Author Topic: DBE Question  (Read 16698 times)

Offline Apollo

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 15
DBE Question
« on: 2005 March 15 06:23:27 »
I've been experimenting with the new DBE feature on some rather light polluted images. I set up a new DBE process (as described in Juan's tutorial) and saved it as an icon process so I could experiment with processing the 3 RGB frames separately or as a composite image.

I created an RGB composite of the raw frames, then applied the saved process and compared it with applying the same process to individual R, G and B frames before combining them. To my suprise they gave different results - I expected to get (if any) a better result - as in smoother background - by processing individually before combing. Should it actually make any difference doing it separately rather than with a precombined RGB image - apart from being quicker of course :)

I'm going to have a closer look as to why this is. Maybe the threshold value should actaully be different between the individual and combined images?

Whichever way I did process it, i was left with a dinstinctly red hue to the image, but I guess that is because most of the light pollution (sodium lights) would show preferentially towards the red channel. I shall have to play with the histogram to normalise the colour channels I guess.

Does a DBE icon process save the sample point locations as well as the other settings? I didn't check that - I just assumed  :)

I'm new to this program, but it's looking really rather powerful - once you master the basics of how it works!

Cheers,
   Simon.

Offline Carlos Milovic

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2172
  • Join the dark side... we have cookies
    • http://www.astrophoto.cl
Re:
« Reply #1 on: 2005 March 15 10:49:14 »
Hi Simon

Did you compare the models or the results after substracting them?

If you compare the final results, there may be a shift in the color channels due a different scalation made between each separate RGB channel and the composite one's.

Other than that, as far as I know, DBE works in a channel per channel basis, so the generated models must be the same if you used the same paramethers and sample boxes.

Please tell us more...
Regards,

Carlos Milovic F.
--------------------------------
PixInsight Project Developer
http://www.pixinsight.com

Offline Apollo

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 15
DBE Question
« Reply #2 on: 2005 March 15 14:14:37 »
I ran though my processing sequence again this evening and the first time I got differing results between the 2, but when I tried again they did indeed produce the same results. I guess I must have been going wrong with the process somewhere!

Whilst the DBE seems to have made pretty good work of the image, there is still a noticable gradient in the red channel that it can't get rid of though :( I shall have to play around with the settings some more as i'm sure it should be able to compensate for it.

It's a really great program to use now i'm climbing up the learning curve - I love how the icon processes work and how easy it is to replicate processing across images!

Cheers,
   Simon.

Offline Carlos Milovic

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2172
  • Join the dark side... we have cookies
    • http://www.astrophoto.cl
Re:
« Reply #3 on: 2005 March 15 15:05:06 »
Hi Simon

I'm glad to hear that DBE works well  :lol:

I'd like to take a look at your image, specially that unfriendly red channel  :wink: maybe we can help you a bit.


Thanks for your feedback. I'm sure Juan has a big smile from ear to ear  :lol:
Regards,

Carlos Milovic F.
--------------------------------
PixInsight Project Developer
http://www.pixinsight.com

Anonymous

  • Guest
DBE Question
« Reply #4 on: 2005 March 18 07:50:07 »
OK, I finally got the DBE working a treat - I put my problems down to user error  :oops:

I've now moved onto looking at the wavelet process - and wow! the noise reduction you can get with it is really impressive. Normally when I try to reduce noise in my images I end up loosing detail throughout, but with a little practice this is a really powerful tool. I've also tried the SGBNR and SNCR processes, but i've a long way to go to get these working as expected as I seem to be loosing too much definition across the image. How do you know when small noise (best removed with wavelets) turns to large noise (best removed with SGBNR)? I gues this also depends on your definition of small and large as well.

One feature request - would be really useful to have an LRGB combine option rather than just RGB. One step further would be to incorporate allowing the combination of different sized images  and maybe even an interactive version to align the frames (very useful if not all captured in one session). I actually wrote a little program called Astrowave to help with this problem and it's been quite popular for LRGB registering:

http://www.planetsi.plus.com/AstroWave/AstroWave.html

so I guess i might be biased in the way it could work :)

Simon.

Offline Apollo

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 15
DBE Question
« Reply #5 on: 2005 March 18 07:53:12 »
Oops - looks like I wasn't logged in when I posted that. Sorry :cry:

Simon.

Offline Carlos Milovic

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2172
  • Join the dark side... we have cookies
    • http://www.astrophoto.cl
Re:
« Reply #6 on: 2005 March 18 08:53:30 »
Hi Simon

You really should get into SGBNR and SCNR. If you use them, with wavelets in the sequence SCNR-Wavelets-SGBNR there is almost no kind of noise that you can't remove.

The definition of noise scale, for reduction, is just on wich  tool gives you better results (forget SCNR for this). For example, wavelets works better with smaller noise with high amplitude. The key here is that the noise is smaller, or equal size, than the fainter stars. If  you go to greater scales, wavelets can't isolate noise from real features, so noise reduction becomes a very difficult task. By the other hand, SGBNR works bets with large noise, wich usually has lower amplitude (contrast) than real features. Becouse SGBNR works with intensity thresholds, if you have small noise with great amplitude it will be considered as a real feature.

Usually, the high frecuency noise lives in the firsts wavelets layers. If you use a dyaic sequence, the 4th layer will barelly show it, so avoid noise reduction for scales larger than it. Of course, you have to inspect the layers for a better cut-off. =)

As conclusion, the difference between small and large noise isn't just the size, but also the amplitude of it. Also it depends on how much can be done with wavelets without bluring the image.


