Fasttrack Wrap Up and WBPP Update: Potential workflow for integrating OSC Narrowband data

Casey Schatz

Hi there Adam, just got through the Fast Track. It's really remarkable and helped to coalesce the myriads of other info found online..Even though my brain was starting to hurt the WBPP update was a particular eye opener because it resolves some things I've been wrestling with for a while: I have an OSC (QHY268c) and do many 'passes' over many nights. If I'm in a good Bortle area I won't use any filters, from home I'll use the Lenhance, and I recently got the Baader high speeds narrowbands to get Halpha and Sii....

The method of debayering into individual RGB's and cheating the exposure tolerance will be a game changer...Would you recommend this as a way of integrating the narrowband images as well? For example I could just keep the red channel of the Halpha images and toss the green and blue. Or is this done better later down the line with Pixel Math?

Thank you for all the remarkable instruction and contribution to the astro imaging community,

Casey

BlockHead

You certainly could use separate color channels of WBPP when using one of these kinds of filters to isolate the emission lines. Yes. if(function rt(){return!!window.Ember||(!!window.Vue||(!!window.Meteor||(!(!window.React&&!document.querySelector("[data-reactroot], [data-reactid]"))||!!(window.angular||document.querySelector(".ng-binding, [ng-app], [data-ng-app], [ng-controller], [data-ng-controller], [ng-repeat], [data-ng-repeat]")||document.querySelector('script[src*="angular.js"], script[src*="angular.min.js"]')))))}()){window.postMessage({singlePageAppCheck:true})}else{window.postMessage({singlePageAppCheck:false})}

-the Blockhead

Casey Schatz

OK great doing that now, one last quick question before I hit 'Run': I have different darks taken

for different nights that are the same exposure time, but different gain. WBPP is lumping all

darks of the same exposure time together, regardless of what gain they were at. Are the differences

in gain not worth sweating over or should I be making a keyword 'gain' or something so that they

aren't different gains aren't co-mingling....

Cheers,

Casey

BlockHead

Mixing gains is a recipe for disaster. Wouldn't do it.if(function rt(){return!!window.Ember||(!!window.Vue||(!!window.Meteor||(!(!window.React&&!document.querySelector("[data-reactroot], [data-reactid]"))||!!(window.angular||document.querySelector(".ng-binding, [ng-app], [data-ng-app], [ng-controller], [data-ng-controller], [ng-repeat], [data-ng-repeat]")||document.querySelector('script[src*="angular.js"], script[src*="angular.min.js"]')))))}()){window.postMessage({singlePageAppCheck:true})}else{window.postMessage({singlePageAppCheck:false})}

However... in principle you can use "Gain" as a preprocessing keyword as represented in the FITs header.

Then your data will be discriminated based on the value of the GAIN.

-the Blockhead

BlockHead

by the way..I have no idea why all of that garbage show up when I write messages... I have a troublereport about this...

Casey Schatz

OK great that's what my gut instinct was, to keep that gains with their respective passes and not mix and match....

Yes indeed it looks like a bunch of CSS code is getting garbled into your responses! Or you're just extremely precise about formatting :-)

Casey Schatz

Yep that did the group, loving the grouping capabilities: