PixInsight Forum (historical)
PixInsight => Bug Reports => Topic started by: fmeschia on 2019 February 03 22:32:21
-
Hello,
I noticed what I think is a strange, or inconsistent, behavior in PixInsight when I drag one process step from the history of an image onto another image. In short, what I observe is that the process step is applied to the target image without any regard for the mask that was listed in the history for that step, although the history for the second image shows the step as being applied with the original mask.
Proof of concept:
1 - create one 512x512 pixel greyscale image, with fixed value 0.5. Give this view the name “Image01” (if not automatically done by PI)
2 - duplicate Image1 and give the new view the name “Mask”
3 - apply the following pixelmath expression to the view “Mask”: iif(xpos()>128 && xpos()<384, iif(ypos()>128 && ypos()<384, 1, 0), 0) – The result should be like the one visible in the first attachment.
4 - duplicate Image1 again, and give the new view the name “Image02”
5 - apply “Mask” to “Image01”
6 - apply the following pixelmath expression to the view “Image01”: 0 (a fixed value of 0). The result should be like the one visible in the second attachment, i.e. a black square in the middle of the image
7 - open the history explorer for “Image01”, verify that the pixelmath step is there, masked with “Mask”
8 - drag the pixelmath step from the history of “Image01” onto “Image02”. The image will turn entirely black, as it would be if the mask associated with the process step in the history had been ignored.
9 - open the history explorer for “Image02”. Note how the pixelmath step for Image02 is also listed as being masked with “Mask”. However, this is not true, as Image02 clearly shows that the mask was not honored. The two histories for Image01 and Image02 show the same step applied to two identical sources, with different results, which seems inconsistent.
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
Francesco
-
Attached you can find the two histories.
-
The same happens when I drag and drop individual process steps from a ProcessContainer (as opposed to applying the entire process container – which honors the masks associated with each step correctly)
-
i think it's always been like this (at least 10 years anyway) and so i've assumed that this works the way juan intended it to...? he'd have to chime in.
rob
-
i think it's always been like this (at least 10 years anyway) and so i've assumed that this works the way juan intended it to...? he'd have to chime in.
rob
Thanks. Yes, it’s been there for a while, but I still think it’s inconsistent to show the mask as being honored in the history, whereas it is actually ignored.
-
yes i agree - i don't think i had ever noticed the inconsistency, since when i discovered the behavior you have identified, i just started applying the mask by hand.
rob
-
Bumping this topic... I wonder if Juan had a chance to take a look.
Francesco
-
Hi Francesco, Rob,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you here. Yes, this is a long standing bug. I am going to fix it in the new version of PixInsight that I'll release very soon. Thank you for detecting and analyzing it, and sorry for the lack of response, and for the inconvenience.
-
Thank you, Juan!
Francesco
-
This bug is now fixed in the next version of PixInsight 1.8.6, which will be released in a few days. Thank you for your help.