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 - dhb2206

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Bug Reports / Re: Drizzle Speed
« on: 2020 January 18 00:54:19 »
Rob,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, all the files are in XISF format. I have noticed a behaviour change with the machine from recent updates, drizzle used to kill the thing, try doing anything else with the box and it was hopeless. Now, however, I can happily multi-task whilst drizzling.

This current run looks like it'll be heading closer to 32 hours to complete (on a much larger 4k x 3k patch of the integrated image). It is taking about 7½ minutes on each frame - the drizzle files are between 7 and 10MB in size and the XISFs having come from raws are 283MB, which is the same as it has always been. I don't see anything on the drizzle setup that would allow me to change memory management and in global preferences the only thing that would have any effect (given my limited knowledge) would be the parallel processing and threads, all of which are checked with thread priority on Time Critical (read from a second instance of PI, I'll check this when the drizzle terminates on the primary instance).

Cheers,

David



2
Bug Reports / Re: Drizzle Speed
« on: 2020 January 17 13:56:35 »
Nope 64 bit - running PI v 1.8.8-4 (x64).

3
Bug Reports / Re: Drizzle Speed
« on: 2020 January 17 07:19:15 »
On a second pass (last was the Flame Nebula) and this the Orion Nebula. 258 frames in this one and the drizzle is running at around the same speed. 21GB of memory free. PIs working set sits just under 3GB, all 8 CPUs in use at an average 82% for PI alone so I guess it must be my images! :-)

4
Bug Reports / Drizzle Speed
« on: 2020 January 16 13:13:05 »
I'm not sure if this is a bug (I very much doubt it) and could well be my setup. I have a 253 frame integrated image that I'm drizzling a 2779 x 2002 patch, the drizzle has been running for 13 hours now (and is almost there). Each frame is a debayered 6000 x 4000 originally raw image from a Canon EOS 760D.

I have a tootin' fallutin' machine running on Windows 10 with 8 processors and 32GB of RAM so that shouldn't be an issue. I'm running my swap location from an external USB drive (USB 3) and have the base files on the same drive, which may well be the issue. Is such speed normal? I have a feeling it used to be a bit faster.

Thanks,

David

5
Bug Reports / Re: Crash on Debayer
« on: 2019 December 26 01:31:02 »
Juan,

Still doing this, but I have noticed a pattern. If I debayer from one external drive to another I'm almost (note the almost) guaranteed a crash. However, if I shunt the files to the second hard drive before running debayer then there is no problem. So, this probably has something to do with the USB system in Windows. Note also that the target drive also hosts my temp folder.

Cheers (and a Merry Christmas),

David

6
Bug Reports / Re: Crash on Debayer
« on: 2019 August 27 00:24:38 »
Update: Changed my workflow to move the files to be debayered from one external drive to the destination drive before executing debayer. No more error. I believe this could have something to do with one or t'other drive being in sleep mode in windows 10.

7
Thanks Alejandro, been off-piste for a while. I'll give that a bash!

8
General / Re: PixelMath Help
« on: 2019 February 15 13:58:20 »
And no, that really didn't work..... I'll have a look and see if I can find a pattern to work with.

9
General / Re: PixelMath Help
« on: 2019 February 15 13:53:07 »
Thanks guys, I'd tried all sorts but forgot about square versus round brackets!

10
General / PixelMath Help
« on: 2019 February 15 09:36:04 »
I've noticed in my images that areas with blown out highlights after PCC have a green value that is almost half of that for red and blue, which leaves star core in linear form looking somewhat magenta. So, I was wanting to have a play with PixelMath and see if I can set a ratio for the green channel where red and blue are above a certain threshold, but I'm stumped. I've gotten as far as defining the functions for R and B as $T (admittedly that bit isn't too complex), but I have no clue as to how to refer to individual colour channels to construct my iif statement for G (IIF(myredvalue>0.85,$T/5*8,$T))?

Addendum: I suppose I could utilise a symbol definition and iterate through the individual pixels using myR = pixel($T, x, y, 0), but then we hit iteration - how does one loop through x and y from 0 to with and height respectively, or does the process just do this anyway?

I've no idea if it'll work, but no try, no know!

Cheers,

David


11
Bug Reports / Re: Crash on Debayer
« on: 2019 February 13 10:10:42 »
At least it isn't just me. There is just one machine that this happens on, so I reckon there may be some setting somewhere causing the drop out - more likely to be something Windows than PI I fear.

12
General / Re: Debayered files suddenly deep red
« on: 2019 February 12 10:03:53 »
Try adding Background Neutralisation and Photometric Colour Calibration to your flow and see what that does. My images start off like the hulk, very green!

