heavily dithered - note I could process in Pixinsight significantly more successfully, but I love APP and hoping we can figure out whats happening
Please note the AFTER calibration is first and then the BEFORE
Hi @whixson those subs do look quite challenging indeed. What kind of processing do you do in PI to get a more succesful result? Could you post a result of that as well? I think it's best if I look at the data and calibration frames to see if I can get it to work. You can upload them to the APP server: server with username and password: appuser
Please create a folder with your name first.
PI processing was pretty much along the lines in Warren Keller's book. I didn't do any dark scaling though. Lights were calibrated with matched darks, and flats, because they were sky flats of different exposure lengths, with bias master only because it was impractical to have matching darks. I should note I heavily dithered every other exposure.
I'm attaching the same zoom-in of the raw sub, calibrated, cosmetically corrected subs and the integrated master. As you can see, although the calibrated sub still had issues, it didn't have the columnar smearing I got with APP. Cosmetic Correction helped a lot, although I see I could have been even more aggressive. The master is where things got better, where I think the dithering helped a lot.
I'll post this and then go upload a subset of my files. Thanks again! This is a great camera in many ways, but calibration is a whole new ballgame!
EDIT: Just posted 9 files each Ha lights, matching darks, biases and flats. Note I used 1 second subs as biases based on a recommendation I got from another user. Good luck!!
I'll get to it in due time, please allow for up to a few days. 🙂
No problem! Thanks for looking into this.
Ok, what about this one; can't exactly tell what region you have there and I hope the JPG will show enough (right-click and open in a new tab for 100% view). This is right after integration, no extra touch ups.
And a crop;
Looks amazing Vincent - what were your settings? That's great!
Excellent! So I didn't do anything really out of the ordinary, I figured doing things slightly different than you already tried might work, apparently it did straight away. 😉
I notice several things different. I didn’t do dynamic distortion correction or MBB, or the MAD sigma clip. Did you do anything special with darks, flats or biases settings? Scaling?
I’ll try again with the full data set. Maybr I had too much data 😂 or some bad subs, although I did blink them in PI before processing
thanks, excited now to try again
Nope, nothing special, simply the above settings. You might want to stack like 90% or so based on quality with the bigger dataset. The sigma clipping I did because of the amount of noise it has, it might help a bit but you can experiment on a small sample like this set. The distortion correction I figured might be helpful as your registration looked wrong. MBB on a dataset like this won't have a dramatic effect, just maybe the edges of the integration.
Thanks Vincent - I think that made all the difference! I'll post the result