WBPP leaves hot pixels

[Andy56]

Hi,
I seem to have broken something in WBPP.
I am experimenting with a camera and a tracker and taking some images in between the clouds for test purposes.

If I stack these images and Darks in DSS using defaults the final image has the hot pixels removed. See below.
If I use WBPP they remain.
Can someone shed light onto why this is. I guess I've clicked on something but I haven't got the experience to know what.
I have a full set of logs and I can post them if someone could tell me which ones are important. ( I could post them all but some may not be necessary).
I have attached the ProcessLogger.txt, a comparison image and the dialogue boxes.
The LHS is an auto stretch on the PI produced master and the RHS is an auto stretch on the DSS image.
Unfortunately it's been a long time since I've done stacking because of the bad weather and I haven't used this camera for over a year.

Many thanks
Andy

 

[cloudbait]

Hi,
I seem to have broken something in WBPP.
I am experimenting with a camera and a tracker and taking some images in between the clouds for test purposes.

If I stack these images and Darks in DSS using defaults the final image has the hot pixels removed. See below.
If I use WBPP they remain.
Can someone shed light onto why this is. I guess I've clicked on something but I haven't got the experience to know what.
I have a full set of logs and I can post them if someone could tell me which ones are important. ( I could post them all but some may not be necessary).
I have attached the ProcessLogger.txt, a comparison image and the dialogue boxes.
The LHS is an auto stretch on the PI produced master and the RHS is an auto stretch on the DSS image.
Unfortunately it's been a long time since I've done stacking because of the bad weather and I haven't used this camera for over a year.

Many thanks
Andy

Make sure you include CosmeticCorrection in the WBPP workflow.

 

[nico1038]

Hello Andy,

I don't see any example images here but you have not activated cosmeticcorrection in your WBPP run. That's probably why you have hot pixels remaining in your final stack.

 

[Andy56]

Thanks for your response.
I've posted the images I thought I'd posted before.
How do I enable Cosmetic Correction? In the calibration tab there is an option but the pull down template option only has "<None>" so I guess there's something else I have to do.
Could someone guide me through this? or point me to some gide.

Thanks
Andy
P.S: I'll be back in the(my) morning.

 

[TurtleCat]

You need to have a process icon for your cosmetic correction already on the desktop before you run WBPP in order to populate the dropdown with an item. Hopefully there will be a way of bypassing that someday when you can specify criteria in WBPP and it handles the process for you.

 

[Andy56]

Thank you all, and FredVanner whose answer to another similar thread explained you need to add a configuration to the CC icon and that WBPP uses the CC configuration and doesn't execute the CC process.
Yes, it would be so much simpler if there was a dialogue box within WBPP but we'll have to wait for the developers, but it's not a great issue. Just need to add an icon to my set of process icons.

I've learned something today. Previously I used DSS for my DSLR stacking and I think I went over to using WBPP when I got my ASI2600MC which does not have the same level of hot pixels if any. so I would have missed this step.

I've have added a simple configuration to a CosmeticCorrection icon and the hot pixels are gone. I had previously thought that the darks would have calibrated the hot pixels out on their own by subtraction from the subs.


Many thanks
Andy

 

[fredvanner]

I had previously thought that the darks would have calibrated the hot pixels out on their own by subtraction from the subs.

I also use an ASI2600MC. Previously I used an ASI183MC, and the darks removed virtually all hot pixels. The 2600 seems to have "warm pixels" which are not consistently present in the darks, but are readily corrected by CC with a modest (3 sigma) hot threshold. It is probable that these pixels are exhibiting an effect called Random Telegraph Noise (a side effect of the low-noise readout method that makes the camera so much lower noise than earlier designs - you just can't always win); this has nothing to do with fixed hot pixels.