Author Topic: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing  (Read 2828 times)

Offline pfile

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 4630
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #15 on: 2019 November 17 14:43:36 »
i think you should be OK, all of my files captured with SGP across many versions have the EXPOSURE keyword.

rob
 

Offline dchamberlain

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #16 on: 2019 November 17 15:10:47 »
Would it help if I send you a couple of raw FITS subframes via email?

Offline robyx

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #17 on: 2019 November 17 15:16:58 »
absolutely yes: weightedbpp@gmail.com

Offline GaryI

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #18 on: 2019 November 19 16:23:57 »
Thank you Robyx and team, for this excellent update!!  I have run BPP for over 1000 DSO images over the past 3 years, and I love the time savings of BPP vs. the manual process, so this is a valuable improvement for me.  I haven't run the new script yet, but it looks very promising.

A few suggestions for future updates:
- It would be great if the end summary printout could include a summary of how many subs were successfully registered for each group (or ideally, how many subs FAILED!).  Often I am surprised to see that a number of subs haven't registered.  If I catch this right away, it is then a simple matter of running the alignment process manually and using noise reduction to achieve alignment of all subs.
- It would be great is BPP included the option for large scale pixel rejection.  This is the main reason now why I will often have to make the final run manually instead of with BPP.

Thanks again,
Gary

Offline Sedat

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #19 on: 2019 November 20 01:23:37 »
Excellent upgrade to this very useful tool! Thanks a lot!

Would it be possible to integrate LocalNormalization to the script ? One could prepare the reference frame before starting the script, just like we are preparing the CosmeticCorrection process icon.

Sedat

Offline Juan Conejero

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 7024
    • View Profile
    • http://pixinsight.com/
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #20 on: 2019 November 20 01:50:21 »
Hi Sedat,

Thank you.

The local normalization problem is ill-posed by its nature. LocalNormalization should never be used blindly; you should apply it only when necessary, and always under strict control, verifying its results. An improper application of local normalization can easily generate large-scale artifacts that invalidate any subsequent result. For this reason I implemented many control resources in the LN tool, such as background models, rejection maps and 3-D function representations.

If you want to use LN, use WBPP to calibrate and register your frames, then apply LN to the registered frames.

Besides that, this cannot be stressed enough: ImageIntegration must always be performed manually; the integrated image generated by WBPP is just a rough preview that cannot be used for production purposes.
Juan Conejero
PixInsight Development Team
http://pixinsight.com/

Offline Sedat

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #21 on: 2019 November 20 02:19:10 »
Thank you Juan! I was expecting this response :) LN is magical when composing mosaics and these days I'm into more mosaics then I can handle. I'll take my time and do the job manually.
Sedat

Offline mmirot

  • PixInsight Padawan
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #22 on: 2019 November 20 21:54:17 »
Please verify the check box to measure quality descriptor after registration is working . It does it on on the calibrated frames when checked on my system.
Also, pause/abort would not stop the script.

I vote for large scale rejection too.
It would be nice to do calibrate and registration only as an option

Offline Jokehoba

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #23 on: 2019 November 22 07:52:17 »
WBPP has got me back to using the script again and saving time. Thank you.

Some things I note:
When the script is closed and reopened, the Output folder isn't recalled and the Cosmetic Correction checkbox gets un-ticked.
It might be useful if the Smart Report could be saved as a text file (or added to the end of the log file?) for future reference, especially if you forget to make a note of the reference frame!

I stopped using the BPP script when I realised many of my images required me to add a pedestal value. Could this be included in WBPP in future?

Many thanks for improving this script for us all.

John
« Last Edit: 2019 November 22 08:07:27 by Jokehoba »

Offline jwaters125

  • PixInsight Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #24 on: 2019 November 22 09:58:22 »
Juan, Robyx and the other developers of WBPP.  I have spent this week going back and reprocessing my images with WBPP.  I have noticed an improvement in my images.  They show more detail and I believe less background noise.  Previously I use the BPP script. 

Thank-you for releasing this script. The script is an excellent upgrade to PixInsight.

Some suggestions for the next release:
- It would be great if the script could calculate the 'approximate' execution time.
- The Output Folder location gets cleared after the script is closed.  Can this be retained?
- Include a Flat Darks option.
- Append the Output summary to the execution log file.

Offline andevellicus

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #25 on: 2019 December 07 10:07:07 »
This has been super helpful, and a wonderful addition to the program, thank you for working on it.

I had a question -- as I shoot in monochrome, is there a way to do registration on a per filter basis for the lights? If I add in all my lights, WBPP successfully identifies and groups the files per filter, but then only registers them against the single best light frame, whereas if my understanding is right, one should register and integrate each filter. I'm not sure if this functionality exists within the WBPP and I just missed it, or if there's a technical limitation preventing it, so I figured I'd ask.

Thanks again, great work!

Offline pfile

  • PTeam Member
  • PixInsight Jedi Grand Master
  • ********
  • Posts: 4630
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #26 on: 2019 December 07 10:26:04 »
no, you want to register against the best frame across all filters. if you do it how you are proposing you end up with the channel masters being misaligned to one another, and then you'd have to register two of them to the third... and that's a double interpolation which should be avoided.

rob

Offline flyeye

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Batch Preprocessing upgrade: the Weighted Batch Preprocessing
« Reply #27 on: 2020 January 12 14:43:53 »
I got some problems with file registration using WBPP, and ot looks like it blocks using WBPP at all. Because if WBPP fails with file registration, it does no write weights calculated to files. There is no options "calc weights, but do not make registration".
The problem is disscussed in separated thread: https://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=14478.msg87016#msg87016