shrink: 1.7 new module problems

General discussion about StarTools.
Post Reply
alacant
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:03 am

shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by alacant »

1.7
Hi everyone
How can I get the old behaviour of shrink (NOT tighten) which was a really good option in 1.6?
The one where I specify a number of pixels...
Cheers
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by admin »

Set Regularization to 0, De-ringing to off, Iterations to 1, Mode to Dim, Color Taming to 0.

This should come very close to the less-sophisticated behaviour of the old module.
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
hixx
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:36 pm

Re: shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by hixx »

Hi Ivo,
wouldn't these settings be worth a "Shrink" preset in the new module?
cheers
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by admin »

hixx wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:21 am Hi Ivo,
wouldn't these settings be worth a "Shrink" preset in the new module?
cheers
Sure - if people would find that useful?
The behavior/purpose of the new module is quite similar to the old one, except that it is better at its job with fewer artefacts.
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
alacant
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:03 am

Re: shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by alacant »

admin wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:50 am
hixx wrote: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:21 am Hi Ivo,
wouldn't these settings be worth a "Shrink" preset in the new module?
cheers
Sure - if people would find that useful?
The behavior/purpose of the new module is quite similar to the old one, except that it is better at its job with fewer artefacts.
Hi
Yes. The preset idea would be a great.
Finding the defaults on the new module too aggressive. Maybe start off with something milder?
Cheers and clear skies,
Steve
hixx
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:36 pm

Re: shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by hixx »

Agree on the aggressiveness part.
I used the "Tighten" setting and while I found the module to produce less artifacts than the old one, the stars seemed to be reduced quite heavily (especially the mid size stars).

To take this one step further, instead of a constant value, the "aggressiveness" would need to be depending on the star size (FWHM). Big blown out stars would need more heavy treatment than dim ones. Not sure if this is doable, but it might be a thought.
happy-kat
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:31 am

Re: shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by happy-kat »

could the variable nature of stars suzes be done using successive masks that the user created to which the shrink was them applied?
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by admin »

Hi all,

By popular request, 1.7.423 will have a "Classic" preset to mimic behaviour of the old module.

This module, at its core, relies on a morphological transformation. Unfortunately estimating FWHM for all stars accurately and reliably is pretty much impossible, particularly if they are small, over-exposing, if the image has been stretched or if they suffer from any sort of other distortion (CA, coma, etc.).

As with all modules, tweaking to taste is highly encouraged! If the defaults are too aggressive for your particular image, just dial down the number of iterations, experiment with the Regularization, etc.

I appreciate all the feedback! The main improvements over the old version indeed is its ability to shrink stars much more without artefacts cropping up.

The main motivation for improving the Shrink module is StarNet++. Not because it offers something StarTools cannot do (it can), but mainly because it seems to have popularised processing stars and background separately, which sadly, yields poor results in many cases.

As some of you know, I really dislike (most of) StarNet++ results because of the artefacts it tends to produces if not managed (very!) carefully. As I mentioned elsewhere;
I'm not a fan of StarNet++ for a few reasons. Intuitively star removal sounds like a great idea; remove the stars, work on what's "underneath", put them back again. However in practice the results are quite the opposite; I can almost always pick images that were processed (e.g. stars removed and then layered back in) using StarNet++ as they usually contain many artefacts and detail that doesn't actually exist in reality.
This is also a crucial difference between StarNet++ and, say, using the Heal module with a star mask in StarTools; the Heal module can be strictly parametrised to not introduce detail of a specific type. For example, it refrains from introducing higher frequency detail than what actually exists in the image (important if you want to use deconvolution on a healed dataset and not introduce ringing artefacts), while you can - crucially - also force it to always generate detail that is darker or lower frequency than what it replaces.

What has made me most sad about StarNet++ is that these artefacts are passed off (and/or accepted) as real detail. As it is currently the seaon for the Veil nebula complex in the Northern Hemisphere, I've seen a good few widefield Veils being published with most of the nebulosity completely fabricated (in an attempt by the photographer to mitigate the many foreground stars - particularly in the visual spectrum).

IMHO StarNet's main innovation and use is star detection (e.g. for mask generation). However, it being trained on stretched datasets with manually inpainted replacement pixels means it will sadly only be good as those two constraints allow.

As I sum up;
I actually really hope it is a fad that will go away soon. It is somewhat useful for star mask creation for applications that don't have decent tools (e.g. PI), but ST does, and all its modules are star-aware. Truth be told, I cringe every time I see an image where it was employed. :( That's just me though and it's a free world!
Improving the Shrink module should give people better control over the stellar profiles in their image, without the need for removal or separate processing (and thus hopefully providing an alternative to people who may be tempted to try StarNet++ for that purpose). The old module itself tended to introduce artefacts (creating a stringy appearance in low-sampled wide fields) when pushed too hard. The new module has much improved this as you (hopefully) agree.
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
alacant
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:03 am

Re: shrink: 1.7 new module problems

Post by alacant »

Ivo, everyone

Thanks for taking comments onboard. It is much appreciated and I'm sure it doesn't clutter things unnecessarily. One of StarTools' merits is that oh so clean and clutter free single window workspace instead of the usual windows with a histogram behind yet more windows with histograms mess.

Am totally in agreement about the current fad of starless or heavily star reduced images; let's hope it's just that and we can have images with proper stars once again soon. TBH, with the star control that AutoDev affords, I've not felt the need to remove them.

Cheers and clear skies,
Steve
Post Reply