How to act on a set of images in a single operation | Cómo actuar sobre un conjunto de imágenes en una única operación

[Astrocava]

T

yo cambiaría la sintaxis '!grep' por 'system (grep)' y eliminaría el bang.

Yo pondría system como opción, aparte de bang. El bang me gusta (y system también).

 :shock:    

[David Serrano]

Propongo también que sea posible './PixInsight foobar.psm *.jpg'. O también con una sintaxis más explícita en ambos casos: './PixInsight --run [ file.scp | file.psm ] images*.jpg'.

Hmm, veo que ya hay una opción -r. Para diferenciar la nueva de la existente, la nueva entonces podría ser --batch por ejemplo.

[Niall Saunders]

No,

I agree with Sander, the 'beginning' of the thread was interesting.

The remainder of the thread doesn't benefit from the cooperation of many, many interested parties - none of whom speak Spanish.

I'm sorry to have to say this - but keeping your exchanges in Spanish just doesn't help. It's like not providing the documentation that is so necessary to keep PI alaive.

I know from personal experience that many potential users are put off PixInsight for these two reasons alone :-

a.) Insufficient documentation

and

b.) Such documentation as does exist often being provided in Spanish only

Now, (a) can be excused, providing (b) is avoided.

Similarly, if the development team wish to converse ENTITELY in Spanish, that would be perfectly acceptable, but the documentation MUST then be made available - in English.

Now, I can speak French, and can get on pretty well in Spanish (reading only, providing I know the basic subject material) - so this 'complaint' is not just to cover my 'linguistic laziness'. I really just feel that PixInsight would benefit hugely if the PI Forum was conducted in the 'Language of the Internet'.

Cheers,

[james7]

An old topic, but now we have Google Translate so any english-only reader interested in this discussion can just click this:

  https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpixinsight.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D968.0&edit-text=

[Niall Saunders]

Yes - Google Translate has its usefulness. But, not for 'technical translations'.

I performed technical translations throught my 35-year working career (French to English), but the only way I believe technical translations can be truly meaningful is if they are translated *into* the translator's *native* language, by a translator who already has a thorough technical, and proficient, understanding of the material in question. Once translated, the information should be proof-read by a second technical person (or the original author) who has a *good* understanding in the new language of the document. That way, errors in the translation process can be avoided, or corrected.

You don't get that with an automated system. You could conceivably end up with a totally erroneous understanding of a topic, simply because the original document was not some form of 'casual text'. A computerised translator does not 'learn' from what it translates - there is highly likely to be no form of AI in the process (so the 'machine' never actually 'learns' from the translated information), and there will not be an external, 'human', closed-loop to correct translation errors.

My whole family, for three generations, has been heavily involved in the world of translation. My grandfather performed 'live' translation for the United Nations (English - French - German) and I was invited to watch the translator's ('behind the scenes' - the voices in their headphones) ar work. They were only mentally (and physically) capable of performing 'live' translation work for 15 minutes at a time, once per working day. They had to be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CORRECT. At the first error, or upon the expiry of their alotted 15-minute session, they handed over to the next person on the team, and then they took over the #2 role - checking on the accuracy of the #1 translator. Then they fell back to a #3 position, and checked the accuracy of the #1 and #2 translators for the next three hours, before ensuring that all conversations from that day were handed to the stenographers for typing-up. The following day involved proof-reading the hard-copy against the tape-recordings from earlier sessions.

Some of these guys stopped wars