It may have been a setting in NINA. But I do not think that is the point!
We began with with an assumption that PI (or PCC) was not working (and another software was).
You were of course frustrated. I think the lesson here is how to go about figuring it out- regardless of the actual reason.
1. PCC was (effectively) telling you your coordinates were not in the field or the platescale was wrong. When I showed you an image that said the coordinates written in your file were outside of the field of view- this was a very strong red flag and the method I chose (using on-line Aladin) was powerful and diagnostic.
2. Then you provided the output of a different software. It uses a more permissive plate solving scheme- but does not pass judgement on very large errors. The fact that it succeeded makes it easy to think everything is OK. This is another important idea. Just because a software outputs something- it doesn't mean it is good or optimal.
3. By ignoring the header information and using the lookup method (or just type in the correct coordinates of the galaxy) everything in PCC works just fine. This is something else others should know. That functionality isn't "off-the-beaten-path"... it is part and parcel to what makes PI nice to use. You *can* get it to work, even with inaccurate input.
Regarding PCC and no noticeable difference to your images- if you are comparing to the unlinked autoSTF- I agree, the colors will be close. It does also depend on your data as well as to what is going on. Without seeing your data I couldn't say. And before you send me more data :) ... we should put a pretty bow on this topic of PCC failures.
Star color is difficult to do well with some 12bit or 14bit sensors. They just saturate too quickly... even with short exposures because they are sensitive too.
Regarding the background- again without looking at the images- I cannot say.
I can say we started this conversation with your premise that ASTAP was preforming its functionality better than PCC (as far as the plate solving)- but in the end this isn't the case really- if anything it was masking a problem that you discovered because of your PI experience. Now you say you can get better results with Affinity... it sounds similar- and just goes back to my comment that just because there is output doesn't make it optimal (for any software).
Listen... have you ever used a coping saw to create corners and things for molding? That thing takes practice and patience to use. I have a miter saw I can make cuts at the correct angles and get close. But a skilled person with that coping saw can make the joins virtually disappear. Miter joins are easy with a few simple steps. Coping saw... lots of practice on lots of wood. Nothing wrong with being a miter man- but PI is definitely a coping saw.
I found a solution for getting PCC to work on every CR2 image.
1. Plate solve with ASTAP - the latest version.
2. Use the RA/DEC coordinates from ASTAP for PCC
3. Capture the exposure date from the image in PCC
4. Because the capture app (neither N.I.N.A. nor Backyard EOS) does not write the target name, telescope info, or camera info (other than the name) in the header, it is necessary to manually enter the focal length and pixel size in PCC.
Just get the coordinates of NGC 1499 ... then everything works.
I couldn't remember your platescale- but I figured that a focal length of 1000 with 9 micron pixels was within a factor of 2. (Your platescale is 2.3" per pixel...so I was correct).
You do not need to adjust any sensitivity settings or anything.
Regarding the flats... this image has lots of "rings" of light. This sure looks like scattered light.
The rings of light are due to an overcompensation of Flats. The master Flat kind of looks like that.
The correct focal length is 2737. The pixel size is 5.97. This information is in that document that I attached in my last note. The date retrieved from that file is wrong for the exact collection date/time.
When I put in the correct date/time, focal length, and pixel size, it doesn't plate solve. When I leave it at 1000 and 9, it plate solves - even with the wrong date/time.
That is very confusing to me.
And then after PCC applies a correction, the image looks really great with lots of contrast. And then I do a linked TSF and it almost goes back looking like it did before PCC. More confusion.
Understood. I'm letting the Canon 6D go. It has got to be the adapter with the slide in filter holder. I'm tired of fighting it. Got other issues with PixInsight. Thanks.
Comments