13
Image Processing Challenges / Re: HDRMT
« on: 2019 February 11 09:56:52 »
This might be stating the bleeding obvious, but you have checked the star in question is in the star mask? Sometimes the big fellas get left out.

Cheers,

David

14
Image Processing Challenges / M42 and M43 Additional Process? #2
« on: 2019 February 11 09:40:40 »
Hmm, first post seems to have developed a fault - probably my attempt at adding a JPEG to it, so I'll give it a slot in dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mo8b9q25gg4eux3/2019-02-10-101.jpg?dl=0).

As winter is upon us in the northern hemisphere Orion is a decent target. I've been building subs for a couple of months (i.e. about 4 nights as the weather hasn't been playing ball), all with a 300mm lens attached to a Canon DSLR riding on a Skywatcher Star Tracker. There are 282 1 minute light subs at F5.6 and ISO 1600 making up the integrated image, no darks, no flats and no bias. I'd guess about 25% of these are really good quality. Anyway, I've gotten to the end of a post processing run from a drizzled integration of a square 3500 x 3500 preview and would appreciate any tips on where I may have digressed or whether there is more that could be done to improve the image.

My run consisted of:

DBE - default sample generation at a tolerance of 2, samples shunted to avoid stars and deleted where there is obvious nebulosity, reined back to 0.85 for normalised subtraction
BN
PCC
MLT (Multiscale Linear Transform) for noise on layers 1 to 4 - 3 iterations at 0.5 application and thresholds: 4, 3, 2 and 1 masked by an inverse of a lightness abstract with applied STF stretch
Morphological Transformation - Erosion of 1 on a 7 structure applied to a star mask generated from the lightness mask
Histogram Transform on highlights to even out blown out R, G and B values (following a masked stretch and pink stars!)
Masked stretch on default values with a background preview active
MLT for noise stepped back on thresholds to 3, 2, 1, 0.5 masked by lightness extract auto clipped for shadows and highlights
ACDNR on defaults
Histogram Transform to reset black point with minimal clipping
Curves Transform - tiny tweak of RGB for contrast and a reasonable saturation increase
HDRMT (HDR Multiscale Transform) at 9 layers to lightness on a mask revealing just the core of M42

I'm pretty chuffed with the result though the jpeg doesn't do it justice (if I can get it to attach).....

I've stuck the files in a dropbox in case anyone fancies a play, but be aware, the files are large (575MB each)!

Base drizzle image is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrcamdn8pqjwyn3/190210%20Drizzle.zip?dl=0
Post processed image is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfdhzzhoqd9m54s/190210%20Drizzle%20Post%20Plus.zip?dl=0

15
Image Processing Challenges / M42 and M43 Additional Process?
« on: 2019 February 11 08:09:12 »
As winter is upon us in the northern hemisphere Orion is a decent target. I've been building subs for a couple of months (i.e. about 4 nights as the weather hasn't been playing ball), all with a 300mm lens attached to a Canon DSLR riding on a Skywatcher Star Tracker. There are 282 1 minute light subs at F5.6 and ISO 1600 making up the integrated image, no darks, no flats and no bias. I'd guess about 25% of these are really good quality. Anyway, I've gotten to the end of a post processing run from a drizzled integration of a square 3500 x 3500 preview and would appreciate any tips on where I may have digressed or whether there is more that could be done to improve the image.

My run consisted of:

DBE - default sample generation at a tolerance of 2, samples shunted to avoid stars and deleted where there is obvious nebulosity, reigned back to 0.85 for normalised subtraction
BN
PCC
MLT (Multiscale Linear Transform) for noise on layers 1 to 4 - 3 iterations at 0.5 application and thresholds: 4, 3, 2 and 1 masked by an inverse of a lightness abstract with applied STF stretch
Morphological Transformation - Erosion of 1 on a 7 structure applied to a star mask generated from the lightness mask
Histogram Transform on highlights to even out blown out R, G and B values (following a masked stretch and pink stars!)
Masked stretch on default values with a background preview active
MLT for noise stepped back on thresholds to 3, 2, 1, 0.5 masked by lightness extract auto clipped for shadows and highlights
ACDNR on defaults
Histogram Tranform to reset black point with minimal clipping
Curves Transform - tiny tweak of RGB for contrast and a reasonable saturation increase
HDRMT (HDR Mutiscal Transform) at 9 layers to lightness on a mask revealing just the core of M42

I'm pretty chuffed with the result though the jpeg doesn't do it justice (if I can get it to attach).....

I've stuck the files in a dropbox in case anyone fancies a play, but be aware, the files are large (575MB each)!

Base drizzle image is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrcamdn8pqjwyn3/190210%20Drizzle.zip?dl=0
Post processed image is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfdhzzhoqd9m54s/190210%20Drizzle%20Post%20Plus.zip?dl=0

Pages: [1] 2 3