Author Topic: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems  (Read 26467 times)

Offline georg.viehoever

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #15 on: 2012 April 12 09:31:40 »
In theory, Frame Adaption used during StarAlignment should make sure that the images are on the same scale of values. (And in theory, GMM would then not be necessary). But of course we dont have perfect data, and so FrameAdaption can only do so much. In the case of our example panels, the same star was 15% brighter in one panel than in the other, causing star artefacts. Plus after GMM, they still show large scale differences. What is the reason for this?

I believe for the example panels there are the following problems (but I must admit I am not 100% sure):

1. The overlap between panels is sometimes very small, as shown in screenshot 1. The data my not be stable enough to provide a good fit.
2. The panels are not "flat", i.e. they show brightness differences that are most likely caused by optics, environment, previous processing, ... I have highlighted some of the artefacts with extreme STFs and previews in screenshot 2. Some of these are just in the overlap regions.
3. The noise characteristics are also different. For example the nose as evaluated by the NoiseEvaluation-script that comes with PI:
    -RightTop: sigmaK = 1.167e-004, N = 3762990 (45.49%), J = 4.
    -RightCntr: sigmaK = 6.063e-005, N = 2130828 (25.83%), J = 4.
  This is also clearly visible in the screenshot 3 of the region where those panels overlap. Noise pattern differences cannot be fixed by GMM.

I am not sure on how to proceed from here. All those problems can be approached, for example with DBE to fix the flatness, or with NoiseGenerator to get to comparable (worse) noise levels. How would you further proceed with these images?

Georg
« Last Edit: 2012 April 12 09:38:13 by georg.viehoever »
Georg (6 inch Newton, unmodified Canon EOS40D+80D, unguided EQ5 mount)

Offline georg.viehoever

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #16 on: 2012 April 12 09:32:54 »
Screenshot 2
Georg (6 inch Newton, unmodified Canon EOS40D+80D, unguided EQ5 mount)

Offline georg.viehoever

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #17 on: 2012 April 12 09:33:24 »
Screenshot 3
Georg (6 inch Newton, unmodified Canon EOS40D+80D, unguided EQ5 mount)

Offline kerrywaz1

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
    • Spirit Bear Observatory
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #18 on: 2012 April 12 09:51:05 »
Hi Georg,

Thanks for the work on this, I am learning a lot.

Just as background, the center panels were shot to the east of the meridian at my location where the sky is fairly dark, and the sky conditions were clear with no high clouds and no moon. Due to a string of bad weather, the other images had to be shot later in the year after IC443 had crossed over to the west of the meridian just after sunset. This side (west) of my location has a lot of light pollution and the moon, high clouds, etc. didn't help.

What about using Linear Fit to match the brightness, is this still an option? I have been experimenting with it, but sometimes the results are a bit confusing (inverts the image for example) to me.

As far as the noise, maybe DBE to fix the flatness? I'd rather not add noise just to match.

--- Kerry
Deep Sky Instruments RC14C
FLI PL16803 w/MOAG + StarlightXpress Ultrastar
Pyxis 3"
Astro Physics AP1200
Tak FSQ-106EDXII
Apogee Alta F16M
Hap Griffin modified Canon EOS 5D Mark II
PixInsight, MaxIm DL, PhotoShop CS5

Offline kerrywaz1

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
    • Spirit Bear Observatory
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #19 on: 2012 April 12 09:55:20 »
Of course another thought is to try and gather more images for those panels with the low SNR. This may not be possible this year as the weather here has been very uncooperative the last few weeks and IC443 is getting lower and lower in the sky each night.

--- Kerry
Deep Sky Instruments RC14C
FLI PL16803 w/MOAG + StarlightXpress Ultrastar
Pyxis 3"
Astro Physics AP1200
Tak FSQ-106EDXII
Apogee Alta F16M
Hap Griffin modified Canon EOS 5D Mark II
PixInsight, MaxIm DL, PhotoShop CS5

Offline georg.viehoever

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #20 on: 2012 April 12 09:56:43 »

What about using Linear Fit to match the brightness, is this still an option? I have been experimenting with it, but sometimes the results are a bit confusing (inverts the image for example) to me.

As far as the noise, maybe DBE to fix the flatness? I'd rather not add noise just to match.

I doubt that LinearFit will produce results that are different from Frame adaption. DBE may be useful to fix the flatness, but this is going to be tough: It is really hard not to stamp additional holes into the data.

Maybe someone else has clever ideas about this?

Georg
Georg (6 inch Newton, unmodified Canon EOS40D+80D, unguided EQ5 mount)

Offline FunTomas

  • PixInsight Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • Astrofoto.sk
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #21 on: 2012 April 12 21:40:40 »
Hi Georg. Thank you for your explanation. You done fantastic job.

Offline fneyer

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 31
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #22 on: 2012 April 13 00:29:00 »
In case of large noise differences in the overlapping regions LinearFit might improve the result when playing around with the rejection thresholds?
This is where I see the difference in FrameAdaption and LinearFit - to specify the data range for parameter estimation.

What I don't quite understand: How is it possible that after applying FrameAdaption, large intensity differences of bright stars (like the one Georg cropped out) still exists?
It's hard to believe that the different noise level alone is responsible for this artifact.

