Unable to get ImageSolver to work

I attempted to solve as the original XISF from calibration and no luck.

I am shooting with the 2600MC-P, each file is 50 MB. The XISF file was too big for my drop box (~ 1 GB) and I figured NO ONE would want to download a 1 GB file so... I placed it as a TIF which is pretty standard. You can solve a JPEG at lower resolutions in other programs so...not the issue at hand.

But yeah, when I did WBPP it couldn't solve the astrometry with the original XISF file.

It does not explain why I still can't solve in any format. Frustrating.
 
I attempted to solve as the original XISF from calibration and no luck.

I am shooting with the 2600MC-P, each file is 50 MB. The XISF file was too big for my drop box (~ 1 GB) and I figured NO ONE would want to download a 1 GB file so... I placed it as a TIF which is pretty standard. You can solve a JPEG at lower resolutions in other programs so...not the issue at hand.

But yeah, when I did WBPP it couldn't solve the astrometry with the original XISF file.

It does not explain why I still can't solve in any format. Frustrating.
Well, it wouldn't surprise me at all for the TIFF to not solve. In fact, 24-bit TIFF files are not standard at all for saving astronomical images. Take your XISF file and save it as a 16-bit per channel TIFF, which will provide a MUCH better test as it will retain pretty much all the pixel level data. And that should be small enough, maybe 150 MB. (We're downloading files all the time that are hundreds of MB around here.)
 
I tried to reboot my PC but it still does not solve the XISF image. Very sad here.

I might try to restack only some of the light frames.... to see if the astrometry will solve.
 
Not to drill this too hard on y'all, but if I were to send you the entire process console info on the XISF image failure does that provide info to help sniff the issue out or not? Hate being a PIA.
 
There is really no obvious reason why this image should be causing problems; good SNR, good FWMH and eccentricity. The coma / elongation at the top and bottom left corners, but not the right corners suggest maybe a slight tilt, but not enough to upset ImageSolver.
I were to send you the entire process console info on the XISF image failure does that provide info to help sniff the issue
It's worth a try.
 
But we are happily solving the TIFF, so why can't @stardad1994 ?
As I noted, it doesn't explain that weirdness. But it's a terrible image to use for testing. There's no way that good PSFs are going to be calculated on tiny stars and 8 bits of dynamic range. For all I know things are already on the hairy edge, and it's nothing more than the difference between the hardware floating point processors, or some other oddity.
 
I have been unable to plate solve the XISF file. I only uploaded the TIF for others to download... Originally I didn't even try to solve the TIF file.
 
There's no way that good PSFs are going to be calculated on tiny stars and 8 bits of dynamic range. For all I know things are already on the hairy edge,
I am more optimistic. The stars often look tiny on a wide field image like this, so it is best to ask the software. FWHMEccentricity gives:
1679314452203.png

This is a very healthy FWHM and eccentricity over a large star support.
SPCC is quite choosy about what stars it selects for processing, but it is happy to analyse 552 stars in this image. Lower precision in the PSF estimation will give bigger scatter in the luminosity ratio plots - the question is whether the resulting distrubution is good enough to estimate the linear fits. At the end of the day SPCC only calculates three parameters for colour balance and three for BN. This is the SPCC result:
1679314810837.png

This looks OK to me.
 
I am more optimistic. The stars often look tiny on a wide field image like this, so it is best to ask the software. FWHMEccentricity gives:
View attachment 18091
This is a very healthy FWHM and eccentricity over a large star support.
SPCC is quite choosy about what stars it selects for processing, but it is happy to analyse 552 stars in this image. Lower precision in the PSF estimation will give bigger scatter in the luminosity ratio plots - the question is whether the resulting distrubution is good enough to estimate the linear fits. At the end of the day SPCC only calculates three parameters for colour balance and three for BN. This is the SPCC result:
View attachment 18092
This looks OK to me.
I do not trust the quality of a fitted PSF derived from 8-bit data! Anyway, my point remains the same. Trying to debug this with a file that doesn't even accurately represent the actual data isn't a good idea, and just adds an unnecessary variable to the diagnosis process.
 
Trying to debug this with a file that doesn't even accurately represent the actual data isn't a good idea
It is not ideal, but it is all we have unless the OP uploads a full precision file.
However, I stick with the point that if we are getting successfull processing (plate solving and SPCC calibration) on the 8 bit image, it is probably not data quality that is the OP's problem with solving.
 
Still intrigued [obsessed?] with my issue.

Here is the Process Console data from my original XISF image using the exact data inputs as fredvanner [see attached image from his previous post]:


run --execute-mode=auto "C:/Program Files/PixInsight/src/scripts/AdP/ImageSolver.js"



Processing script file: C:/Program Files/PixInsight/src/scripts/AdP/ImageSolver.js

* Code signature verified:

script-id : ImageSolver

developer-id : PTeam

timestamp : 2023-02-03T18:08:21.227Z



Gaia: Global context

4.500 us



Searching for optimal magnitude limit...



Gaia: Global context

141.658 ms



Gaia: Global context

147.710 ms



Gaia: Global context

164.272 ms



Gaia: Global context

174.419 ms



Gaia: Global context

220.136 ms



Gaia: Global context

440.274 ms



Gaia: Global context

417.362 ms



Gaia: Global context

461.982 ms



Gaia: Global context

409.056 ms



Gaia: Global context

460.924 ms



* Using an automatically calculated limit magnitude of 26.10.

* Using the automatically selected GaiaDR3_XPSD catalog.

Seed parameters for plate solving:

Center coordinates: RA = 11 18 55.908, Dec = +13 05 32.30

Resolution: 2.600 as/px

Starting StarAlignment iteration



Gaia: Global context

Executing Gaia DR3 search command...

14590 sources found.

455.570 ms

Catalog Gaia DR3 (XPSD): 14590 objects.

* Using the triangle similarity star matching algorithm.



StarAlignment: Processing view: masterLight_BIN_1_6248x4176_EXPOSURE_240_00s_FILTER_NoFilter_RGB_integration

C:/Users/15136/AppData/Local/Temp/stars.csv:

Scanning star data: done

4241 stars.

masterLight_BIN_1_6248x4176_EXPOSURE_240_00s_FILTER_NoFilter_RGB_integration:

Structure map: done

Detecting stars: done

7770 stars found.

* Reference image: Limiting to 2000 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 2000 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

295 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #2

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 2000 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 2000 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

486 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #3

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 250 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 250 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

58 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #4

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 250 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 250 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

71 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #5

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 125 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 125 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

35 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #6

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 125 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 125 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

41 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #7

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 60 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 60 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

20 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #8

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 60 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 60 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

24 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #9

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 30 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 30 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

12 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #10

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 30 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 30 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

*** 7 star pair matches found - need at least eight matched stars.

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #11

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 15 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 15 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

*** 3 star pair matches found - need at least eight matched stars.

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #12

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 15 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 15 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

*** 0 star pair matches found - need at least eight matched stars.

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #13

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 8 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 8 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

*** 0 star pair matches found - need at least eight matched stars.

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #14

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 8 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 8 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

*** 0 star pair matches found - need at least eight matched stars.

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #15

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 500 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 500 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

96 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #16

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 500 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 500 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

141 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #17

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 1000 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 1000 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

169 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #18

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 1000 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 1000 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

250 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #19

useScaleDifferences=false

* Reference image: Limiting to 3000 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 3000 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

431 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

* Previous attempt failed - this is try #20

useScaleDifferences=true

* Reference image: Limiting to 3000 brightest stars.

* Target image: Limiting to 3000 brightest stars.

* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50

Matching stars: done

718 putative star pair matches.

