Author Topic: Local normalization problem  (Read 2273 times)

Offline ppeake

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 30
Local normalization problem
« on: 2020 February 19 15:12:53 »
Spent pretty much all day working on a problem, trying to just do basic integration of a set of images.

MacOS - 10.15.3
PixInsight 1.8.8.4

Because I was getting nowhere, I tried following the recipe on the Light Vortex website, to ensure it wasn't me doing something stupid.

https://www.lightvortexastronomy.com/tutorial-pre-processing-calibrating-and-stacking-images-in-pixinsight.html

I am at the point where I have aligned the images and run local normalization on them.
The tried integrating, and got horrible results (aligned images look fine).
So backed off, re-ran the align and local normalization, then tried integrating just three images.

The integrated image is horrible:

https://vogon.net/images/Local_normalization.png

Cleared the local normalization files and switched the processing to no normalization.
Looks fine (these are 2 second exposures):

https://vogon.net/images/no_normalization.png

So, is local normalization broken? Or am i?

Offline GregF

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 10
Re: Local normalization problem
« Reply #1 on: 2020 February 19 15:17:44 »
Is this a OSC

Offline ppeake

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 30
Re: Local normalization problem
« Reply #2 on: 2020 February 19 15:19:09 »
Yes. OSC images, debayered.

Offline John_Gill

  • PixInsight Old Hand
  • ****
  • Posts: 368
Re: Local normalization problem
« Reply #3 on: 2020 February 19 23:28:30 »
Hi,

LocalNormalization is a great tool to equalize images that are statistically different (i.e. images from different nights/equipment/atmospheric differences).
LN can work wonders and can also not contribute to the image.  Personally I have stopped using LN as I found using DBE better at removing gradients/brightness etc.

space is not black
John
APM 107/700 apo on CGX mount
ZWO Optics - Autoguiding
ZWO1600mm and filters
... when there are no clouds ...

Offline Juan Conejero

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 7111
    • http://pixinsight.com/
Re: Local normalization problem
« Reply #4 on: 2020 February 20 01:23:06 »
Please see bulrichl's calibration guide for the correct way to perform data reduction in PixInsight, along with important and rigorous information on many essential topics. Instead of doing the image calibration and registration tasks manually, you can use the WeightedBatchPreprocessing script, which automates them. However, knowing the entire data reduction process and understanding how it works at each stage is absolutely necessary if you want to control your data. Automation should never come without previous knowledge of the tasks performed.

LocalNormalization is an advanced tool able to provide good improvements in difficult cases. However, this is only true when it is used correctly, and only when it is really necessary:

- Please do not use it on a regular basis, unless you have good reasons to use it. Some of them are gradients with varying orientations and relatively small differences caused by varying atmospheric conditions. If in doubt, don't use it. LocalNormalization is an advanced tool, it is not a necessary task.

- Never use it on dissimilar images. For example, don't use LN on narrowband and broadband images, or on very different images for any other reason, including significant exposure times. This does not make any sense.

- Never use it blindly with default parameters. The tool is complex and usually requires fine tuning of parameters and some trial-error work.

- Always inspect the resulting images after LN. The LN task is ill-posed by nature, so never take for granted that the implemented algorithms will succeed. The LocalNormalization tool provides many resources for quantitative and qualitative evaluation of results, which should always be used.

If you are starting, keep things simple and try to learn correct, robust procedures. You probably don't need LocalNormalization for this data set, and shouldn't use it at this point.
Juan Conejero
PixInsight Development Team
http://pixinsight.com/

Offline bulrichl

  • PixInsight Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
Re: Local normalization problem
« Reply #5 on: 2020 February 20 03:18:43 »
Instead of doing the image calibration and registration tasks manually, you can use the WeightedBatchPreprocessing script, which automates them. However, knowing the entire data reduction process and understanding how it works at each stage is absolutely necessary if you want to control your data. Automation should never come without previous knowledge of the tasks performed.
My guide probably should be prefaced by this statement. I could not express it better.

Bernd

Offline ppeake

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 30
Re: Local normalization problem
« Reply #6 on: 2020 February 20 09:21:32 »

- Please do not use it on a regular basis, unless you have good reasons to use it. Some of them are gradients with varying orientations and relatively small differences caused by varying atmospheric conditions. If in doubt, don't use it. LocalNormalization is an advanced tool, it is not a necessary task.


This was actually why I was trying to use it. Imaging from home, I have a town below me (not a large town, but enough to cause some light polution). Imaging for several hours, the camera traverses over the town, and I end up with gradients varying from not very much to noticeable, and at changing angles. Cleaning those up is generally a pain. I was hoping this would be a "magic bullet" - should have known that those don't really exist.

I was just surprised at how much "damage" this did though. I wouldn't have expected that.

Offline pfile

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 4729
Re: Local normalization problem
« Reply #7 on: 2020 February 20 09:39:37 »
i've been railing against the inclusion of LN in that light vortex tutorial in various fora for a while. while i appreciate all the tutorials and work kayron has put into his site, that one tutorial has got all kinds of people blindly inserting LN into their flow and running into unnecessary problems. juan's explanation is (of course) 100% correct; it is a tool that needs careful tuning and A/B comparisons to see if the subs were actually improved by inserting it into the flow.

anyway, you can try increasing the scale from the default of 128 to 256 to see if the blotchiness goes away. or try some factor-of-two scale between 128 and 256. try this interactively. also because these changes can be very subtle, the subs might look OK but the integration looks funny, so unfortunately you have to both test on the subs and on integrations. but the good news is if you regenerate the LN files you can just integrate over and over without much hassle.

rob