Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Preprocessing manually against WBPP script
I performed the preprocessing for a comparison “manually against WBPP script” with the data set NGC6250 of Adam Block. The most widely expressed opinion for an optimal image speaks for manual editing.
Procedure:
Three Luminance Masters have been created:
Luminance Master 1: Manual with Normal Localization
Luminance Master 2: Luminanz Master 1 with Drizzeling
Luminance Master 3: WBPP
Then I entered the three masters in the subframe selector and measured them using the same weighting.
Results:
1. Luminance Master 2 has the best SNR weighting, followed by the Master WBPP
2. The FWHM at Master 2 has increased by twice
3. The manual method is ranked 3, visually between Master 1 and 3 no difference
4. At Master 2 the stars are round and without lines artifacts (drizzeling)
5. Time comparison: The Master 3 with WBPP ran for 45 minutes, so no comparison to the manual method. In addition, the probability of error input for the WBPP script is significantly smaller than that of the manual method.
6. The SNR measured with SNR View script: Master 1 = 49.7 dB / Master 2 = 52.41 dB / Master 3 = 50.39 dB
From this point of view, the new script WBPP does a fine job and works better for me than the manual method. However, this only applies to this one test. Also my asumption to compare the results with the subframe selector can be discussed.
It would be interesting to have further ideas to compare the methods.
Ed
Procedure:
Three Luminance Masters have been created:
Luminance Master 1: Manual with Normal Localization
Luminance Master 2: Luminanz Master 1 with Drizzeling
Luminance Master 3: WBPP
Then I entered the three masters in the subframe selector and measured them using the same weighting.
Results:
1. Luminance Master 2 has the best SNR weighting, followed by the Master WBPP
2. The FWHM at Master 2 has increased by twice
3. The manual method is ranked 3, visually between Master 1 and 3 no difference
4. At Master 2 the stars are round and without lines artifacts (drizzeling)
5. Time comparison: The Master 3 with WBPP ran for 45 minutes, so no comparison to the manual method. In addition, the probability of error input for the WBPP script is significantly smaller than that of the manual method.
6. The SNR measured with SNR View script: Master 1 = 49.7 dB / Master 2 = 52.41 dB / Master 3 = 50.39 dB
From this point of view, the new script WBPP does a fine job and works better for me than the manual method. However, this only applies to this one test. Also my asumption to compare the results with the subframe selector can be discussed.
It would be interesting to have further ideas to compare the methods.
Ed