Hi Shaun,
I wouldn't consider that particular discussion "Fundamental"... probably belongs in Horizons.I do not have that discussion...but I guess a comment. I see Unsharpmask as a *boundary* contrast enhancement (sharpening).Though it is in the sam…
Hi Jeff,
You may have done the same thing as James did on this forum a few days ago?Please check to make certain all GAIA files are installed..that would be a good screenshot.
-the Blockhead
The answer to your question is technical. It depends on the camera characteristics (such as readnoise) and statistical noise reduction of all noise terms. Basically you do not want your calibration frames to *add* more noise then the smallest uncert…
Does it still give you this error if you turn off "evaluate noise" ?
Channel "2" is the BLUE layer/channel. Indeed, there probably isn't much there..but it should still average the darn pixels.
Let me know...
-the Blockhead
Yes, this is the purpose of Cosmetic Correction.However, the ZWO tech did not, if I understand the response, address why the hot pixels do not calibrate (subtract well). The tech is explaining why the hot pixels have the values they do...but from ex…
Some software (ASIsomethinganother) put in garbage information in your FITs files. If you have garbage information in there, again the ImageSolver will fix this by putting the correct plate solution in place OR you can check the box in PCC that says…
People that have run into this problem *think* they have all of the GAIA (and APASS) files installed, not actually not (or not loaded). That is one thing to look at. It is possible that the images are not calibrated correctly (somehow). That is anot…
The Pelican Nebula is a large object so the coordinates you download may not actually be in the center of your field. This is true for many extended objects (where is the "center" of the North American Nebula for example). You can determine the coor…
Hi Jeff,
In your calibration settings, you have the box for "Dark" unchecked. That is why there is a red "NO" symbol in the Darks column for your lights.
-the Blockhead
Another thing... when you run into a problem like this. I would reccomend that you delete ALL output files and start again fresh. This is a good exercise that will weed out small errors. Once you have output files and you try to run things again...i…
Yeah... I think in your case, having looked at the image, part of the issue is likely how you are stretching the image. If you want "softer" stars that maintain a radial brightness profile you will want to employ multiple midtone stretches (gamma) u…
There is something else.....There are two AI versions of StarXTerminator. The AI version 5 will not insert "noise" to match the background. This will make the extracted stars, even in linear images, probably appear better. However... even with AI 6,…
Exactly. If you want WBPP to do image integration, you would need to check things in the Lights tab.The same is true for Cosmetic Correction. You enable this in the Lights tab.
Concerning not seeing debayered, I notice you do not have a dark frame l…
Hi Joe,
Very likely it is because you did not click on "Image Integration" . (Take a screenshot of your 'PostProcssing" tab.)
BUT in FasTrack Training, I do not demonstrate this usage of WBPP. Instead, I have you just calibrate the data and *then* u…
I am not certain what process he is using... he says:
"found I got more of the blue in the APP version and the more glowy APP stars I use to take the "edge" off the blown cores of stars coming from my Startools outputs.."
So it sounds like he is ge…
Yes, both by substitution of pixels as I show or by erosion (Morphological Selection) this will happen. Actually Morphological selection will leave little halos more than my technique.It was actually the main reason I disliked MS- because you can al…
I do not have a video on linear starless images. This is actually the first time I have used it in a meaningful way. Because the result is linear, you don't want to do any processing to the extracted stars (no processing that changes brightness valu…