Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ArminPro

Pages: [1] 2
1
Quote
Yes, I would use it undimmed and go for about 8000.

No, I used it undimmed and got mean=7500 for an exposure of 1/50s and ISO=800.
Thanks!

2
Quote
At the beginning of this thread you wrote that you are taking the flat frames with a flat field box. Exposure times of a few seconds seem unusually high then. Did you dim the flat field box?
Yes, I dimmed it a little bit. Should I drive with maximum performance?

Quote
However, one additional point is important: the data that I gave are valid only whith ImageStatistics set to 16-bit [0,65535].
I´ve set the ImageStatistics to 14-bit, because you wrote that I´ve got a 14-bit ADC in my Sony. :-\
When set to 16-bit in ImageStatistics I get 1000 (2s) to 1800 (5s).

3
Hi Bernd,

yesterday I did some flat frames with various exposure times: 0.2s, 0.3s, 0.4s and 0.5s

In the histogram module I can see, that with rising exposure time the histogram moves from the left corner a little bit to the middle. But it is still far away from the middle. Also in the ImageStatistics the mean values go from 260 (0.2s) to 650 (0.5s) which is far away from 8200.

So I have to chose such an exposure that I will get 8200? I think this would be some seconds.

Armin

4
Hi Greg,

I could open the Process Manager and see all your processes. By double clicking I can open each process and see which settings you´ve made.

Did you just do 8 times the same DBE? I cannot see any difference when processing this.

I don´t understand "The mask I use is a simple extraction from the integrated image." But I think I´ve to watch a tutorial for generating masks, right?

And I don´t understand what you did in that many Histogram Transformations (HT).
In my processing I took the "New Instance" button once from the SCT and laid it to the HT in order to stretch the picture.
But I will also read more about the HT.

Thanks,
Armin

5
Hi Bernd,

yes, I meant the histogram of the camera. So the histogram of the unstretched picture should be in the middle?
I will do a series of exposures and watch the histogram in PI.

By the way, where can I see the histogram in PI? In Histogram Transformation?

Armin

6
Hi Bernd,

I really really did simply an integration of the dark frames. With exactly the same settings I did for the integration of the bias frames.
I did it immediately after integrating the bias frames.  :'(
And I deleted the old one before. :'(
Could it be, that different ambient temperature of the darks and lights generate this problem? Because I generated the darks two days after the lights.

For the Image Calibration of the light frames I see one little difference to my settings: I did not enable "Evaluate noise" in the Output Files section.
I will change this.
And I enabled "Calibrate" and "Optimize" in the Master Dark section, because when I remember right, you recommended it in your tutorial when using DSLR without temperature control and have flats with very short exposures.

Flats: I have chosen the exposure time for the flats in that way, that the histogram is in the middle.  :-\

Armin



7
You processed this picture out of my integration.xisf ???!!!Wooooooooow !!!!!  Very nice!!!!!

Yes, I did a dynamic crop.

And yes, there was a satellite passing M51. I thought this will be processed out through the integrating process?
Then I will drop it.

I think I´ve to watch some tutorials, because some processes you did, I don´t know by now.

What do you mean with "more data is always nice ..."? More exposures?

I used Curves Transformation, too. But what do you mean with CT for contrast and CT for saturation?
Please, maybe you could send a screenshot of the CT or is it implemented in the process container?

Thanks a lot!!

Regards,
Armin

8
Hi Greg,

this picture is hundred times better than mine! Wow!

Here is the new link: http://gofile.me/3WOrk/HaHC1jRfL

The problem is, that the deviations from picture to picture is great, so that StarAlignment did not work.
So after ImageCalibration (with all masters) and then debayering, I had to use DynamicAlignment (before I could integrate), which needs a long time.

So if you do a new ImageCalibration or Debayer, I could do the DynamicAlignment, in order you will not spend too much time.
Or you align only 8 pictures which is the minimum.

Thanks in advance for this great offer!

Armin

9
O.K., thanks.

Here is my result after integrating the lights with subtracting all masters, Automatic Background Extraction, Background Neutralisation, Colour Calibration, Histogram Transformation, HDR Multiscale Transform and Curves Transformation.

In my opinion it is not nice regarding 5 hours exposure. What do you think?

10
Hi Greg,

just coming home from a trip ...

No, it was not debayered, but the "pure raw" option was not enabled.
So I enabled "pure raw" and generated the masters again. Now in the header there stands "gray". Is this o.K.?

Another question is to the xisf: Are the following preferences o.K.?

Armin


11
Aaaaaaaah!
At least one success! Thanks !!!
After the RAW update my master_dark_new looks like this:

 :) :) :)

I will do the next steps and give answer.

Armin

12
Hi Greg,
I do not see it on the bias and dark frames, but on the bias and dark masters.

13
One additional insight:

I don´t get these pattern for master bias and master dark when generating with the BatchPreprocessing script.

But there is pattern in the master flat when generating with the BatchPreprocessing script.

14
Hi Bernd,

in my last post I sent the integration setting, too. There youj can see, that I´ve set it to "No normalization".
But I do, as you recommend. I´ve deleted all the files. But integrating the bias and afterwards the darks to a master, there is this pattern again.
Please see the zoom into the master_dark in this post. It is the same pattern as in the master_bias, which I posted in the last post.

I know Vincent´s tutorial. I´ve read it also.

Also strange, I told before, when I´m calibrating with the BatchPreprocessing Tool, these pattern don´t exist.

I think it does not make sense to continue with the work flow, if we don´t know the reason for this.

Are there any other sytem settings or options?

Nevertheless thanks, Bernd.

Armin

15
Hi Bernd,

you´re right. Something strange happens with my calibration files.

I examined my master_bias and zoomed in and saw a strange pattern. I used exactly the integration settings, you recommended.
I compared it with the master_bias made with the BatchPreprocessing script, which looks different.
Do you know what happens there?

Armin

Pages: [1] 2