›

Grouping in WBPP 2.0 Session 9&10

Roger Smith
in PixInsight
Hi Adam,
Great series of videos on WBPP 2.0! Thanks! You really got excited in Session 10, since you felt the pain (going away) of doing all that calibration step by step in past years. And you do a lot of calibrations!

Advice needed:
In planning imaging sessions on one night but spanning before/after midnight, or perhaps it will be over 3 nights, how do you recommend to set up the file name keyword (Session) with the matching flats. I keep my system (refractor) clean and don't usually adjust focus. I am using a cooled color camera. So I will use same light panel flats for several nights of imaging. 
      My thoughts: Maybe Auto won't work, and I need to link the data sets. But Auto would be nice.

Curiousity question: 
In Session 10, you loaded data from 2012. With the power of Pixinsight today, would you expect you could get a better calibration end result than you did in 2012? Certainly it would be faster, to set up and run, but would the result be better? How, and Significantly?

Thanks for your comments and advice.

Roger

Comments

  • BlockHeadBlockHead
    Advice:

    Later tonight if I feel up to it, I am going to make another Grouping video that addresses your question.
    You can avoid file naming schemes by using FOLDER naming schemes. So if you are taking a picture of an object (OrionNeb)... just name your folders OrionNeb_night1   OrionNeb_night2 and OrionNeb_night3 ....and put all of your data in those folders. This will associate all of the stuff in the folders with the values of night1,night2,night3 .

    The other way is to use your acquisition software to output filenames in the manner I show in the current video.

    Regarding the other question- I originally processed the data in CCDStack. Mathematically in terms of calibration there really should be no difference. There is no special way to subtract for the bias/darks and no special way to divide by flats. There might be some minor differences in the rejection algorithms... but nothing you would see visually. So... basically no difference in terms of *calibration*.

    -the Blockhead
  • Roger Smith
    I will watch the grouping video again and think how the folder method can work. I really appreciate your advice. Now my turn for study!

    I used CCD Stack (after I learned Maxim DL6 is not so good for processing). 
    I found CCD Stack good for calibrating, but did not realize it was so similar mathematically. I mean yes, subtracting darks/biases is subtracting. So yes I also think PI is more powerful for rejecting when integrating, and doing cosmetic correction. 
    What energizes me about PI is the huge interest in the program, and it continually is getting updated and improved. 

    Best regards,
        Roger
Sign In or Register to comment.