Version 1.061 - found two issues  

  RSS

 Henk
(@latour)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined:6 months  ago
Posts: 4
May 22, 2018 12:48  

Hi Mabula,

Version 1.061 works a treat. So much easier to process data from multiple nights. And the final integrations seem to have a bit more detail indeed.

I have noticed two issues:

1. When loading two BPM's, one for each session, during Light calibration APP reverts to one session's BPM for all sessions. See attachment with subset of data.

2. When integrating and choosing 'Integrate All' for multiple sessions, the final integrated result says 'Integration 1 session 2'. See attachment. This is confusing as I was integration all sessions. Perhaps better to say 'Integration 1 Sessions all' or 'Integration 1 session 1 session 2'?

If I have it all wrong and it works as designed, please correct me.  😀 

Screen Shot 2018 05 21 at 18.59.08

Great to see frequent updates. Keep up the good work!

Regards, Henk


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-haverkamp-administrator)
Quasar Admin
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 1632
May 23, 2018 13:52  

Hi Henk @latour,

Thank you very much for your feedback. Let me address your concerns:

  1. Loading 2 BPMs for different sessions is not needed. A BPM is a defect map of the camera's sensor and 1 Bad Pixel Map can usually be used for several months or even years with very high efficiency. Just make sure that you make 1 BPM that works efficiently and use that on all your data 😉 The Bad Pixel Map is not dependent on the exposure time and ISO/gain values that you use, so it can be applied to all lights with different exposure times and ISO/gain values.
  2. I will test this this afternoon, perhaps the naming is off for the "all sessions" integration. It should be "Integration 1 session 1 session 2" in your case.

 

Thank you Henk 😉

Kind regards,

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
 Henk
(@latour)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined:6 months  ago
Posts: 4
May 27, 2018 17:39  

Hi Mabula,

Thanks for swift answers.

As for 1), what if I have lights from same object from two cameras with the same iso/gain and would like to integrate all together. Would I not need a BPM for each camera?

Best regards,

Henk  


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-haverkamp-administrator)
Quasar Admin
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 1632
May 28, 2018 15:29  

Hi Henk @latour,

Indeed, that's needed then, and that is possible, the Bad Pixel Maps are discriminated per camera/instrument name. So the 2 Bad Pixel Maps will need to have a different isntrument name to make it work. The Instrument name can be modified with the batch modify tool.

I got a report from another user that was using the same camera, but with and without 2x binning, and that gave a problem. So I need to make this a bit more flexible and smarter, it's on my ToDo for next version.

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
 Henk
(@latour)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined:6 months  ago
Posts: 4
May 29, 2018 15:11  

Great. Thanks, Mabula!

Regards, Henk


ReplyQuote
 Henk
(@latour)
Molecular Cloud Customer
Joined:6 months  ago
Posts: 4
May 29, 2018 15:14  

Sorry, too quick on the draw.

Wanted to add that assigning different BPM's to different sessions (as per master dark/flats) would fix the issue, would it not?

Cheers, Henk


ReplyQuote
(@mabula-haverkamp-administrator)
Quasar Admin
Joined:1 year  ago
Posts: 1632
June 9, 2018 21:58  
Posted by: Henk

Sorry, too quick on the draw.

Wanted to add that assigning different BPM's to different sessions (as per master dark/flats) would fix the issue, would it not?

Cheers, Henk

Hi @latour,

Yes, that should prove to be a good work around. But if you used the same camera in different sessions, then you could simply suffice with 1 Bad Pixel Map. Just make sure that you make 1 good Bad Pixel Map per camera that you have 😉

Mabula

Main developer of Astro Pixel Processor and owner of Aries Productions


ReplyQuote
Share: