Processing results not as I expected

Questions and answers about processing in StarTools and how to accomplish certain tasks.
perdrix
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:05 am

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by perdrix »

You may find the 32-bit fits Integer is borked too...

When will I be able to DL the new release?

Thanks
David
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2330
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by admin »

perdrix wrote:You may find the 32-bit fits Integer is borked too...
Hmmm... Seems to work fine for me? (reading NoWb 32 bit Integer.TIF)
What happens when you read that file?
When will I be able to DL the new release?
You first! ;)

Probably tomorrow. I need my macOS machine back and finish up on some other bits (mainly text strings).
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
perdrix
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:05 am

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by perdrix »

You're right it was the 32-bit Rational that was wrong. WIndows 10 gets it wrong too!

Daivd
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2330
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by admin »

perdrix wrote:You're right it was the 32-bit Rational that was wrong. WIndows 10 gets it wrong too!
Ok, that's a relief. I'll do my best to wrap things up and release tomorrow (Aussie time). Cheers!
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
perdrix
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:05 am

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by perdrix »

Still confused about Compose and Colour process. If I go into Compose that seems to be for LRGB stackup and doesn't show me anything.

So are you saying that I work through the various stages with the display in monchrome and it's only when I get to the Color (sic) module that I will see a coloured image?

Maybe (if its not too much of a bother you could send me the full log file from when you re-processed the image (minus the star mask of course))? Then I can follow you step by step exactly what you did!

David
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2330
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by admin »

perdrix wrote:Still confused about Compose and Colour process. If I go into Compose that seems to be for LRGB stackup and doesn't show me anything.
Compose mode != Compose module
Per my previous posts;
"If you chose to import your dataset as "Linear and was Bayered, but not whitebalanced" (e.g. the subject of the DSS feature request :) ), then Compose mode is used to process luminance and color separately."
So are you saying that I work through the various stages with the display in monchrome and it's only when I get to the Color (sic) module that I will see a coloured image?
Correct. This is also the general recommendation when processing any dataset in StarTools; get detail (luminance) right first, perform colour calibration at the end. This is because StarTools, through its signal evolution Tracking, can effortlessly recover true colours. It can completely undo the constant stretching and squashing of hue and saturation, caused by stretching the image (whether stretching locally or globally). This ensures all areas of similar emissions retain the same colouring. No more destaurated M42 or M31 cores. They now render a nice teal green (dominant O-III emissions) and yellow (older stars) respectively.
Maybe (if its not too much of a bother you could send me the full log file from when you re-processed the image (minus the star mask of course))? Then I can follow you step by step exactly what you did!
No problem! (it's not much different from the previous processing log posted a few posts ago);

File loaded
Type of Data: Linear and was Bayered, but not whitebalanced
--- Auto Develop
To see what we got. Considerations of previous post still apply. However this time we can also spot a nice green bias, consistent with a dataset that has not been meddled with - progress! :thumbsup:
--- Bin
Parameter [Scale] set to [(scale/noise reduction 25.00%)/(1600.00%)/(+4.00 bits)]
Image size is 1300 x 866
--- Crop
Parameter [X1] set to [13 pixels]
Parameter [Y1] set to [12 pixels]
Parameter [X2] set to [1290 pixels (-10)]
Parameter [Y2] set to [852 pixels (-14)]
Image size is 1277 x 840
--- Wipe
Default parameters.
Parameter [Dark Anomaly Filter] set to [4 pixels]
--- Auto Develop
Parameter [Ignore Fine Detail <] set to [3.0 pixels]
Parameter [RoI X1] set to [76 pixels]
Parameter [RoI Y1] set to [420 pixels]
Parameter [RoI X2] set to [483 pixels (-794)]
Parameter [RoI Y2] set to [791 pixels (-49)]
Parameter [Detector Gamma] set to [1.00]
Parameter [Shadow Linearity] set to [50 %]
--- Deconvolution
Auto-generated mask.
Default settings.
--- Wavelet Sharpen
Default settings.
Still using same mask that was still active from Decon (e.g. an inverse star mask)
--- HDR
Reveal (DSO) preset
--- Color
This dataset shows some small aberrations (alluded to earlier in the mention about treatment of overexposed pixels) in the highlights.
The "Legacy" preset mimics the way legacy software (e.g. DSS, PI, APP, PS) desaturates the highlights when stretching.
Parameter [Green Bias Reduce] set to [1.46] to reduce spurious green (check with MaxRGB mode)
Parameter [Cap Green] set to [100 %] once we're sure any spurious green is just that and not the result of a colour balancing issue.
--- Wavelet De-Noise
Accessed by switching Tracking off.
Parameter [Scale 5] set to [95 %]
Parameter [Grain Dispersion] set to [12.2 pixels]
Parameter [Non-linear Response <] set to [Off]

Hope this helps!
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2330
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by admin »

admin wrote:I'll do my best to wrap things up and release tomorrow (Aussie time).
1.5.369 is now up for download.
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
perdrix
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:05 am

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by perdrix »

New release installed and image processed successfully:
Flame and Horsehead Redux© .jpg
Flame and Horsehead Redux© .jpg (78.82 KiB) Viewed 1857 times
Many thanks for all your help
David
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2330
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by admin »

That looks great David! Always a pleasure to see people produce great results so quickly.
Looking forward to the DSS update, so everyone can avail of the improved signal quality this will offer. Clear skies!
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2330
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Processing results not as I expected

Post by admin »

In anticipation of the new release of DSS that does away with any white balancing and camera matrix manipulations, I've just released the first 1.6 alpha version of StarTools, which, amongst other things, adds camera model selection and response compensation to the Color module (note that camera models are only selectable if the image was loaded as linear, bayered and not white balanced)

Cheers,
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
Post Reply