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. Before I release it, I will make sure that everything is working properly and then I will release it.
Hi Mabula,
perhaps it already exists, but I could not find it: I would appreciate to have an ASCII-file export of the quality scores of all the subs in the processing. Such a file would allow me to analyse the set-up and to see if there is correlation between quality and regions or periods (both on a small and large scale). Preferably such a file would comprise (at least) of the following data:
- Date
- Time
- Temperature (if available from FITS header)
- Humidity (if available from FITS header)
- Pressure (if available from FITS header)
- Image coordinates in RA/DEC (this may vary due to dithering)
- Image coordinates in ALT/AZI
- Star count
- Star roundness (median?)
- FWHM (median?)
- Background level (ADU)
- Noise (ADU)
- Any other readily available quality indicator that I missed here...
- A field indicating whether or not the sub was rejected based on quality
Thanks in advance!
Nicolàs
Hi Nicolàs @infinnity-deck,
There is no such option yet. I have added it to my todo list, but it will take some time before this can be implemented because of other higher priorities.
I think it is usefull idea though, so therefore I added it to my ToDo list.
For your information, the quality scores are a relative score, so you will need to treat it as such. A score of 1000 for a certain image scale can be a completely different score in terms of actual quality of the data, when compared to a score of 1000 for another image scale shot at another location with another telescope.... so for 1 single setup with the same equipment you can use it to deduct meaningfull information when you vary the exposure time for instance.
Mabula
Hi Mabula,
thanks for your response, I am glad you like the idea and am willing to include it. That the quality figure is relative is fine for my application as I am always imaging using the same set-up. Besides, once implemented, I would also have the separate quality indicators as eccentricity and FWHM to my availability.
Hopefully you to-do list is not too long 😉 (but then I am not in a great hurry).
cheers,
Nicolàs
