Very strange integr...
 
Share:
Notifications
Clear all

2022-05-29: APP 2.0.0-beta2 has been released !

Release notes

Download links per platform:

windows 2.0.0-beta2

macOS x86_64 2.0.0-beta2

macOS arm64 M1 2.0.0-beta2

Linux DEB 2.0.0-beta2

Linux RPM 2.0.0-beta2

[Sticky] Very strange integration result - check if you're using a FAT32 filesystem

Page 3 / 3

(@vincent-mod)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 4919
 

But why is the image having this amount of vignetting? Your flats are working quite well from what I saw, so that shouldn't be the case.

ps. You use either DF or bias for correction of the flats.


ReplyQuote
(@tmyers)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 56
 

OK I will re-run later this weekend. I did notice that the vignetting was bad and the flats didn't appear to take out any of the dust.  I will figure that out.

 

Interesting thing is that i did some post processing and then cropped and the banding did not appear. This is only a couple hours of data, so I need to get more but it is getting there.

 

image

ReplyQuote
(@tmyers)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 56
 

I have been away for awhile. Purchased a rental license today for APP. This will give me a year to figure things out.

I processed the M101 again today and left the Bias frames out of the mix. Still had the horizontal banding. I was looking things over and noticed that I had 40 each of flats, and dark flats. I then remembered that I had mistakenly taken my first set of F and DF at 0 gain. I usually take my F and DF at the same gain as my lights, so I retook them. I had been selecting all forty of each, so I am running it again just using the ones that match the gain of the Lights, to see what comes of it.

 

Trying to fully understand what Mabula is suggesting for L, D, B, F, and DF.

Do I need both Bias and DF frames or just one of those? Should everything be at the same gain?

 


ReplyQuote
(@tmyers)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 56
 

Ran the processing a second time still had the horizontal banding. I checked my MD, MDF, and MF, didn't see anything out of the ordinary with the image. Oh and this time the banding was present before cropping. At some point I am going to have to decide it is the light frames that are the culprit and try processing a different data set.

For now I am going to run with a reduced number of lights (takes less time) to see if the banding is there.

 

You had mentioned me sending the entire data set, I might take you up on that

This post was modified 2 years ago by Timothy Myers

ReplyQuote
(@tmyers)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 56
 

Ok, an update. I ran multiple processes. Six in total. Hit a string of data sets and finally landed on success with L, D, DF, and F, no bias.

 

Dropped to 30 L frames, with no banding.

Did 84 frames, no banding

Then I ran with all the L frames checked frames after calibration and Normalization to see if there were any issues, but none were present. I removed any frame with a score less than 20, just in case they were causing the problems but in the end the banding came back.

 

Suggestions? Running tests with all the data takes up to 3 hours to perform, slow process.

 

image

ReplyQuote
(@tmyers)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 56
 

More information, I went ahead and did some Tools work on the image and noticed that as I choose different stretch values that the horizontal lines would eventually turn to vertical lines. Quite bizarre.


ReplyQuote
(@vincent-mod)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 4919
 

Yes this is getting a bit bizarre indeed. We would need to have a look at the dataset to be able to really understand what is going on. If you want you can upload the data to our server;

https://ariesprodstor.astropixelprocessor.com:7001/  with username and password: appuser

Please create a directory called “tmeyers-bizarredbanding” and upload in there. 😉


ReplyQuote
(@tmyers)
Main Sequence Star Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 56
 

I uploaded the files


ReplyQuote
(@fotografiepeterkuehnlgmail-com)
Hydrogen Atom Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 3
 
IMG 20201113 WA0007

what's the matter with this plz help I have those artefacts on all pics.

Nikon 5300a

Stc dual narrowband filter 

Nikkor 200fl


ReplyQuote
(@vincent-mod)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 4919
 

What's the process you went through, like what APP version, what settings did you use and what type of data (including calibration data)?


ReplyQuote
(@fotografiepeterkuehnlgmail-com)
Hydrogen Atom Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 3
 
IMG 20201116 003548
IMG 20201116 003541
IMG 20201116 003534
IMG 20201116 003529
IMG 20201116 003528
IMG 20201116 003506
IMG 20201116 003518
IMG 20201116 003500
IMG 20201116 003456

ReplyQuote
(@vincent-mod)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 4919
 

Difficult to see what might be wrong here. Just FYI, you don't need the cosmetic correction when you have proper bias, darks and flats usually. Only when there is clear residual noise present (like bad columns and still quite a few hot pixels).

This does look like a data issue somehow, I think I need to look at the data to get a better understanding.

Please upload some of the relevant subs to our server;

Go to https://upload.astropixelprocessor.com and use upload2 as username and upload2 as password.

Create a directory named “fotografiepeterkuehnlgmail-com” and upload in there. Thank you!


ReplyQuote
(@fotografiepeterkuehnlgmail-com)
Hydrogen Atom Customer
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 3
 

I sent you the pics via upload link thx for the help


ReplyQuote
(@vincent-mod)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 4919
 

Thanks Peter, I will download those shortly.


ReplyQuote
(@vincent-mod)
Quasar Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 4919
 

Hi Peter,

Looking at the data now. First thing I notice is that they went through Adobe Lightroom and are already stretched and not linear. It's always better to take the raw files from your camera and feed them straight into APP. Other software may change properties about the data that may cause issues and I think this might be the case, looking at just one light and zooming in to 100%, the stars look like this;

SingleLight Screenshot

Which seems odd, they are somehow not round or fully visible. Could you try again with the raw files? Also do this with any calibration data you have, use the original files.


ReplyQuote
Page 3 / 3
Share: