New in PixInsight 1.8.5: new large-scale pixel rejection

chris.bailey

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2010
235
0
Jeff

I'm stumped then as the half dozen data sets I have thrown at it have shown similar or better rejection with significantly higher Sigma values and shown a worthwhile improvement in end result S/N.

Chris
 

mmirot

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2005
886
0
I was able to do a better job with satellite trails than in the past with 9 subs. 

This still required a sigma high of around 2.5 -2.9  using a Winsorized sigma set. 


I am using the large scale high settings of 2 for scale and 4 or 5 for growth. Only small traces on trails remain now remain.

These are best setting that I could see working with my images.  I don't know if this is truly optimal or typical.

Large scale low did not seem to have any impact.
I suspect Large scale low won't be usefully for satellite trails, RBI artifacts and cosmetic rays. These are bright structures.

I had been using Windsorized sigma high of 3.5 - 4.5.
However, I was also removing bright trails from the stack to use 3.5 - 4.5 too. 

Max
 

ddahlstrom

Member
Jul 11, 2016
7
0
I was having difficulty figuring this out.  I have an image with 7 600s DSLR subs, one having a satellite trail.  Turning on Large-Scale Pixel Rejection (reject high) at the defaults of 2 and 2 seemed to do nothing, and raising the values higher yielded no improvement.  I eventually found the secret sauce for this image to be lowering layers (high) to 1 and increasing growth (high) to 7.  This, at last (and with default sigmas), completely eliminated the satellite trail in the integrations. 
 

lucchett

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
449
0
Hi, I read the thread and from my understanding activating Large scale rejection seems always beneficial.
Am I right that I should consider this a default option for any Image?

Thank you,
Andrea
 

jkmorse

Well-known member
Juan & Vicent,

I am just starting to scratch the surface on the new 1.8.5 tools, but this one is magical in its results.  I am going back to redo old processing projects and am amazed at the improvement generated by large-scale pixel rejection when I compare the old results with the new.  It just about eliminates the distracting blotchiness in my backgrounds and otherwise makes for a far cleaner image, with no discernable damage to good signal.  And the high and low rejection maps are things of beauty in showing the problem areas that have been fixed.

Just had to say thanks,

Jim
 

Kerrywnm1

Member
Apr 28, 2017
8
0
All,

I am not having that great of results using ImageIntegration and large-scale pixel rejection to remove the satellite streak superhighway in my images. I have posted over on "Image Processing Challenges"  (https://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=13238.msg80235#msg80235) the info and a link to my data. Maybe some of you could please take a look and tell me what I can do?

Thanks,
Kerry
 

pfile

PTeam Member
Nov 23, 2009
5,211
56
hi, as i said over there the best current technique is to paint over the satellite trails with white or black lines using pixelmath, and then normal pixel rejection will take care of it.

rob
 

Zeven Provincien

New member
Oct 21, 2013
3
0
I just wanted to say I tested this script by comparing results with the old one and wow what an improvement. I had six discernible satellite trails in the integrated image with the old script and the new script virtually eliminated all traces. Just in time for Starlink-ageddon, thank you!

Craig.