StarTools 1.9 preview

General discussion about StarTools.
Carles
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by Carles »

Sounds great, @admin !

Sorry I am a little behind on the Spanish translastion, been busier lately!

Nice set of improvements there, specially offloading more work to GPU seems interesting too :D

Clear skies!
hixx
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:36 pm

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by hixx »

Thanks Ivo for the background...
I tried Pi, 0, 1, sqrt(2) and some of the most important physical constants (don't know where to place the units?! ;) ) as well, but they all have one thing in common: nothing happens. Maybe my PSF samples are not distorted enough ... ? :think:
Wow, Dietmar, :thumbsup: I think If You have circular stars from the get-go, this parameter is obsolete. I just tried e as well and it did a decent job, but left some long stars in the extreme corners.
My M31 widefield has ellyptical stars (some 3:1 aspect ratio) in the borders (I need to work on adjusting the working distance between field flattener and sensor, I guess), so I was just curios and used the extreme setting 5.99 (or whatever). With just 11 iterations the corner stars now would convince even the pickiest pixel-peeper, being circles with a halo, even @ 400%,but what the heck.... :doh:
It's a Decon abuse to correct for any optical distorsion but the result is just really mind blowing :bow-yellow: , however, Euler or smaller just does the safety car job pretty well......

Clear Skies,
Jochen
decay
Posts: 433
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:28 pm
Location: Germany, NRW

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by decay »

hixx wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:05 pm I think If You have circular stars from the get-go, this parameter is obsolete.
Hi Jochen, I double-checked this because I usually have terribly deformed stars. But actually, this parameter has no impact on my dataset. With higher values, the image gets just a bit blurry. Maybe the stars are too fat at all or I used unsuitable samples? And there seems to be nearly no impact on the fat stars, only the cores are tightened ... ? :think:

Before, After, Spatial Error set to 3.51:
2022-12-06 19_17_04-Window.jpg
2022-12-06 19_17_04-Window.jpg (240.4 KiB) Viewed 12573 times
But as discussed with Mike, it's probably better to wait until Ivo starts beta phase. Holiday is holiday and Christmas is Christmas.

Best regards, Dietmar.
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by admin »

Carles wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:47 pm Sounds great, @admin !

Sorry I am a little behind on the Spanish translastion, been busier lately!

Nice set of improvements there, specially offloading more work to GPU seems interesting too :D

Clear skies!
Thanks Carles. Good to hear you're busy and hope you're well!
I am myself behind on the translations as well (changing hardcoded strings etc.), so no stress.
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by admin »

decay wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:22 pm
hixx wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:05 pm I think If You have circular stars from the get-go, this parameter is obsolete.
Hi Jochen, I double-checked this because I usually have terribly deformed stars. But actually, this parameter has no impact on my dataset. With higher values, the image gets just a bit blurry. Maybe the stars are too fat at all or I used unsuitable samples? And there seems to be nearly no impact on the fat stars, only the cores are tightened ... ? :think:

Before, After, Spatial Error set to 3.51:

2022-12-06 19_17_04-Window.jpg

But as discussed with Mike, it's probably better to wait until Ivo starts beta phase. Holiday is holiday and Christmas is Christmas.

Best regards, Dietmar.
That's odd... You should definitely see marked changes. You do typically need to increase the number of iterations however...
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
hixx
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:36 pm

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by hixx »

Hi Dietmar,
Please try 10-13 iterations, some highlight headroom 1.05, Resampling & Centroid Tracking, Deringing around 30% and crank up theSpatial error and use some of the deformed stars as samples (in each corner the shape might be different...
For me, it changes the star shape. Values around "Euler" leave some halo with a tightened center, which looks more natural for slightly deformed stars, but strongly deformed stars require values between e and the top end - these really squeeze the stars into points. It's a matter of taste when one think its looks too much...
And happy X-mas time everyone....
Jochen
decay
Posts: 433
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:28 pm
Location: Germany, NRW

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by decay »

Hi Jochen, thanks for all your replies :)
hixx wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:08 am Please try 10-13 iterations, some highlight headroom 1.05, Resampling & Centroid Tracking, Deringing around 30% and crank up theSpatial error and use some of the deformed stars as samples
I did all that (and some more iterations, like Ivo suggested), but the result regarding the 'Spatial Error' (that was what I meant) is as before: No significant change from value 1 up to 6. Just a bit more blurry. But maybe that's totally fine, since the stars are not that much deformed?

But I have the impression, that the overall 'clarity' with your settings is better than before?! I will have to double-check that, but thank you!

(And to repeat it once more: the impact on the smaller stars is unbelievable! :thumbsup: :bow-yellow: )

Best regards, Dietmar.
decay
Posts: 433
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2021 12:28 pm
Location: Germany, NRW

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by decay »

admin wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 11:03 pm That's odd... You should definitely see marked changes. You do typically need to increase the number of iterations however...
Thank you, Ivo. I tried some more iterations (16), but there was no change regarding this "Spatial Error' parameter setting (please see post above). But as said, that's probably perfectly fine.

Could you please give us/me a hint if you would like to have feedback already now or better not until next year, maybe starting with a beta version?

Best regards, Dietmar.
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by admin »

decay wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:45 pm Could you please give us/me a hint if you would like to have feedback already now or better not until next year, maybe starting with a beta version?
Any feedback related to the quality of the output/images is definitely helpful. Any quirks regarding UI may be a little early, as there is plenty to do... Thank you!
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:51 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: StarTools 1.9 preview

Post by admin »

admin wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:07 am
decay wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:45 pm Could you please give us/me a hint if you would like to have feedback already now or better not until next year, maybe starting with a beta version?
Any feedback related to the quality of the output/images is definitely helpful. Any quirks regarding UI may be a little early, as there is plenty to do... Thank you!
Saying that, I am actually looking for feedback on the SVDecon workflow/UI. The automatic determination of sample size and automatic apodization mask generation in particular (any failure cases). Note also that you should now be able to select stars that have overlapping sampling areas (if need be).

Clear skies!
Ivo Jager
StarTools creator and astronomy enthusiast
Post Reply