Performing RANSAC: done

*** Error: Unable to find an initial set of putative star pair matches.

<* failed *>

*** Error: The image could not be aligned with the reference star field.

Please check the following items:

  • The initial coordinates should be inside the image.
  • The initial resolution should be within a factor of 2 from the correct value.
  • If you use an online star catalog through the VizieR service, consider using the Gaia DR3 catalog with local XPSD databases instead.
  • If the image has high noise levels, bad tracking, or is poorly focused, you may need to adjust some star detection parameters.

*** Error: Unable to plate solve image: Alignment failed.

This usually happens because the initial parameters are too far from the actual metadata of the image.


_____________

So listed above is the process console error I get with this original XISF image from WBPP. I have attempted to try various and multiple permutations of the input data including using data from the FITS headers of one of the light frames transposed to the XISF file.

I have plate solved several other images from this scope/ camera combination previously but am curious as to why this particular image will not solve.

Thoughts appreciated. If someone wants to see the original original 1 GB XISF file LMK. I will figure a way to upload to DropBox.

Thanks. Marc
 

Attachments

  • Fredvanner Post Process.JPG
    Fredvanner Post Process.JPG
    98.1 KB · Views: 24
In images with a very large number of stars the basic task of matching the stars in the image against the stars in the catalogue becomes a combinatorial nightmare. Large numbers of "stars" are often a symptom of poor calibration leaving lots of hot pixels, but in this case it is just a very wide field image in a star-rich region. It is succeeding on my system with your uploaded image, but this is probably at least partly because it finds fewer stars (because it calculates a much lower limiting magnitude).
I get the following (listed up to the point where the initial search succeeds):
run --execute-mode=auto "C:/Program Files/PixInsight/src/scripts/AdP/ImageSolver.js"

Processing script file: C:/Program Files/PixInsight/src/scripts/AdP/ImageSolver.js
Loading control points...
Simplified surfaces: tolerance = 0.96 as | l:2091 | b:1809
Simplified surfaces: tolerance = 0.33 px | X:2074 | Y:1862
Loaded 4805 control points (metadata version 1.1).

Gaia: Global context
3.900 us

Searching for optimal magnitude limit...

Gaia: Global context
29.604 ms

Gaia: Global context
32.485 ms

Gaia: Global context
41.031 ms

Gaia: Global context
61.927 ms

Gaia: Global context
112.989 ms

Gaia: Global context
240.981 ms

Gaia: Global context
182.528 ms

Gaia: Global context
107.506 ms

Gaia: Global context
240.033 ms

Gaia: Global context
170.616 ms

Gaia: Global context
104.605 ms

Gaia: Global context
235.641 ms

Gaia: Global context
164.309 ms

Gaia: Global context
98.728 ms

Gaia: Global context
224.164 ms

Gaia: Global context
133.172 ms

* Using an automatically calculated limit magnitude of 16.57.
Seed parameters for plate solving:
Center coordinates: RA = 11 19 02.374, Dec = +13 05 38.57
Resolution: 2.600 as/px
Starting StarAlignment iteration

Gaia: Global context
Executing Gaia DR3 search command...
9075 sources found.
135.630 ms
Catalog Gaia DR3 (XPSD): 5310 objects inside the image.
* Using the triangle similarity star matching algorithm.

