WBPP 2.3.0 Released

As I understand it, and you can read the CC documentation too, it's more about hardware issues, hot/cold pixels. defective rows etc which should be unaffected by the optical train.
 
robyx said:
If you select any other weighting method then WBPP does not weigh the images using the formula (the "Weighting parameters..." button gets disabled) while Image Integration will do it adopting the method you've selected among PSF Signal, PSF Power and SNR Estimate.
Click to expand...

That's good to know, the GUI does not make this clear.
This is because in the overview, there is no indication that any weighting whatsoever takes place, even tough e.g. PSF Signal Weight is selected:

steps.jpg



A greyed out box with the weighting basis could also be added in the integration tab that confirms the prior setting, currently, it is not really clear.

integration.jpg
 
Hi, quick question on this new version. I bought PI recently and I'm still on 1.8.8-9. I keep checking for updates but nothing shows up. WBPU is still on 2.2.0

Do I have to do core updates manually (download and install)? If yes, can I install over the current release that I am using or I need to clean up first? Any way to save all customized settings?

Thanks!
 
cucu said:
Hi, quick question on this new version. I bought PI recently and I'm still on 1.8.8-9. I keep checking for updates but nothing shows up. WBPU is still on 2.2.0

Do I have to do core updates manually (download and install)? If yes, can I install over the current release that I am using or I need to clean up first? Any way to save all customized settings?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Hi,

I think, you should install the latest version of PI and the newest version of WBPP should be there. The reinstallation procedure is here in the first section, just below dark-grey horizontal bar, and is called Installing PixInsight Core Packages. TL;DR: macOS - remove previous version and install the new one, Windows - uninstall previous one and install new one, Linux - follow steps from link provided above.
 
This looks really cool, I need to spend time understanding how the new weighting features will benefit my data.

I would like to share a suggestion since you seem to be pursuing full optimization of wbpp. For a long time I have thought that it would be very very useful to generate metrics that indicate how effective each step of image calibration was implemented. For example if calculations are made to measure a single light frame before and after a master dark, flat, or bias is applied, then a second measurement could be made to indicate how effective the calibration frame was implemented. This would allow fine tuning from within WBPP so that users have optimal settings selected right up to the actual integration of fully calibrated images.
 
I have WBPP v2.3.2 and it looks different. Any tutorial, yet, on how to use it?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (145).png
    Screenshot (145).png
    805.1 KB · Views: 80
Ron Niehus said:
I have WBPP v2.3.2 and it looks different. Any tutorial, yet, on how to use it?
Click to expand...
I can't spot a difference between your screenshot and the one posted in the first post of this topic other than opened combo box for weights, already added lights and deselected generate rejection maps feature. Could you be more specific please?
 
I.m an enthusiastic user of WBPP, but I have a small request: allow several Cosmetic Correction icons.

The CC workflow invokes the Master Dark, and with my camera you really have to have the exposure time of the master dark matching the lights. If I use a set of different exposures (maybe for M42 or M45) then I process them all in a single session of WBPP, with a single CC icon then all the eventual master lights which have exposure different from the CC icon are unusable.

The only way out is to set up multiple CC icons then run WBPP multiple times, making sure to use the same reference image, and combine the masters later.

Thanks for all the good work!

cheers,
Richard
 
I'm confused about what weighting to choose in WBPP if I intend to subsequently use NSG prior to integration. I would greatly appreciate advice.

In older WBPP scripts there was an option to disable subframe weighting. Since NSG outputs NWEIGHT as a key word does it matter what the settings are in WBPP - I think thats unlikely, hence my question.
 
Hi @MLM3,

WBPP does not have the option to "disable the weights" because it does make sense anymore. WBPP 2.3.2 prepares the execution of ImageIntegration taking into account the weighting method selected, if you disable the Integration step and want to run Image Integration manually at a later stage then the weighting selection is not relevant.

For performance reasons, select the custom formula method only if you're planning to use the correspondent weights store into the WBPPWGHT FITs keyword.

Robyx
 
See my answer in this thread:

Weighted Batch Preprocessing Script. Disable Subframe Weighting?

Hi everyone. Newbie here. Is there a way to disable "Subframe Weighting" when using the Weighted Batch Preprocessing Script? I plan to use the Normalized Scale Gradient script once I have calibrated and registered the images with the Weighted Batch Preprocessing Script and according to the...
pixinsight.com

The incoming new version of PixInsight comes with very important changes and new features where WBPP plays an essential role. The new version release is being delayed a bit because I am implementing additional features in the new LocalNormalization tool, but it is a matter of days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top