0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
After WBPP script finished it's thing, I saw 2 artifacts in each master light: R, G, and B. After spotting this, I went back to the individual subs, and none of them contain it. Here's an image of one of the artifacts (center). The other looks very similar. Coincidentally, I upgraded to Lockhart just before processing. I've never seen such an artifact in any of my previous images. Thanks for having a look!  |
1.51
...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Tie Fighter?
|
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
It looks like a clone stamp tool was ran in a squiggly line. My guess would be an issue with your flats? |
7.22
...
·
|
|---|
I need to know some more things and might be able to help 1. I'd like to know whether this artifact and the other you mention that are in all of the RGB frames, are in very different places, or the same/similar places (if you were to combine RGB, how would the artifacts look then?) 2. I'd like to see your rejection frames 3. I'd like to see your flats the more info you can give, the better I hope I can help solve this |
|
0.00
...
·
|
|---|
It looks like a clone stamp tool was ran in a squiggly line. I didn't use a clone stamp in reaching these results. This is straight out of WBPP. Thinking it might be an issue with my flats as well, I ran WBPP a second time without them and the result was the same. |
|
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Oscar: 1. I'm unable to find these artifacts in any of the individual frames used for stacking. They only appear in each of the master lights. 2. There were no frames rejected in the process 3. I ran WBPP with and without flats and the results were identical. Thank you for assisting me. |
5.25
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Mayebe a slowly moving asteroid that was partially rejected?
|
|
0.00
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
0.00
...
·
|
|---|
Daniele Borsari: Wouldn't such an object show up in my subs? I'm going to have another look at them now just to be absolutely certain they look as good as I've claimed. |
11.54
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
I agree with @Daniele Borsari, this is something slow-moving which was partially rejected, like an asteroid or a comet. My best guess is that we have a moving comet here. I have seen such artefacts when I integrate light frames which include a comet and its head. Blink your registered frames and see if there is something appear moving at that specific region.
|
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
the Answer of Daniele Borsari is correct. is a small objects that moves. you can eliminate this in the image integration parameter
|
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
It looks like there is a slow moving object that the center has been removed with a rejection algorithm during stacking such as sigma clipping. I have seen that during comet stacking if those algorithms are used
|
|
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Die Launische Diva: Thank you! I will give this a try and let you know how it goes. |
|
0.00
...
·
|
|---|
Riccardo Civati: Thank you, Riccardo! |
|
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Rodrigo Roesch: Thank you, Rodrigo. You and others have given me some great advice to troubleshoot this! |
0.90
...
·
|
|---|
firefly?
|
4.79
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Try stacking without rejection to see what the smudge looks like. If its a comet or an asteroid it should turn into a line instead of this weird looking smudge. (definitely looks like a rejection remnant of something moving). You could also try stacking the dataset in split groups, for example stack first 50 subs into an image, next 50 into another etc. You might see the object move between these partial stacks. If it is an object that is, could be an insect or a boring piece of dust that is moving. |
|
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Oskari Nikkinen: Oskari - thanks so much! I'll rework per your recommendations and let you know the outcome. |
2.81
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Hello David, It's a comet head or an asteroid my friend, that you have there.. That's part of the california nebula, right? If you poin the date and hour that you did the shot, we can have more details about, including find the object's name it behind it. Regards, Cesar |