StarAlignment: Processing view: masterLight_BIN_1_6248x4176_EXPOSURE_240_00s_FILTER_NoFilter_RGB_integration_ABEcomp_w_clone
C:/Users/fred/AppData/Local/Temp/stars.csv:
Scanning star data: done
7256 stars.
masterLight_BIN_1_6248x4176_EXPOSURE_240_00s_FILTER_NoFilter_RGB_integration_ABEcomp_w_clone:
Structure map: done
Detecting stars: done
14151 stars found.
* Reference image: Limiting to 2000 brightest stars.
* Target image: Limiting to 2000 brightest stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50
Matching stars: done
9 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
* Previous attempt failed - this is try #2
useScaleDifferences=true
* Reference image: Limiting to 2000 brightest stars.
* Target image: Limiting to 2000 brightest stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 1 of 50
Matching stars: done
237 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
229 star pair matches in 102 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 997.0022 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 369 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 2 of 50
Matching stars: done
365 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
361 star pair matches in 86 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.1044 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 664 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 3 of 50
Matching stars: done
527 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
525 star pair matches in 4 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.1537 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 921 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 4 of 50
Matching stars: done
692 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
690 star pair matches in 14 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.7646 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 1067 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 5 of 50
Matching stars: done
857 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
853 star pair matches in 102 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.8698 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 1212 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 6 of 50
Matching stars: done
996 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
994 star pair matches in 4 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.2322 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 1323 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 7 of 50
Matching stars: done
1039 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
1037 star pair matches in 5 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.0441 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 1339 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 8 of 50
Matching stars: done
1056 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
1053 star pair matches in 1 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.0000 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 1340 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 9 of 50
Matching stars: done
1047 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
1045 star pair matches in 57 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.0000 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 1340 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 10 of 50
Matching stars: done
1047 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
1045 star pair matches in 13 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.0000 px
Computing global distortion correction: done
Performing RANSAC: done
Global distortion correction applied with 1340 stars.
* Distortion correction: Iteration 11 of 50
Matching stars: done
1047 putative star pair matches.
Performing RANSAC: done
1045 star pair matches in 32 RANSAC iterations. Residual: 0.0000 px
* Distortion correction: Convergence reached after 11 iterations.
* Summary of model properties:
Inliers : 0.998
Overlapping : 1.000
Regularity : 0.983
Quality : 0.995
Root mean square error:
delta_RMS : 0.000 px
RMS error deviation:
sigma_RMS : 0.000 px
Peak errors:
delta_x_max : 0.000 px
delta_y_max : 0.000 px
residual : 0.0000 px
* Projective transformation matrix:
+0.834727 +0.488737 -1006.256912
-0.486484 +0.833457 +1006.390212
+0.000000 +0.000000 +1.000000
translation : 1423.16 px
translation_x : -1006.26 px
translation_y : +1006.39 px
rotation : -30.33 deg
scale : 1.033
scale_x : 1.035
scale_y : 1.035
02:32.93
Simplified surfaces: tolerance = 0.15 as | l:1045 | b:1045
Simplified surfaces: tolerance = 0.05 px | X:1045 | Y:1045
I suggest you try switching off the automatic limiting magnitude, and set a value of 16. You could also try reducing the star detection sensitivity, say to about 0.4.
See if this makes any difference to your results.
 
Last edited:
Well, I have just solved the image. Attached is the SPCC result.

Anyone care to guess the issue???

Oh yes, infinitely stupid here. At least I think this is the reason.

The focal length is not as I kept stating in my solver: 360 mm. I had the 0.8X focal reducer on the scope so the focal length is 288 mm. I kept using the wrong focal length in my attempts to solve.

Once I placed the correct focal length in...well, you know...it solved.

So, I am sorry I wasted everyone's energy/ time. Please know I have learned quite a bit from all of the suggestions.

I appreciate this community. Thank you ALL very much!

And..I really like PI. But so much to learn.

Marc
 

Attachments

  • Image Solved.JPG
    Image Solved.JPG
    85.4 KB · Views: 20
Well, I have just solved the image. Attached is the SPCC result.

Anyone care to guess the issue???

Oh yes, infinitely stupid here. At least I think this is the reason.

The focal length is not as I kept stating in my solver: 360 mm. I had the 0.8X focal reducer on the scope so the focal length is 288 mm. I kept using the wrong focal length in my attempts to solve.

Once I placed the correct focal length in...well, you know...it solved.

So, I am sorry I wasted everyone's energy/ time. Please know I have learned quite a bit from all of the suggestions.

I appreciate this community. Thank you ALL very much!

And..I really like PI. But so much to learn.

Marc
Something still strikes me as wrong. The tool only uses the focal length if it has to in order to calculate a pixel scale. But according to the long process log you posted above, the pixel scale was correctly set to 2.6" and that's the value that was used... without a solution being found. The focal length shouldn't have mattered.
 
Back
Top