WBPP 2.0 released

naavis

Well-known member
May 31, 2012
70
0
Helsinki, Finland
Nothing on this? The script basically fails during registration if any of the individual image groups have less than 3 images, even if the total number of images is dozens, and I want to register them all together.
 

aatdalt

Member
Feb 24, 2020
8
0
Any comment on what a best practice is to be able to use standard date formats for grouping without WBPP getting messed up by the "-" characters?
 

dswtan

Member
Sep 12, 2015
11
2
www.astrobin.com
Love WBPP, thank you so much! I assume this is a feature request, or is there a current workaround buried in config files somewhere perhaps:

I would like to be able to save and load Frame Groups explicitly.

Use cases:
- I use multiple PCs, some Windows, some Linux, and would like to move processing between them from time to time.
- I use multiple imaging rigs, with different cameras and set-ups. I would like to load "rig A calibration files + latest images" vs. "rig B calibration flies + latest images".

Maybe 3.0?

BTW, that WBPP already saves at least the current framegroup is already a massive timesaver for me, thank you!
 

M Covington

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2015
82
6
Great script! If the process is one that does not require bias frames -- such as lights, darks, flats, flat darks -- then I wish there were not a diagnostic popping up saying no bias frames were provided.

[Followup: From Adam Block's video I gather that the diagnostic is purely intended as information, in case we intended to put in bias frames and somehow didn't get them.]
 
Last edited:

M Covington

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2015
82
6
My experience is that with both WBPP 2.0 and WBPP 2.1, I must *uncheck* it in order to avoid a color cast. But I will keep checking on this.
 

M Covington

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2015
82
6
What I've ascertained so far: My calibrated flats (if I open one and deBayer it) and calibrated lights both have a green cast. Unchecking "Separate CFA" allows the color cast of the flats to correct the color cast of the lights. (That is, the flat fielding is introducing a color shift which is wanted.) Why there is a color cast in the first place, I am not sure -- the uncalibrated image files do not have the color cast -- but I will continue investigating. (I have not read the thread referred to, which has many references to others.) The camera is a Nikon D5500, H-alpha modified.
 

M Covington

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2015
82
6
OK, the answer, found by extensive experimentation, surprised me. It is correct to have a green cast when an image from a Nikon D5500 is deBayered without using camera color balance data. The reason is, this sensor actually gives more light to the green pixels than to the red and blue pixels, when photographing a neutral subject. This can be demonstrated by looking at the upper left corner,

R G
G B

of an un-deBayered image of a flat field with a neutral light source.

I presume the sensor makers have their reasons; and we can't fault PixInsight for delivering the data that's on the sensor, for us to color-balance afterward as we wish. Unchecking "Separate CFA" does allow this effect in the flats to cancel out the same effect in the lights, but I am not sure it gives a better ultimate result.
 

bulrichl

PTeam Member
Nov 2, 2016
1,121
135
La Palma, Canary Islands
Hi Michael,

I presume the sensor makers have their reasons; and we can't fault PixInsight for delivering the data that's on the sensor, for us to color-balance afterward as we wish. Unchecking "Separate CFA" does allow this effect in the flats to cancel out the same effect in the lights, but I am not sure it gives a better ultimate result.
Yes, all of what you wrote is true. The sensor makers were geared to human vision: human eyes are most sensitive to green light. In Bayer patterns, the pixel ratio of R/G/B is 1:2:1, and in Fujifilms X-Trans Sensors it is even 2:5:2. So it is logical that integrations appear green when STF is applied with option 'Link RGB Channels' enabled. If you disable this option, the green cast is mostly removed in the displayed image, but the data will not be altered by using this option.

In order to get well-balanced colors in the ultimate result, 1. the removal of gradients and 2. color calibration are indispensable steps in image processing. I recommend the use of PhotometricColorCalibration (PCC), using PCC's Background Neutralization (enable option 'Region of Interest', from a previously generated Preview that preferably contains pure background).

Bernd
 
  • Like
Reactions: M Covington

M Covington

Well-known member
Jan 10, 2015
82
6
Just to clarify, it isn't just because there are 2x as many green pixels than other pixels. (PixInsight knows about that and allows for it.) It's that the green pixels themselves receive more light, as shown by examining them un-deBayered.
 

vbudnik

New member
Mar 25, 2021
1
0
Hello, I am fairly new to PI, and I am having the following problem: I have 2 sets of lights that were taken the same night, but one of the sets has a different name. Example:
Name 1:light_NGC7023_120.0s_Bin1_1_0001.fit; Name 2: light_NGC7023_120.0s_Bin1_R_gain270_0002.fit. Both were taken with the same filter and gain (which is appropriately reflected in the FITS header). While the problem of having different filter names is easily resolved by loading the files into Batch preprocessing using the Custom button, PI does not recognize the fact that they are of the same Gain, and groups the 2 into separate groups. I have tried to use the keyword grouping, and I am sure I am doing something wrong, but I just cannot get them to group together when looking at the Control Panel. Do you have any advice, other than changing the name of every individual file, which would be very painful?
Thanks,

Vivian
 

jshelly

New member
Jan 23, 2019
4
0
Hello. Love the new script. Keep up the good work. I am sure there is a valid explanation, but is there a reason why my Cosmetized folders are empty when I input a pedestal value before running the script?
 

ngc1535

PixInsight Ambassador
Feb 1, 2014
831
159
AdamBlockStudios.com
Hmm... a screenshot would be helpful with this question.
FIles generated from CosmeticCorrection will only exist after the script is run. Are you certain you haven't run WBPP already and are looking at a previously created folder? The second part of the question concerns the pedestal- but this isn't related to the CC stuff...

-adam
 
  • Like
Reactions: robyx

robyx

PixInsight Staff
Jul 17, 2019
262
77
44
Zurich
Hello, I am fairly new to PI, and I am having the following problem: I have 2 sets of lights that were taken the same night, but one of the sets has a different name. Example:
Name 1:light_NGC7023_120.0s_Bin1_1_0001.fit; Name 2: light_NGC7023_120.0s_Bin1_R_gain270_0002.fit. Both were taken with the same filter and gain (which is appropriately reflected in the FITS header). While the problem of having different filter names is easily resolved by loading the files into Batch preprocessing using the Custom button, PI does not recognize the fact that they are of the same Gain, and groups the 2 into separate groups. I have tried to use the keyword grouping, and I am sure I am doing something wrong, but I just cannot get them to group together when looking at the Control Panel. Do you have any advice, other than changing the name of every individual file, which would be very painful?
Thanks,

Vivian
Hi @vbudnik,
sorry for the delayed response, WBPP doesn't use the gain as a criterion to separate groups, if the subs have the same filter name, binning and exposure they should be grouped together disregarding their filename. Are you using GAIN as a preprocessing keyword? otherwise, could you post a screenshot of the control panel?