31
Announcements / Re: PixInsight 1.8.6 Ripley Released
« on: 2018 December 17 03:08:44 »
Thank you Juan. Will download again... you nailed it!
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.
32
Announcements / Re: PixInsight 1.8.6 Ripley Released
« on: 2018 December 17 03:07:56 »I'm unable to install it. I double click the PI-windows-x64-01.08.06.1447-20181215-c.exe file. In 1-2 seconds, a pop-up window appears and disappears in the blink of an eye. It is impossible to read the message.... Well, I filmed this process and when I checked it frame by frame I was able to grab the pop-up window. It reads " Preparing..." but then nothing happens!
FYI, I have uninstalled the 1.8.5 version and this is a Win 7 machine which never had any problems with the installation of the previous versions.
That makes sense... mine is a much shorter file.... thank you so much! Going to re download immediately.
I have had the same difficulty, downloaded file was not at the good length (too short), you must re-download the file. the good size is 285 495 ko. I install the new file, but now, I never receive the activation code, I wait for more an hour.
JP
33
Announcements / Re: PixInsight 1.8.6 Ripley Released
« on: 2018 December 17 03:06:03 »
I reinstalled 1.8.5 without any problems.... strange!
34
Announcements / Re: PixInsight 1.8.6 Ripley Released
« on: 2018 December 17 02:46:53 »
I'm unable to install it. I double click the PI-windows-x64-01.08.06.1447-20181215-c.exe file. In 1-2 seconds, a pop-up window appears and disappears in the blink of an eye. It is impossible to read the message.... Well, I filmed this process and when I checked it frame by frame I was able to grab the pop-up window. It reads " Preparing..." but then nothing happens!
FYI, I have uninstalled the 1.8.5 version and this is a Win 7 machine which never had any problems with the installation of the previous versions.
FYI, I have uninstalled the 1.8.5 version and this is a Win 7 machine which never had any problems with the installation of the previous versions.
35
General / Re: Gradient Merge Mosaic Error
« on: 2018 June 04 06:55:03 »
Wow! You hit the nail on the head! Thank you so much Andres!
36
General / Re: Gradient Merge Mosaic Error
« on: 2018 June 04 06:16:19 »
For the life of me, I can't get GMM to like the registered images 
The 2 images I feed GMM are exactly the same size but I'm still getting "Current image width differs from first image width." error.
I have used the MBC method as well but that didn't help either. I'm sure this is a pilot error but I cannot detect it
Would any of you please give it a try and let me know how to do this successfully. I have placed the files here --> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/na0prm151e4hanz/AAADMu__7uvJHWW0DcOcwqzRa?dl=0
This is a 12 pane mosaic but I'm working on the first two for learning purposes.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Sedat
The 2 images I feed GMM are exactly the same size but I'm still getting "Current image width differs from first image width." error.
I have used the MBC method as well but that didn't help either. I'm sure this is a pilot error but I cannot detect it
Would any of you please give it a try and let me know how to do this successfully. I have placed the files here --> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/na0prm151e4hanz/AAADMu__7uvJHWW0DcOcwqzRa?dl=0
This is a 12 pane mosaic but I'm working on the first two for learning purposes.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Sedat
37
Off-topic / Re: Batch PP Script question - mixed fit & Cr2 files
« on: 2015 May 05 11:58:32 »
I found this explanation on Cloudy Nights, which seems to be taken from PI forums 
http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/492626-pixinsight-updates-broken-bpp-integration/?p=6467668
"Here is an explanation for the CFA error I found on the PI forums:
This caused by yourself (or BPP) having set the input hint to 'raw cfa' (which is correct for DSLR).
When the input is in a raw format, PI can find out that it is indeed in CFA format, so it is happy.
When the input is in FITS format, the 'raw' part is ignored (but does not hurt), the 'cfa' part is obeyd (and must be present for some process and do not hurt for others), but PI cannot check that the file was indeed in 'cfa' mode. This information is not in a FITS header. So it tell you: OK, you tell me it is CFA, I believe you, but I cannot check."
I understand this not something I should worry about ?
http://www.cloudynights.com/topic/492626-pixinsight-updates-broken-bpp-integration/?p=6467668"Here is an explanation for the CFA error I found on the PI forums:
This caused by yourself (or BPP) having set the input hint to 'raw cfa' (which is correct for DSLR).
