Manual Image Integration vs. BPPscript?

[Warhen]

vpcirc, this is extremely valid! I'd have to assume BPP uses a random/perhaps first image as reference. As you say, using a high-quality 'cherry picked' sub in ImageIntegration should produce a better result. I'd like to hear from Juan if possible to confirm this. This would certainly be another example of BPP's integration limitation. Thanks guys!

[RickS]

The ImageIntegration documentation describes the use of the reference image quite well, so in this case it is both possible and beneficial to RTFM 

It's very difficult to guess good integration parameters so there's little point integrating with BPP unless it's just for a quick & dirty result that won't be used for further processing.

Cheers,
Rick.

[jkmorse]

Just to pick up on Rick's point, here is a quote from Juan:

"Don't use the BatchPreprocessing script to integrate your light frames. In most cases, BatchPreprocessing does a fine job for generation of master calibration frames, image calibration and registration. However, integration of light frames is a critical process requiring manual intervention to fine tune pixel rejection and image combination parameters. The integrated output of BatchPreprocessing can be used as a quick preview of the image that can be achieved, but it is not the optimal image by any means, and many times you're quite likely to get a grossly wrong result (e.g., invalid rejection of plane and satellite trails, etc.)."

Seems pretty definitive to me, IMHO,

Jim