PixInsight 1.6.0 - First screenshot of ImageCalibration

[Juan Conejero]

Here is a first screenshot of the new ImageCalibration tool:


<Click here to enlarge>

The interface still needs some polishing (and a master dark-flat frame option will be added), but right now it's working very well. So far all tests have shown that the wavelet-based dark frame optimization routine works remarkably well, even better than expected. The optimization routine finds the dark scaling factor that minimizes dark-induced noise to within 0.001 fractional accuracy. More testing is necessary though, and I'm still trying to reduce execution times.

Remember that this is just a first version of the calibration tool!

More news very soon...

[mmirot]

Look great,

Optimization and the overscan use looks interesting. 

I would be nice to know how the Masters are generated.
 Is this a separate function?


It would be nice when output of calibration can be linked to registration and integration in the process container. 
Will we have the ability to do this starting with 1.60?

Max

[Cheyenne]

oooo... me want

Now the question... will be handle Canon raw files "properly", or will the files still have to be converted to grey tiffs first then debayered later?

[vicent_peris]

Now the question... will be handle Canon raw files "properly", or will the files still have to be converted to grey tiffs first then debayered later?

Yes, will handle them "properly".


V.

[Harry page]

Hi

Will it have the ability to create a OSC flat ?


Harry

[Juan Conejero]

will be handle Canon raw files "properly"

There should be no problem (well, almost no problem, and I explain the meaning of "almost" below) to calibrate Bayerized images with the new ImageCalibration tool.

In RAW settings (Format Explorer > select the DSLR RAW format > click Edit Preferences) select the following to load a pure RAW Bayer image each time PixInsight opens a DSLR RAW image file:

- White Balance: both options disabled.

- Create super-pixels disabled.

- Create RAW Bayer picture enabled

- No black point correction enabled

In this way what PixInsight loads is the true raw image stored in the .cr2 or .nef file (or equivalent with other cameras/formats) with each color plane separate as an individual RGB channel.

The ImageCalibration tool will calibrate each color channel as if it was an independent image. An individual channel of a Bayer image has "black holes" (nonexistent pixels in the Bayer pattern for the corresponding color), but black (and white) pixel values are ignored in statistical terms, and bias, dark and flat corrections work pixel-by-pixel (x/0 and 0/0 divisions will not happen due to Bayer holes; they are prevented), so the calibration procedure should work without problems. There is no need to preconvert the images to grayscale before calibration.

Now the "almost". The only problem with Bayer patterns can be dark optimization. Right now I am unsure about the performance of our algorithm when it has to deal with Bayer patterns. The holes will be interpreted as small-scale noise and this will fool the wavelet-based noise estimation routine. I haven't tested this yet, but that's what will happen, I think. The solution to this problem is not very difficiult though; I'll work on it as soon as possible.

Will it have the ability to create a OSC flat ?

As noted above the ImageCalibration tool can work with multichannel images. Each channel is calibrated as an independent frame. The flat is no exception. You can integrate your individual flat frames with ImageIntegration to generate a master flat, which can then be used with ImageCalibration.

[mmirot]

Look great,




It would be nice when output of calibration can be linked to registration and integration in the process container. 
Will we have the ability to do this starting with 1.60?

Max

[mmirot]

 the question repeated...


It would be nice when output of calibration can be linked to registration and integration in the process container. 
Will we have the ability to do this starting with 1.60?

Max

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Max,

With the 'scriptable' capabilities of PI, I see that the whole process of 'image reduction' could be contained in a 'single-click' process - but would you REALLY want that?

Personally, it is far more important to me that I KNOW how each of the processes has worked. Have my Darks introduced any artifacts? What about my Flats and their FlatDarks, did everything work there? What about when I finally calibrate my Lights - did I introduce any 'nasties' during those steps?

If by this stage everything has seemed to be OK, THEN (and only then) might I consider deBayering (if needed) - making sure that this next stage works as well.

Finally, I am ready to align - and would want to inspect the results of this stage before (at last) moving on to Image Integration.

So, yes, I could see a very simple process container that would have all the required stages identified, simply requiring initial pointers to the source data files but, unless an APOD popped out at the end of the process, I think I would want to know that nothing went out of control during the process.

We'll have to wait and see what the implementation looks like.

Cheers,

[Fco. Bosch]

"It would be nice when output of calibration can be linked to registration and integration in the process container" (MMirot)

"With the 'scriptable' capabilities of PI, I see that the whole process of 'image reduction' could be contained in a 'single-click' process - but would you REALLY want that? Personally, it is far more important to me that I KNOW how each of the processes has worked (N.Saunders)

I think that both matters are compatible, and necessary:
1) We can test the quality of the outpout of each process, isolated, as Nials want.

2) And we need handle a lot of lights, darks, flats and bias, for the pre-proccesing task,  first to calibrate, and then to register and stack, for finally to get our single image, that can be processed individually with all the tools of PI. The pre-proccessing task isn`t an artistic task for the user (not for Juan), but mainly a rutinary task for them (sorry for the words, but they express well the idea). So, the lot of work necessary for pre-processing is very well suited for a computer and their software, in PI with the Process Container, that can launch together calibration, register and integration processes (previously controlled in their performance).   Really pre-processing is a task very well suited for Process Container, probably the most.

Francisco

[mmirot]

"It would be nice when output of calibration can be linked to registration and integration in the process container" (MMirot)

"With the 'scriptable' capabilities of PI, I see that the whole process of 'image reduction' could be contained in a 'single-click' process - but would you REALLY want that? Personally, it is far more important to me that I KNOW how each of the processes has worked (N.Saunders)

I think that both matters are compatible, and necessary:
1) We can test the quality of the outpout of each process, isolated, as Nials want.

2) And we need handle a lot of lights, darks, flats and bias, for the pre-proccesing task,  first to calibrate, and then to register and stack, for finally to get our single image, that can be processed individually with all the tools of PI. The pre-proccessing task isn`t an artistic task for the user (not for Juan), but mainly a rutinary task for them (sorry for the words, but they express well the idea). So, the lot of work necessary for pre-processing is very well suited for a computer and their software, in PI with the Process Container, that can launch together calibration, register and integration processes (previously controlled in their performance).   Really pre-processing is a task very well suited for Process Container, probably the most.

Francisco

I agree with Franciso

Max

[Cheyenne]

One possible "solution" for handling the bayer "holes" is to create a "mask" to ignore the holes (if that makes any sense).

[georg.viehoever]

Hi,

as long as the whole process to arrive at the final stacked image is not much more complex than with DeepSkyStacker, I am going to be happy  . However, if it needs a lot more mouse cklicks and interaction, then 

Georg

[Harry page]

Hi Juan


Can you confirm a couple of things about OSC flats for this dumb person  

You say that I will not need to grayscale my flat does this mean

1) I will not need to debayer my flat or do I
2) Is the colour of the flat therefore irrelevant

Regards Harry

[Jordi Gallego]

Hi Juan, it really looks great. With the addition of this module I will be able to process my images 100% in PixInsight