Now the LRGB combine... Use import channels. Create a RGB image and import the chrominance channels as common R, G and B. Then, import the luminance, using the CIE L*a*b* color model (L* channel).

Image registration is supported by a manual tool (DynamicAlignement) in PixInsight Standard. Juan is working on a fully automated tool. A partial result is a little comand line application called "R", made using PixInsight's Class Library for C++. It aligns two or more images using translations, rotations and scale factors, along with local distortions. It works fully automatically, but the images cannot be too much different. We are working in a more general solution.
In the meanwhile, DA will be upgraded, and become a semi-automatic tool.

I'll take a look at your software. Seems interesting. BTW, do you know C++? The next phase of PixInsight's development will be more open to colaborations from the users, making theyr own modules, so you may incorporate astrowave's funcionality here (and much more, of course).
Regards,

Carlos Milovic F.
--------------------------------
PixInsight Project Developer
http://www.pixinsight.com

Offline Juan Conejero

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 7111
    • http://pixinsight.com/
DBE Question
« Reply #7 on: 2005 March 18 09:08:16 »
Hi Simon,

I've downloaded AstroWave and run it for a few test images. Very nice! Thank you for this!

We indeed have an interactive image registration system working on our current beta version of PixInsight Standard. We call it DynamicAlignment. Have a look at this:

http://pteam.pleiades-astrophoto.com/DA_tutorial/

The DynamicAlignment process will be included in the next (public) release of PixInsight Standard. Currently we have no plans to include it in PixInsight LE though.

I have also been doing a lot of research work on the topic of automatic image registration, and have written an experimental tool implementing many algorithms in the Fourier domain for automatic alignment in presence of rotation, scaling and translation. Also an algorithm for local distortion modelization based on triangle similitude. The preliminary results are very promising, so we have a lot of material to develop new tools.

I see that you are interested in programming for astronomical imaging. You may like to know that PixInsight is going to be an open system. All processes will be defined as external, installable modules through an API written in C++. Modules will be DLLs defining new processes, file formats and interactive functionality, including user interfaces. The PixInsight API will be freely available as a set of C++ class libraries. We are doing our best to ensure that the whole PixInsight API will be portable to 64-bit platforms and to Windows, Linux and Mac OSX, since we plan to port PixInsight to them (though the initial releases will be for Windows only).

Indeed you can do a LRGB combine in PixInsight LE. Just substitute the luminance of the RGB image with an appropriate luminance image, which should be a grayscale image. To do this, use the ImportChannels process (Process > Color Spaces > Import Channels). Select the CIE L*a*b* color space, disable the a* and b* channels, disable also "Auto Identifiers", and select the desired luminance image for the L* channel. Of course both images must be previously registered for this to work.

Now regarding the scales of noise. This is a very good question. Distinguishing between small-scale noise and large-scale noise requires experience. You always may use wavelets to decide. Select a dyadic scaling sequence (1, 2, 4, 8...). Small-scale noise will be conspicuously present on the first two wavelet layers (scales of 1 and 2 pixels). The rest of randomly distributed structures, more resembling film grain, will usually be described starting from the third layer (scales of 4 pixels and larger). These latter ones are large-scale noise.

Each image is a different world of course. Dealing with noise is not a trivial task by any means. Don't hesitate to post a link to one of your images here (or to a crop of it at 100% resolution) and we'll be glad to try help you.

Lots of thanks for your great suggestions and for your interest.

Juan
Juan Conejero
PixInsight Development Team
http://pixinsight.com/

Offline Juan Conejero

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 7111
    • http://pixinsight.com/
DBE Question
« Reply #8 on: 2005 March 18 09:15:39 »
Wooops! It seems that Carlos and I were simultaneously writting an answer to your last post!

Hey Carlos, this is indeed intensive user support  :lol:

Juan
Juan Conejero
PixInsight Development Team
http://pixinsight.com/

Offline Apollo

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 15
DBE Question
« Reply #9 on: 2005 March 21 02:32:18 »
Thanks to both of you for your explanations of how the SGBNR and wavelet processes relate to noise - it really has cleared things up for me!

The C++ interface sounds very interesting - I'll look forward to seeing that ... when do you plan to have such functionality available?

Will PI include a more dedicated "stacking" process for taking raw avi files and aligning/stacking rather than just registering a couple of FIT images, or is this an example of how 3rd party plugins would come into play?

Simon.

Offline Juan Conejero

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 7111
    • http://pixinsight.com/
DBE Question
« Reply #10 on: 2005 March 24 00:33:37 »
Hi Simon,

The "official" PixInsight API will be released with the next version of PixInsight Standard. A first beta version of the API could be available in a couple of months. If you are interested, I'll let you know.

Regarding AVI files support, I'm not sure. It would be nice, of course, if PixInsight was able to handle both still images and videos. To enable this functionality, I should include the required infrastructure now that I'm rewriting the whole interface. But it is too much work. I'm concentrating on giving an extremely efficient support to normal images, which involves quite complex code... In theory, once I have all that working well, it should be not very difficult to extend a subset of C++ classes to support AVI files. Or perhaps this could be left to a second version. It depends on my timeline...

Juan
Juan Conejero
PixInsight Development Team
http://pixinsight.com/