how so? I've used LPS consistently for many images without issue over the past 6 months.
Bug has been confirmed by Juan on windows and OSX. I have several friends who also have this issue (so this is not my computer(s)
Juan, if you can answer ?
how so? I've used LPS consistently for many images without issue over the past 6 months.
Something a little curious--I had excellent success w/the new subframe selector playing with several data sets yesterday...however after doing the latest update this morning I ran another analysis and the frame that got the highest PFS signal weight was this frame that had a serious tracking error, which surprised me. Is this an outlier frame because of near-doubled stars? Just thought I'd run it past you.The reported issues with the SubframeSelector process have been fixed with an update to version 1.6.1 of the SubframeSelector module.
As for image weights, the higher the better.
Yes, I always blink my images as well--I think this is the only situation I've seen after re-running 5 old datasets that was not a perfect match between "best frame" and PSFSW. Overall I remain REALLY impressed with the new PSF implementation. Thanks for taking the time!The PSF weighting algorithm has not been designed to detect tracking errors or double exposures, as happens with this frame. Actually, the algorithm is quite robust to these errors. It will estimate the mean signal of the image from all detected stars, by fitting point spread functions and measuring the intensities of the pixels above the local background for each of them. The dimmest 'companion' of each 'double' star will be ignored by the PSF fitting process, although the double star images will probably contaminate each sample to a relatively small extent.
In other words, In general, PSF signal estimation cannot be used to detect these anomalies. To filter out these bad frames you should use other metrics, such as eccentricity for example, or visual inspection with the Blink tool.
I agree, this new feature is fantastic. Thank you @Juan Conejero !The addition to embed the processing history into the XISF file is such a good idea. The XISF format is already a great format and adding the history to a finalized image to remember how an image was processed is perfect.
Thank you.
A nice set of additions!
Especially the NetworkService Module seems to be something I could utilize as soon as the docs are available for it.
Excellent!.Yes, this is the expected behavior. When you select one of the new weighting methods (PSF Signal, PSF Power or SNR Estimate), the WBPP script does not generate weight keywords because they are not necessary, since all the required metadata is already included in the calibrated and registered frames. In other words, the ImageIntegration tool already knows how to calculate the weights if the data have been calibrated with the new version of PixInsight. Just leave ImageIntegration with its default PSF Signal weighting option (or select PSF Power / SNR estimate).
Just a word of caution: The SNR estimate method is sensitive to outliers, so always use it after verification with the SubframeSelector tool (read the announcement post for an introductory description).
Yes, correct. I meant the notation on the graph.For me the table is shown as a "normal" number but the graph is scientific. Is yours the same as that?