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.
Hello!
I have a narrowband dataset taken with a DSLR and a L-Extreme filter. I usually integrate Ha & Oiii separately so I can then compose them back with StarTools.
I've done best 90%, 80% and 60% integrations for both emission lines. Then, cleared all loaded data from APP and re-loaded those integrations as light frames and ran "Normalize" so that they get analyzed.
What I found is that the best quality score depend on the emission line:
* For Ha: 90% best subs
* For Oiii: 60% best subs
I did this analysis because I want to get a good balance between SNR & FWHM and I think the quality score is a good relative measure of that.
So, here's my question: Would it make sense that I pick different % integrations based on the best quality scores of each emission line to get the best composite possible?
Â
Thanks in advance,
Lucas
If that would make sense totally depends on your data, it sounds like you tested this already and that's the best way to judge that I think. I personally would always go for 90-100% depending on what I know the quality of the night has been, when your setup is behaving well and the nights were good enough, that always seems to work nicely. If you have data from nights with a full moon or lots of troubles, then I would probably make separate integrations.