When the input is in a raw format, PI can find out that it is indeed in CFA format, so it is happy.
When the input is in FITS format, the 'raw' part is ignored (but does not hurt), the 'cfa' part is obeyd (and must be present for some process and do not hurt for others), but PI cannot check that the file was indeed in 'cfa' mode. This information is not in a FITS header. So it tell you: OK, you tell me it is CFA, I believe you, but I cannot check."
I understand this not something I should worry about ?
38
Off-topic / Re: Batch PP Script question - mixed fit & Cr2 files
« on: 2015 May 05 11:45:24 »
I'm receiving the same message The calibrated files look good though...
Has anybody have an answer for this ?
The calibrated files look good though...Has anybody have an answer for this ?
39
Workshops and Conferences / Re: PixInsight Intensive Workshop by Vicent Peris in Alcanalí, Alicante, Spain
« on: 2015 April 05 03:47:35 »
Vicent, this workshop was revolutionary in several ways. We learned so much in such a short time.
I recommend this workshop to every astro imager. It was the best investment I made in recent years. Instead of upgrading your equipment continuously, upgrade yourself You will be surprised to see the difference it makes in your final images.
I recommend this workshop to every astro imager. It was the best investment I made in recent years. Instead of upgrading your equipment continuously, upgrade yourself
You will be surprised to see the difference it makes in your final images.
40
General / Re: I'm puzzled with Noise in Light frames/Integration - Flat frames/Integration
« on: 2014 November 26 13:09:32 »
Any guesses as to why the less than 1 sec flat subs are noisier than the 600 sec light subs ?
41
General / Re: I'm puzzled with Noise in Light frames/Integration - Flat frames/Integration
« on: 2014 November 26 13:01:08 »
Phewww! I knew I was making a stupid mistake somewhere... never looked at the exponential figures
Thank you both!
Thank you both!
42
General / I'm puzzled with Noise in Light frames/Integration - Flat frames/Integration
« on: 2014 November 26 12:11:42 »
Hi,
I have started using PI for calibrating, aligning and stacking very recently. Instead of using the BPP, I'd like to use the dedicated tools to have a better control on the whole process. Thanks to the Noise Evaluation script, I was able to track the noise levels after each step. The following data belongs to Luminance images shot by Atik 460 EX Mono camera:
Uncalibrated sub
m106_1_600sec_1x1_L_frame30
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.304e-03, N = 157934 (77.90%), J = 4
Calibrated sub - with Bias and Flat Masters
m106_1_600sec_1x1_L_frame30_c
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.297e-03, N = 4647476 (76.88%), J = 4
CosmeticCorrection applied sub
m106_1_600sec_1x1_L_frame30_c_cc
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.295e-03, N = 4786605 (79.18%), J = 4
StarAligned sub
m106_1_600sec_1x1_L_frame30_c_cc_r
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.030e-03, N = 4484671 (74.19%), J = 4
Stack of 30 frames
integration
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 4.611e-04, N = 3256902 (53.88%), J = 4
So, I'm getting more than 2x more noise in the final stack.
On the other hand, the situation with flat frames is like the following:
Uncalibrated flat sub
m106_1_0_76sec_1x1_L_frame1
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 5.214e-03, N = 5910648 (97.78%), J = 4
Calibrated Flat sub - with Bias Master
m106_1_0_76sec_1x1_L_frame1_c
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 5.214e-03, N = 5910693 (97.78%), J = 4
MasterFlat - Stack of 40 frames
MasterFlat_L
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 1.400e-03, N = 5864821 (97.02%), J = 4
With the flats I'm getting almost 1/4th of the noise of the individual frames.
The BiasMaster used in the calibration of these light and flat frames - Stack of 200 frames
BiasMaster_1x1_0C_20130729_200x
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.791e-05, N = 5170396 (85.53%), J = 4
The SuperBias produced from the above BiasMaster
SuperBiasMaster_1x1_0C_20130729_200x
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 9.400e-06, N = 2611685 (43.20%), J = 4
The subs at the beginning and end of the bias capture
Target_Set_1_0_001sec_1x1__frame1
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 3.089e-04, N = 5915885 (97.86%), J = 4
Target_Set_1_0_001sec_1x1__frame200
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 3.092e-04, N = 5913929 (97.83%), J = 4
Can somebody please explain me what's going on here ? Also, why is the SuperBias more noisy ?
