hey guys,
a very short question.
do I need to manually blink through all my frames, sort them out etc. or is the wbpp script good enough to do that?
I mean it is doing subframe weighting as well as excluding not fitting frames.
cs
andi
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
i've waisted a lot of time running wbpp, to frequently find that i have to pick my reference frames manually (especially when it comes to local normalization).
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Really depends on your setup and how reliable you feel it is. When I'm at a dark site I generally don't feel a need to blink through unless wind was particularly bad. When imaging NB from the backyard I always blink as there are many stray lights from neighbors and such that can work a nasty gradient into a few subs. Subframe selector is also useful but I've found that running blink and deleting bad subs doesn't take long at all, plus I really enjoy catching the odd asteroid here and there.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Some subs may contain halo around brighter stars due to high clouds or fog, others may be out of focus - I usually remove them from the folder, because WBPP takes them with others. The script sorts other problems easily - from my experience.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I always blink through my data and remove ones with bright airplane lights. I will also remove subs with obvious problems like clouds and extreme star trailing. Yes, WBPP does a really good job of handling things, but I'm a firm believer in "garbage in, garbage out". I also tend to get pickier as I acquire more data. Here I'll use SFS to analyze the data and look at things like FWHM and eccentricity.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I use Subframe Selector first, then Blink. Relying on WBPP to remove bad subs has never worked for me.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I always blink through my stack of images from a night. This allows me to remove the obvious ones with issues (wind, guiding issues, clouds, object going behind trees, etc…). I used to use SFS to select the best subs for integration, but now I just let WBPP handle it.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I Blink all my Light subs and toss the bad ones. I then run Cosmetic Correction CFA - Auto Detect, Hot Signa 3.0 for my OSC. For mono don't select CFA.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
WBPP can't actually "see" your image. It could be full of tree branches or maybe you got a nice shot of the side of your house with the stars reflecting off a window. Or a local pilot decided to photobomb your image of M 74. WBPP and the Subframe Selector for that matter are only analyzing numbers.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I Blink all my Light subs and toss the bad ones. I then run Cosmetic Correction CFA - Auto Detect, Hot Signa 3.0 for my OSC. For mono don't select CFA.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I've found that WBPP (at least with the default settings) doesn't properly ignore highly visible things like brighter airplane trails, telephone poles, trees, etc. It's possible that there are integration settings that would work better than what I'm using, but I don't know enough about how to tweak them yet. Fainter things like satellite trails don't seem to be a problem (otherwise it would be hopeless).
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I absolutely still blink my frames and expect I will always need to. There are three major things I look for… The first is airplanes. While I find WBPP does a great job on removing satellite trails, airplanes seem to be a bridge too far in my experience (at least with my data). The second thing I look for is frames that are significantly out of focus or perhaps misaligned from the rest of the frames. This happens to me if the remote observatory closes for a couple hours due to cloud cover or wind and then re-opens. The telescope will have drifted a bit in those couple hours, and it may be a frame or two before it re-centers. Focus will also have changed in the couple of hours, and the telescope will not have been able to successfully re-focus without any stars. So it might be a couple or three frames before I am getting good results again. The poor focus frames would likely be caught by WBPP (if the focus was bad enough), but the misalignment won't be, and then the autocrop may lose more real estate than I would want. I'm better off removing those frames. The third thing I look for is halos from thin passing clouds. I don't want those included in the stack, even with a lower weighting. The fourth thing I look for is the effects of wind. My scope has a tendency to create stars with little spikes in RA if the wind speed gets above 6mph, and WBPP will not eliminate those frames (though it will weight them lower).
So, I continue to blink.
On the plus side, I rarely bother with subframe selector now. WBPP does about as good a job in weighting as I could do using subframe selector. There are a couple of exceptions, but they are beyond the scope of this discussion.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I think blinking is a necessary step. Why not giving your intelligence the opportunity to evaluate and select your recorded data?
After this you can use the other tools available in PixInsight like subframe selector (not necessary if you have good data) and the weighting parameters in wbpp
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Blink is cool but I dont like the fact you have to select files and all that. It's a bit cumbersome.
It's better to use ASIFITSVIEWER instead IMO. It will blink just as fast (all you need to do is hold the arrow key and it will blink through your frames pretty damn fast), and you can just simply press DEL on any image you want to delete and move on. All you need to do is navigate to the directory where your images are. No need to open PIX, Load files, select files, etc etc etc. It's way more simplified: goto directory, open file (ASIFITSVIEW is my default now), and hold arrow until i see something i dont like. If i see somethign I dont like, I hit DEL key and it goes to Recycle Bin and I just move on. So. Simple. Blink sucks. And the stretching is inconsistent. Just my 2c. Try it yourself and see.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
WBPP will mistake a passing plane for a sub with higher SNR. Of course the SNR here is the plane. I don't use WBPP, judicious decisions has to be taken all along the way.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Me too, I trust machines and alghoritms, but not up to this point  I had a lot of situations where some clouds passed by or wind… always use Blink as a first step to decide if the frame is "ok" or not.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Yes you still should blink your images. Agree with Jonny "junk in junk out".
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dean Ostergaard:
WBPP can't actually "see" your image. It could be full of tree branches or maybe you got a nice shot of the side of your house with the stars reflecting off a window. Or a local pilot decided to photobomb your image of M 74. WBPP and the Subframe Selector for that matter are only analyzing numbers. I have an artificial horizon created in NINA - no trees, roofs, chimneys etc. in my subs.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Anderl:
hey guys,
a very short question.
do I need to manually blink through all my frames, sort them out etc. or is the wbpp script good enough to do that?
I mean it is doing subframe weighting as well as excluding not fitting frames.
cs
andi I don't use Blink - I think it kinda sucks. I use Subframe Selector with the following formula to cull my subs (credit to Sky Story YT channel who did a video about this method here Faster Subframe Selection With the Sigma Formula): FWHMSigma <= 2 && EccentricitySigma <=2 && MedianSigma <=2 && StarsSigma >= -1.5 I find those four criteria weeds out out-of-focus (FWHM), bad guiding / wind (eccentricity), and loss of signal due to background brightness, clouds, etc. (Median, Stars). The Sigma keyword removes anything that is outside of 2 units of deviation from the group. In the Subframe Selector tool you will see charts with two grey bars in the middle. The dark grey is 1 sigma on either side of median, the light grey is 2 sigma. For stars you want anything that is greater than 1.5 sigma below median. Of course, adjust to your taste, but I have found this weeds out all of the low quality subframes and some of the subframes of questionable quality. You can always double click on an image in the list to see it for yourself and manually cull or keep it. After that, I load all the "approved" images into WBPP and turn-off subframe weighting. I don't see the point in doing all of that a second time. What I found is that leaving it on took more processing time and never resulted in any additional images being removed.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Not absolutely essential, but highly recommended IMO. WBPP is nice but not perfect. There's always some frame you want to reject that the weight selection would no pick, or you rather go for different reference frame,…
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dean Ostergaard:
WBPP can't actually "see" your image. It could be full of tree branches or maybe you got a nice shot of the side of your house with the stars reflecting off a window. Or a local pilot decided to photobomb your image of M 74. WBPP and the Subframe Selector for that matter are only analyzing numbers.
I have an artificial horizon created in NINA - no trees, roofs, chimneys etc. in my subs.
That won't work for airplanes, and it also won't work for some obstructions that might be in the middle of an object's path across clear sky instead of just at the start or end.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Matt Simmons:
Anderl:
hey guys,
a very short question.
do I need to manually blink through all my frames, sort them out etc. or is the wbpp script good enough to do that?
I mean it is doing subframe weighting as well as excluding not fitting frames.
cs
andi
I don't use Blink - I think it kinda sucks. I use Subframe Selector with the following formula to cull my subs (credit to Sky Story YT channel who did a video about this method here Faster Subframe Selection With the Sigma Formula):
FWHMSigma <= 2 &&
EccentricitySigma <=2 &&
MedianSigma <=2 &&
StarsSigma >= -1.5
I find those four criteria weeds out out-of-focus (FWHM), bad guiding / wind (eccentricity), and loss of signal due to background brightness, clouds, etc. (Median, Stars). The Sigma keyword removes anything that is outside of 2 units of deviation from the group. In the Subframe Selector tool you will see charts with two grey bars in the middle. The dark grey is 1 sigma on either side of median, the light grey is 2 sigma. For stars you want anything that is greater than 1.5 sigma below median. Of course, adjust to your taste, but I have found this weeds out all of the low quality subframes and some of the subframes of questionable quality. You can always double click on an image in the list to see it for yourself and manually cull or keep it.
After that, I load all the "approved" images into WBPP and turn-off subframe weighting. I don't see the point in doing all of that a second time. What I found is that leaving it on took more processing time and never resulted in any additional images being removed. Cliff still blinks his sub-frames using Irfanview and culls there pretty aggressively as well. I really like his formulas but if you don't check your images . . . Well, less than 2 standard deviations from bad is still bad.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I use Subframe Selector first, then Blink. Relying on WBPP to remove bad subs has never worked for me. Ditto, subframe selector is essential - there are a lot of issues you can't see in blink, such as low SNR. I use a OSC camera, so tend to use ASI's FITS viewer vs Blink as I can see the images in color. Yes, WBPP will weight your frames, but it's still a good idea to remove the worst ones.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
William:
Blink is cool but I dont like the fact you have to select files and all that. It's a bit cumbersome.
It's better to use ASIFITSVIEWER instead IMO. It will blink just as fast (all you need to do is hold the arrow key and it will blink through your frames pretty damn fast), and you can just simply press DEL on any image you want to delete and move on. All you need to do is navigate to the directory where your images are. No need to open PIX, Load files, select files, etc etc etc. It's way more simplified: goto directory, open file (ASIFITSVIEW is my default now), and hold arrow until i see something i dont like. If i see somethign I dont like, I hit DEL key and it goes to Recycle Bin and I just move on. So. Simple. Blink sucks. And the stretching is inconsistent. Just my 2c. Try it yourself and see. I agree and also prefer the ASIFitsViewer, but the Blink has one nice feature. The ASIFitsViewer calculates the STF for every image and you don't know it some are brighter or darker than others unless you look at the histogram in the meantime (which isn't very convenient). The Blink keeps the STF.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Dan Kohn:
Ditto, subframe selector is essential - there are a lot of issues you can't see in blink, such as low SNR. I use a OSC camera, so tend to use ASI's FITS viewer vs Blink as I can see the images in color. Yes, WBPP will weight your frames, but it's still a good idea to remove the worst ones. It would be really interesting to see a comparison of the actual WBPP results with and without culling with Blink and/or particular SubFrameSelector settings. I'm sure someone must have done that at some point. Some subframes, like ones with obvious airplane trails or obstructions can be easy to eliminate but I always find it difficult to know where to draw the line when I'm looking at a bunch of subframes getting gradually worse due to high clouds or whatever.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
