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.
Hi, I am in the process of combining data from multiple telescopes over multiple nights. These happen to be Seestar S50s, where the default integration time is 10 seconds. Therefore when combining multiple nights and telescopes, it is very easy to get into thousands of individual RAW files to integrate.
It would be simpler to individually integrate each scope/night into a FITS file, and then combine the several FITS files. I know APP can do this, but is there a functional difference between this and throwing all the thousands of RAW files into a big pile made of several sessions, and integrating them all? This I suppose would be the "standard" way.Â
Specifically, while they are from the same scope and hence have the same optical train and sensor (convenient), they are not all the same length. Some may have 1200 lights, while others only say 500. When stacking FITS files, does/can APP take this into account by weighting? Or will APP just evaluate their individual quality, and weight them like that? Â
Thanks,
- Rich Klein
I would definitely stack all the data from each telescope as master lights, then take those master lights and run those as a mosaic if there are big differences in FoV and overlap, otherwise as a normal integration with same camera and optics unchecked. On the normalization tab make sure you have it set to advanced, then on the integration tab uncheck MBB and set local normalization correction to 4th degree and 5 iterations at the least. That gives me good results when stacking multiple telescopes. It is also much faster because you aren't trying to register and normalize multiple FoVs against each other as individual raw files.
So the steps are:
Stack the lights from each telescope as master lights.
Put those master lights in as lights after you have all your data together (if combining OSC and NB data split the OSC into channels and then stack those as master lights)
On tab 3 set it to 2000 stars (trust me on this one)
On tab 4 uncheck same camera and optics, and if you are doing a mosaic set it to that with a 1-10, 5-15, or 1-15
On tab 5 set mode to advanced
On tab 6 uncheck MBB if you have it checked (I normally leave it checked and at either 10 or 15 percent), then set local normilization correction to 4th degree 5 iterations. I normally leave it at 2nd degree 3 iterations for most of my stuff.
Then hit integrate.
As a note if you have large variance between the pixel count of your cameras you may want to either decrease the size of some of the large pixel count ones or increase the size of the small pixel count ones. I learned that with combining data from an FLI PL16083 and QHY600M Pro.
