Image Probe - suggestion of 'Probe Size' when on the image

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Juan,

Here's another 'wish'

As far as I can see, the only way to know what 'size' of 'data probe' you are using is to go to one of the screens that allows you to 'configure' the 'probe size' square.

I wondered whether the probe 'size' could be shown in 'real time' when the cursor is hovering over the image.

Perhaps it only needs to 'appear'  as it has been defined when the user 'left clicks' on the image when the cursor has been set to 'Readout Mode [Alt-R]' - after all, you already display a small box when the user does this, but the size of the box does not correspond to the actual size of the 'data probe'.

This then could also be incorporated with a modified 'probe shape' - where the 'shape' of the 'probe' could also be, for example, circular, or even 'annular'.

Once this level of sophistication is implemented, then you can also start to provide the notion of a '3D' histogram, based on the probe shape and size. This would allow inspection and visualisation of the likes of the Point Spread Function (PSF) or the Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM)of stars within the image.

You were hoping that v1.5 was going to be the last update of PixInsight - I don't think so  :roll:

Cheers,

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Juan,

Whilst you were trying to get v1.5 rolled out I didn't bother following up on this suggestion.

However, what are your thoughts/feelings about displaying the 'size' of the readout probe in 'real time'?

Cheers,

[Nocturnal]

How about displaying the actual pixels somewhere like DSS and Fitswork do? I like this 'instant' magnifying glass functionality. Sure it could easily be implemented as a new Dynamic Process but that's not the point.

[Carlos Milovic]

Oops I was making that process, but never finished it I guess that it will gain a few points at the priority scale

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Carlos / Sander,

I think that Juan would have no objections if I quote directly from an email he sent me in response to the same question posed directly to him

> Have you had a chance to think about my suggestion regarding the  > display of the cursor when using the mouse to 'inspect' the image at,  > and aroound, a given pixel location?
 >
 > In other words, instead of the current 'fixed' cursor, the cursor  > shape and size becomes 'dynamic' reflecting the 'probe size' parameter  > specified by the user.

Yes, I agree this would be a nice feature. I plan on implementing it for version 1.6. I would like to write also something more "spectacular" in graphical terms. For example, a zoomed live preview of the probe region generated on the tool tip shown when the user clicks and drags the mouse over an image. PI's interface needs more "dynamism" in my opinion. All ideas are welcome, of course.

 > And, if that facility is capable of being implemented, then future  > enhancements might include statistical analysis based on an 'annular'
 > probe shape, perhaps even allowing FWHM analysis, a 'magnifying glass'
 > or even a dynamic inspection view that used the 3-D plot routines  > recently published.

I think these functions could better be implemented as independent "observer" tools, as Statistics. A FWHM calculation tool is a priority (it is essential for deconvolution for example).

So many things to do!

It would just be a shame to duplicate efforts when 'spare time' is always in demand 

As always, I admire those of you who can get code written for PI 'core' - I really must see if I can do more with the 'Sandbox' than just get grit in my eyes  (I am reasonably confident that I could polish my VERY basic skills with C - going well back to the days BEFORE 'OOP' to the point that I might be able to get a 'Hello World' ready for compilation - but that is where I feel I would stall completely - I would have absolutely no idea how to compile my code into a module useable within PI - and feel that I could never impose upon you guys to 'show me how', knowing, as I said, that spare time is never available in sufficient quantities to 'give away' !!)

Cheers,
(from, at last, an internet-connected hotel room in the middle of France, unfortunately surrounded by skies equally as miserable as I usually have back home !!)

[Nocturnal]

Hi Niall,

PCL programming is not for the faint of heart, that's for sure. It would be great if you could help out with it but truth be told PSJR scripts are very useful as well. It's something I haven't done at all though. So we all do our part in different ways

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Sander,

I hear what you are saying  

It is just that I sometimes really 'hate' not being able to do something  

I even went to night school, just to get a little diploma on being able to 'Program in C', because I refused to be beaten. But, I really have hated C ever since (but, then again, I now hate Basic - in its 'VB' incarnation - just as much   )

I suppose we have to accept that the increase in capabilities of PCs nowadays must be commensurate with an increase in complexity of the software. But I do sometimes hanker back to my trusty old BBC Acorn Microcomputer, with its Motorola 6500 processor and 'instant-on' ROM-based OS, with a fantastic implementation of BASIC and pure assembler. I even wrote, from scratch, a program that would decode, and display, the weather satellite information broadcast on VHF from the NOAA satellites, using the built-in A/D converter of the Beeb. I doubt I could even create code to 'find' the Mic In port of a PC nowadays, either in C or Basic for that matter !!

Yes, PJSR does have its idiosyncrasies (lots of them !!), but at least I didn't have to worry about 'compilation' or 'linking' et al. I just 'poached' somone elses Script and started modifying it to achieve MY aims - and every time I pressed <F9> something would happen (perhaps not always what I expected, or wanted of course !). I just was able to keep my script development moving onwards.

Of course, my CMYK deBayer Script would have stagnated had Juan not pointed out solutions to my (many) errors, most of which - it has to be said - were related back to OOP problems, and the fact that I just cannot keep my head above that particular quagmire.

Anyhow - I ought to get back to my PJSR modifications, which will hopefully create a 'front-end' GUI to allow Image Reduction to be applied to partial, or complete, image data sets (Lights, Darks, Flats, FlatDarks, BiasOffsets, etc.)

Cheers,

[David Serrano]

For me, the sex-appeal of javascript is the ability to begin writing code right away and having it successfully run without any boilerplate code such as classes and all that. You just say 'do this' and have it done.

[Nocturnal]

Hi Niall,

wanting to learn is an excellent quality I'm sure all of us agree on. I remember thinking the BBC was an interesting computer. I had a ZX81 and later a C=64 before moving on to PCs. Even had quite a long hiatus (PC-XT straight to the Pentium II) but kept track since.

Anyway, at some point I will probably tackle PSJR because it's interesting and should be more suited for 'quick' tasks. It's just that what I wanted to write was more suited for native machine code and multi threading so that's why I used PCL. Plus I wanted to sharpen my C++ skills. Haven't really used those a lot since the late 80s and early 90s.

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Sander,

I still have my 'home built' ZX81 - built unfortunately, but hardly ever used, and still with the original box. I'll sell it once its antique value exceeds the purchase price of a 14" LX90, or equivalent CCD imager 

I even 'home built' my first BBC Micro as well (I had a friend in one of the assembly factories who kindly gave me a board that failed point-to-point continuity test prior to component population - they even marked where the failure was, to make life easier for me), I just had to find all the components, and a case and keyboard (which I obtained when a local computer shop proprietor 'stood' on one !!!).

And, somewhere, I even have the Sinclair Scientific calculator that I built way back in 1974, banishing my slide-rule and log-tables forever to the bottom of my school bag, and hence to the darkest recesses of my attic (which, on reflection, is probably where all my other antique electronic collectabilia has ended up!)

Cheers,