If nothing works, you can still adjust the frames manually with PixelMath.
Other than that, increase the overlap next time and switch off the citylights.. ;)


Fabian

Offline kerrywaz1

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
    • Spirit Bear Observatory
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #23 on: 2012 April 13 09:34:06 »
How do you adjust the frame brightness using PixelMath?
Deep Sky Instruments RC14C
FLI PL16803 w/MOAG + StarlightXpress Ultrastar
Pyxis 3"
Astro Physics AP1200
Tak FSQ-106EDXII
Apogee Alta F16M
Hap Griffin modified Canon EOS 5D Mark II
PixInsight, MaxIm DL, PhotoShop CS5

Offline kerrywaz1

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
    • Spirit Bear Observatory
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #24 on: 2012 April 13 10:38:55 »
And believe me if I could unplug all the city lights of Phoenix, I surely would!  :D

--- Kerry
Deep Sky Instruments RC14C
FLI PL16803 w/MOAG + StarlightXpress Ultrastar
Pyxis 3"
Astro Physics AP1200
Tak FSQ-106EDXII
Apogee Alta F16M
Hap Griffin modified Canon EOS 5D Mark II
PixInsight, MaxIm DL, PhotoShop CS5

Offline fneyer

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 31
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #25 on: 2012 April 13 11:06:03 »
See the second video here:
http://pixinsight.com/videos/StarAlignment/Mosaic/en.html

Regards,
Fabian

Offline georg.viehoever

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #26 on: 2012 April 14 11:36:58 »
Attached my attempt at doing a DBE on the final mosaic. I used quite a number of sample points especially in regions where I saw undesirable brightness differences. I applied DBE several times, adding additional points as necessary.

- Left: final result of DBE with all sample points
- Right: final result with additional crop.

Clearly, the image has improved. But in particular for the MiddleBottom panel differences are still visible.
Georg
Georg (6 inch Newton, unmodified Canon EOS40D+80D, unguided EQ5 mount)

Offline kerrywaz1

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 68
    • Spirit Bear Observatory
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #27 on: 2012 April 14 16:19:23 »
Thanks, Georg. It does look improved. What were the settings you used in GMM for this version?

--- Kerry
Deep Sky Instruments RC14C
FLI PL16803 w/MOAG + StarlightXpress Ultrastar
Pyxis 3"
Astro Physics AP1200
Tak FSQ-106EDXII
Apogee Alta F16M
Hap Griffin modified Canon EOS 5D Mark II
PixInsight, MaxIm DL, PhotoShop CS5

Offline georg.viehoever

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #28 on: 2012 April 15 03:04:51 »
What were the settings you used in GMM for this version?
Simply the defaults. Removing the conflicts as shown above make all this feathering etc. unnecessary.
Georg
Georg (6 inch Newton, unmodified Canon EOS40D+80D, unguided EQ5 mount)

Offline georg.viehoever

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2132
Re: Help Requested w/Gradient Merge Mosaic Problems
« Reply #29 on: 2012 April 15 06:00:11 »
Here is an alternative method to get rid of those star artefacts. It builds on an effect that I already discovered during the original development of the process http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=3283.msg22572#msg22572 : Images after histogram transform have fewer of those star artefact problems. The underlying idea is this:

- In astrophotos, we are usually more interested in the faint features of the sky, not the bright stars. This is why we often do a non-linear histogram transform during the processing.
- While the data is still linear, bright stars have much higher values than faint features. In Kerry's example, stars have values of up to 0.99, while the nebula is around 0.002, and the background around 0.0007. Due to their high values, even minor brightness differences in stars cause relatively major adjustments to brightness during GMM. Example: a 1 percent calibration error of the nebula causes a difference of 0.00002, while a star causes 0.01. This is the root cause for the star artefacts.
- If we do a brightness transformation similar to HistogramTransform on the images before GMM, and transform them back afterwards, star artefact should become much less of a problem.

The HistogramTransform used by PI is discussed in detail in http://pixinsight.com/doc/tools/HistogramTransformation/HistogramTransformation.html#introduction_002 (section Midtones balance). The underlying midtones transfer function MTF has a number of nice properties:

- it transforms range [0,1] into range [0,1], and transforms 0->0 and 1->1
- MTF(1-m,x) is the inverse function to MTF(m,x)
- It is implemented in PixelMath.

So here is the procedure to produce artefact free GMM results without manual fixes:

- Determine the midtones parameter m. This can be done by looking at one of the contributing images, and shifting the mid slider (not the other two) of STF until we see a decent value. The actual m value is displayed as a bubble, and can also be retrieved using the bottom left button to display the STF parameters. The exact value of m is not critical. Screenshot 1 show the STF on the top right, the parameter dialog below, and the STFed image on the top left.
- We use this midtones parameter to transform all images. Open PixelMath, enter "MTF(m,$T)" as the formula (screenshot 1, center), and deactivate Rescale. Apply it to all those images you are going to process in GMM, for example by using an ImageContainer (screenshot 1, right). One of the transformed images without an applied STF can be seen on the bottom left.
- Apply GMM to the transformed images (screenshot 2, top right). Re-transform the resulting image using PixelMath with formula "MTF(1.0-m,$T)" (screenshot 2, bottom right). The resulting image can be seen on the left: No star artefacts at all.

This procedure works very well, but so far has only been tested with Kerry's data. If others can confirm that it is helpful for their mosaics, we could implement it as part of the GMM process (and maybe as an alternative to the Feather Radius parameter). Let me know your experiences.

Georg
« Last Edit: 2012 April 15 06:12:51 by georg.viehoever »
Georg (6 inch Newton, unmodified Canon EOS40D+80D, unguided EQ5 mount)