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 - drmikevt

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
106
General / Re: Drizzle data not updating properly
« on: 2016 September 29 14:18:34 »
Rick

Thank you.  I am sure this is the issue.  I am trying to process a huge data set and have been deleting files as I create new ones with each process.  Please allow me to make sure I'm clear on this.  My process is Cal - CosCor - Subframe selector - Register - Integrate - Drizzle.  StarAlignment creates a new file with associated drizzle data.  So - when I run drizzle, I have to have both files, the new one created by SA and the original file that SA used, present and un-moved in order for it to work? 

I appreciate the help
Mike

107
General / Re: Drizzle data not updating properly
« on: 2016 September 29 08:18:18 »
replying to my own thread -

I just did another trial run, but this time did not change the file type to .fit and left it as .xsif - and it worked just fine.  Does anyone know if this is an issue with drizzle data - that it no longer plays nice with .fit files?

Thanks
Mike

108
General / Drizzle data not updating properly
« on: 2016 September 29 06:06:17 »
I don't think anything has changed in my process, but now, after registration and integration with 'generate drizzle' turned on, I try to run a Drizzle Integration, but the drizzle data is looking for an old file name - before the 'r' was put on the end by the registration.  It does not seem to be updating the name and I am concerned it is not updating other data as well.  I can rename the files, removing the '_r' and then drizzle seems to run fine, but how can I be sure it is using the changes from the integration process?

Any ideas?  Has anything changed or been updated?  I am on a Mac using latest PI and OS 10.11

Thanks
Mike

109
Gallery / Re: NGC6946+6939
« on: 2016 July 07 07:01:30 »
Yes, I agree focus could/should be better.  Currently I'm just using a Bhatinov mask and really need to move to an autofocus method.  Part of the issue here is that I am trying to stay purely Mac and autofocus is a bit hard to come by.  I also need to continue to improve tracking and polar alignment, which probably was not the best for this shot.  Also - this was captured during an almost full moon.  All of these probably contributed to the star bloat.  And - there is significant coma in the corners - also need to work on that. 

Despite all of that, I look at the image and am so pleased that I was able to produce it.  I'm sure I'll look at it in disgust in a couple years, but for now, it represents the culmination of about a year of hard work and learning. 

Anyway - thanks for the comment.


110
Gallery / NGC6946+6939
« on: 2016 July 04 21:16:18 »
This is only my second image ever taken through all the steps of acquisition and processing.  I just started with AP earlier this year and committed myself to learning PI from the start.  A LOT of my education has come from the Light Vortex Astronomy tutorials, but the IP4AP site has been great as well.  There are certainly many issues with the image, but overall I'm pretty happy with it for my second image.  Please help me improve by telling me what you see that needs improvement.   

Scope: ES 102mm Triplet
Mount: CGEM DX
Camera: SX-814
Filters: Astrodon E series Gen 2 LRGB
Guiding: Lodestar OAG
Image scale: 1.34 arcsec/pixel
Exposures: 160x60s L, 42x60s R,G,B

http://www.astrobin.com/254220/

111
General / Re: Subframe Selector - 0 PSF fittings?
« on: 2016 July 02 17:53:34 »
I'll also add that Neb4 did not mind the subframes and weighted them for me without issue...  what could be going on?


112
General / Subframe Selector - 0 PSF fittings?
« on: 2016 July 02 12:11:24 »
Hello.  I am working with some images from the other night and LBG all processed normally.  However, about half of the R subframes come up with "0 PSF fittings" and 0 for FWHM no matter which PSF model I use in the Subframe Selector script.  Visually, if I autostretch the 'bad' frames and look at them versus the good frames - I can't see any real difference.  For all the frames, it finds about 3000 stars - good and bad. 

Can anyone help me get this figured out? 

Thanks!
Mike

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]