SPCC does not work

fredvanner said:
Indeed, with the annotation masking the (already stretched) stars it would be surprising if it did not fail!
Since .bmp is often uncompressed, there is no reason why SPCC should fail on a file originating from an uncompressed .bmp; however .bmp has no way of holding an astrometric solution, so it would have to be converted to some other format first.
Click to expand...
I have not generally had much luck applying any PSF based tools to data that is represented by only 8 bits per channel. The dynamic range simply isn't there to do a decent job. It can work, but it often fails, as well.
 
That is indeed a .xisf - of the same processed non-linear image with small "cross" annotation on many of the stars, for example:
1684870947272.png

You must apply SPCC to an unstretched, unprocessed, unannotated image, ideally immediately after integration. This image clearly does not meet those conditions. It would be amazing if SPCC made any sense of this image.
 
Thanks fredvanner.

So, after I did the WBP in pixinsight, the first what I have to do is, open the created masterLigth (there’re two of them, one with 618 MB and one with 274 MB) and make an ImageSolver and then ran the SPCC, is this correct? At least, on this mentioned pic it worked.

But now I’ve an another issue with another pic. I did like I wrote here.
1.) Run WBP and the plate solving worked.
2.) Did an ImageSolver on the created masterLigth
3.) run SPCC on this creaded masterLigth, but I good this error massage. On both created masterLigth I got the same error massage

SCC Error Insufficient datas.PNG


What is wrong now?

MasterLight here

de.files.fm

Datei-Upload, Freigabe und Cloud-Backup-Service.

Visit this link to download: 2023-05-29_3q59dp7p4
de.files.fm de.files.fm

Thanks a lot
Good Seeing
Günther
 
It is not finding enough stars with the specified SNR (>40) in the red channel.
By relaxing the Signal Evaluation parmeters SPCC was able to calibrate the image:
1685363493462.png

Looking at the uncalibrated image statistics, they are very unusual for a CFA camera:
1685363600181.png

Note that the median R channel value is three times the G channel, and ten times the B channel. CFA images almost always have the G channel substantially higher than the R and B channels. Assuming this image was unfiltered, I would strongly suspect that the Bayer matrix (specified as "GBRG" in the header) has been specified wrong.
Update: if you could upload a raw light image we could check this.
 
Last edited:
The raw image in post #26 above has quite normal statistics (debayered with "GBRG" matrix):
1685464820329.png

The channel backgrounds are reasonably balanced, with G a bit higher than R and B - which is exactly as expected for a normal CFA camera.
I can't think of what has happened to the colour balance in you masterLight (post #24 above), but it can't have been integrated from frames like this.
 
fredvanner said:
The raw image in post #26 above has quite normal statistics (debayered with "GBRG" matrix):
View attachment 18707
The channel backgrounds are reasonably balanced, with G a bit higher than R and B - which is exactly as expected for a normal CFA camera.
I can't think of what has happened to the colour balance in you masterLight (post #24 above), but it can't have been integrated from frames like this.
Click to expand...
Hi fredvanner.
Thanks for the answer and sorry for my delay.
But yes, the master light I got from this single image. Of cources ther was 12 ligths a 180 sec. But al taken with the same camera, Canon EOS 550DA, at the same night, without changing any parameter during taken them. The master is the results from WBP. Could it be, that there I have some parameter wrong adjusted?
regards
Günther
 
Ojo de Aguila said:
the master light I got from this single image. Of cources ther was 12 ligths a 180 sec. But al taken with the same camera, Canon EOS 550DA, at the same night, without changing any parameter during taken them. The master is the results from WBP.
Click to expand...
I really don't understand what you are saying here.
  • "the master light I got from this single image". The masterlight in post #24 is clearly not from the single image in post #26.
  • "Of cources ther was 12 ligths a 180 sec" ... and what did you do with them?
  • "The master is the results from WBP" I presume you mean WBPP; the result of WBPP with what settings, with what input images?
  • "Could it be, that there I have some parameter wrong adjusted?" Almost certainly, but without posting your actual settings we can't guess what was wrong.
 
fredvanner said:
I really don't understand what you are saying here.
  • "the master light I got from this single image". The masterlight in post #24 is clearly not from the single image in post #26.
  • "Of cources ther was 12 ligths a 180 sec" ... and what did you do with them?
  • "The master is the results from WBP" I presume you mean WBPP; the result of WBPP with what settings, with what input images?
  • "Could it be, that there I have some parameter wrong adjusted?" Almost certainly, but without posting your actual settings we can't guess what was wrong.
Click to expand...
Sorry for this trouble.
But it is like it is.
The single image (post #26) it’s one of the 12 raw image, what i put together with some darks, bias and flats in the program WBPP and I let it run. The result what I got from the WBPP, is the master light in post #24.

Here the parameters. It’s from another object, the last one. But i did not change here any parameter, and also on this master light I can’t do the SPCC
Calibration bias.PNG
Calibration darks.PNG
Calibration flats.PNG
Calibration ligths.PNG
post-calibration.PNG


Thanks a lot
regards
Günther
 
OK. If I understand correctly, you have 12 raw lights (post #26 is a sample). You loaded them into WBPP with "some darks, bias and flats", and the result was the masterLight in post #24, which is badly wrong, and looks nothing like post #26. There does not seem to be anything dramatically wrong with your WBPP settings, so something must be wrong with the "some darks, bias and flats". Could you upload a single raw sub for each of these (one dark, one bias and one flat) from the frames used to generate post #24 (frames that are not from this set will tell us nothing).
 
fredvanner said:
OK. If I understand correctly, you have 12 raw lights (post #26 is a sample). You loaded them into WBPP with "some darks, bias and flats", and the result was the masterLight in post #24, which is badly wrong, and looks nothing like post #26. There does not seem to be anything dramatically wrong with your WBPP settings, so something must be wrong with the "some darks, bias and flats". Could you upload a single raw sub for each of these (one dark, one bias and one flat) from the frames used to generate post #24 (frames that are not from this set will tell us nothing).
Click to expand...
Hello fredvanner.
For now, a big thank you for your patience.
Here is one RAW image each.
de.files.fm

cr2: L_5236_ISO1600_0.5s__24C.CR2 and 2 other files

Visit this link to download: L_5236_ISO1600_0.5s__24C.CR2 and 2 other files
de.files.fm de.files.fm

Thanks and Regards
Günther
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top