StarTools

admin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 3:27 am
You cannot tell in the log, however you can see on the splash screen, as well as in the about dialog which resources were detected and are being used (it should show both CPU and GPU).

I think you have a bug in your GPU detection in 1.9 alpha. ST 1.9 only sees the INTEL graphics regardless of the gSwitch setting:


while (see next post)

... while in 1.8, ST clearly sees the GPU regardless of the gSwitch setting:
which of course, begs the question why ST 1.9 runs without crashing with gSwitch set to "Discrete Only".

cytan

With regards to SVDecon, I agree my background is really noisy because I only have about 3.5 hours worth of data and there was a problem with my flats. I agree that the noisy data needs binning *however*. star detection for apodization worked fine in 1.8 full resolution, while in 1.9 it fails without binning. On the surface, it seems that 1.8 apodization mask creation is a lot more robust than 1.9. Perhaps, this can be improved in later alphas.

Here's a grab of the stretched background processed in 1.9 (not well, since I was trying to crash it ):
Here's the final result with 1.8 which I think ST did really well for a 3 hours 24 min stack of (3 min*68 subframes)
Of course, the plan is to add more data when the sky actually clears around here

cytan

Hi Cytan,

You are right with regards to the OpenCL device index behaving differently. 1.9 indeed selects a different default device. I will restore the 1.8 behavior, as is probably more "right" more of the time.

I the meantime, you should be able to get 1.9 behave like 1.8 by specifying -1 (or alternatively; a specific device/platform index) instead of "default" for opencl_deviceindex and opencl_platformindex.

Thank you for confirming the background issue. Some good detail nonetheless in the galaxy pair; you caught that peculiar dust lane crossing-M81 (hinting at some sort of disturbance);
Did you happen to use a light pollution filter? Or, alternatively did you use and OSC without luminance filter in place?

admin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 5:58 am Hi Cytan,

You are right with regards to the OpenCL device index behaving differently. 1.9 indeed selects a different default device. I will restore the 1.8 behavior, as is probably more "right" more of the time.

I the meantime, you should be able to get 1.9 behave like 1.8 by specifying -1 (or alternatively; a specific device/platform index) instead of "default" for opencl_deviceindex and opencl_platformindex.

Thank you for confirming the background issue. Some good detail nonetheless in the galaxy pair; you caught that peculiar dust lane crossing-M81 (hinting at some sort of disturbance);

2023-03-07_16-56.png

Did you happen to use a light pollution filter? Or, alternatively did you use and OSC without luminance filter in place?

I'll try out the
opencl_deviceindex=-1
opencl_platformindex=-1
and report back.

I did not use any filter in this shot. Here's some technical details:

AP1100AE + AP130GT + Field Flattener + ASI2600MC.

Shot on my sidewalk in Bortle 6 to 7 skies! I'm always amazed at modern day image processing that can extract out these faint signals.

cytan

cytan299 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 4:28 pm I did not use any filter in this shot. Here's some technical details:

AP1100AE + AP130GT + Field Flattener + ASI2600MC.

If of interest, to get better visual spectrum coloring, try inserting a luminance filter in the imaging train. Without it you are capturing a lot of extra signal (wavelengths > ~650nm) that will make color balancing impossible;

Hi Ivo,
I just went through my entire workflow with

opencl_deviceindex=-1
opencl_platformindex=-1

without using gSwitch and everything worked fine and no crashes.

And thanks for letting me know about the quantum efficiency spectrum of the ASI2600MC. I, too, was wondering about whether the 2600MC actually had a UV-IR cut filter when I got this camera. According to their support forum they actually do (https://bbs.astronomy-imaging-camera.co ... 2600mc-pro) And it is also stated in the published specs tab on https://astronomy-imaging-camera.com/pr ... -pro-color :
And here's what the D-60-2 IR cut filter is supposed to do:
So I think I'm good, unless you can tell from my image that I have a problem with colour balancing because one thing I had to do was to reduce green from 1.2(?) to 1.45 in the Color Module to get the yellow core. I didn't touch anything else that ST thought the colours should be.

cytan