I've started reading the relevant chapter in The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing but it will take some time to go through all the details there. I thought I could get some quicker response from the gurus here.
Many thanks
Sedat
I have started using PI for calibrating, aligning and stacking very recently. Instead of using the BPP, I'd like to use the dedicated tools to have a better control on the whole process. Thanks to the Noise Evaluation script, I was able to track the noise levels after each step. The following data belongs to Luminance images shot by Atik 460 EX Mono camera:
Uncalibrated sub
m106_1_600sec_1x1_L_frame30
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.304e-03, N = 157934 (77.90%), J = 4
Calibrated sub - with Bias and Flat Masters
m106_1_600sec_1x1_L_frame30_c
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.297e-03, N = 4647476 (76.88%), J = 4
CosmeticCorrection applied sub
m106_1_600sec_1x1_L_frame30_c_cc
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.295e-03, N = 4786605 (79.18%), J = 4
StarAligned sub
m106_1_600sec_1x1_L_frame30_c_cc_r
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.030e-03, N = 4484671 (74.19%), J = 4
Stack of 30 frames
integration
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 4.611e-04, N = 3256902 (53.88%), J = 4
So, I'm getting more than 2x more noise in the final stack.
On the other hand, the situation with flat frames is like the following:
Uncalibrated flat sub
m106_1_0_76sec_1x1_L_frame1
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 5.214e-03, N = 5910648 (97.78%), J = 4
Calibrated Flat sub - with Bias Master
m106_1_0_76sec_1x1_L_frame1_c
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 5.214e-03, N = 5910693 (97.78%), J = 4
MasterFlat - Stack of 40 frames
MasterFlat_L
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 1.400e-03, N = 5864821 (97.02%), J = 4
With the flats I'm getting almost 1/4th of the noise of the individual frames.
The BiasMaster used in the calibration of these light and flat frames - Stack of 200 frames
BiasMaster_1x1_0C_20130729_200x
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 2.791e-05, N = 5170396 (85.53%), J = 4
The SuperBias produced from the above BiasMaster
SuperBiasMaster_1x1_0C_20130729_200x
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 9.400e-06, N = 2611685 (43.20%), J = 4
The subs at the beginning and end of the bias capture
Target_Set_1_0_001sec_1x1__frame1
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 3.089e-04, N = 5915885 (97.86%), J = 4
Target_Set_1_0_001sec_1x1__frame200
Calculating noise standard deviation...
* Channel #0
?K = 3.092e-04, N = 5913929 (97.83%), J = 4
Can somebody please explain me what's going on here ? Also, why is the SuperBias more noisy ?
I've started reading the relevant chapter in The Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing but it will take some time to go through all the details there. I thought I could get some quicker response from the gurus here.
Many thanks
Sedat
43
General / Re: What happened to my STF icon on the Toolbar
« on: 2012 December 24 00:35:06 »
Yes, v1.8 returned my favorite icon to the toolbar
44
General / What happened to my STF icon on the Toolbar
« on: 2012 December 24 00:21:30 »
During one of the recent updates, this icon disappeared from my toolbar on the Windows 7 installation. My Mac OS installation still has it.
I have even reset all the settings but this icon is not coming back. Today I will install version 1.8 and I hope it comes back
Any help will be appreciated.
Cheers
Sedat
I have even reset all the settings but this icon is not coming back. Today I will install version 1.8 and I hope it comes back
Any help will be appreciated.
Cheers
Sedat
45
Image Processing Challenges / Re: I am in trouble with this one.... need some help!
« on: 2012 April 25 16:24:16 »
Hi Lex,
Thank you for willing to take the time to work on my data.
Currently, I am in the US for NEAIC and NEAF and I don't have the un and pw information with me. Could you please send an email to Juan so that he can give access to you for the file sharing site.
Thank you again.
Sedat
Thank you for willing to take the time to work on my data.
Currently, I am in the US for NEAIC and NEAF and I don't have the un and pw information with me. Could you please send an email to Juan so that he can give access to you for the file sharing site.
Thank you again.
Sedat