Hi guys. I have a trial with telescope live but the files are not stacked and have to do the stacking ourselves with the calibration frames. I've just tried to stack on WBPP but that can't stack less than 3 light frames per filter. If you have used telescope live before how do you stack your individual filter light frames?
Telescope Live
If they are single files then by definition they can't be stacked. They can and should be calibrated, however. If they are 2 then they can can be averaged together with pixelmath.
or you make a copy from one of them and do stacking as usual
They come stacked and calibrated. You are supposed to RGB combine them, the L filter should be used for luminance layer.
HTH & CS
Fritz
HTH & CS
Fritz
or you make a copy from one of them and do stacking as usual
*** I did that but it couldn't find a reference frame
***
Fritz:
They come stacked and calibrated. You are supposed to RGB combine them, the L filter should be used for luminance layer.
HTH & CS
Fritz
*** So if that's the case how come when you download what you want you get like 2 to 4 files for one filter. You will have like say the Red filter 600 minutes exposure time 4 files of it. And you can also download the calibration frames. Bit confusing***
andrea tasselli:
If they are single files then by definition they can't be stacked. They can and should be calibrated, however. If they are 2 then they can can be averaged together with pixelmath.
*** Sorry you have lost me there***
Abdul Thomas Jnr:
Hi guys. I have a trial with telescope live but the files are not stacked and have to do the stacking ourselves with the calibration frames. I've just tried to stack on WBPP but that can't stack less than 3 light frames per filter. If you have used telescope live before how do you stack your individual filter light frames?
*These three files are likely already calibrated RGB (SHO) lights. You simply need to combine them according to the filter used, whether it's RGB or narrowband (NB), and then process them as usual. Of course, you can also process the individual files first and combine them later if you prefer...no need to stack nor calibrate..
Timothy Prospero:Abdul Thomas Jnr:
Hi guys. I have a trial with telescope live but the files are not stacked and have to do the stacking ourselves with the calibration frames. I've just tried to stack on WBPP but that can't stack less than 3 light frames per filter. If you have used telescope live before how do you stack your individual filter light frames?
*These three files are likely already calibrated RGB (SHO) lights. You simply need to combine them according to the filter used, whether it's RGB or narrowband (NB), and then process them as usual. Of course, you can also process the individual files first and combine them later if you prefer...no need to stack nor calibrate..
*** But how come you get 2 to 4 images per filter? And ive just taken 1 file off each channel and did rgb combination and the result looked washed like it hasn't been stacked or calibrated***
Abdul Thomas Jnr:Timothy Prospero:Abdul Thomas Jnr:
Hi guys. I have a trial with telescope live but the files are not stacked and have to do the stacking ourselves with the calibration frames. I've just tried to stack on WBPP but that can't stack less than 3 light frames per filter. If you have used telescope live before how do you stack your individual filter light frames?
*These three files are likely already calibrated RGB (SHO) lights. You simply need to combine them according to the filter used, whether it's RGB or narrowband (NB), and then process them as usual. Of course, you can also process the individual files first and combine them later if you prefer...no need to stack nor calibrate..
*** But how come you get 2 to 4 images per filter? And ive just taken 1 file off each channel and did rgb combination and the result looked washed like it hasn't been stacked or calibrated***
I'm not sure if you are allowed, by Telescope.live, can y share those files? Which type are those ones, like Ha+LRGB?
Timothy Prospero:Abdul Thomas Jnr:Timothy Prospero:Abdul Thomas Jnr:
Hi guys. I have a trial with telescope live but the files are not stacked and have to do the stacking ourselves with the calibration frames. I've just tried to stack on WBPP but that can't stack less than 3 light frames per filter. If you have used telescope live before how do you stack your individual filter light frames?
*These three files are likely already calibrated RGB (SHO) lights. You simply need to combine them according to the filter used, whether it's RGB or narrowband (NB), and then process them as usual. Of course, you can also process the individual files first and combine them later if you prefer...no need to stack nor calibrate..
*** But how come you get 2 to 4 images per filter? And ive just taken 1 file off each channel and did rgb combination and the result looked washed like it hasn't been stacked or calibrated***
I'm not sure if you are allowed, by Telescope.live, can y share those files? Which type are those ones, like Ha+LRGB?
*** The ones ive just tried to combine are RGB files. But each filter came with 4 files that's why i thought they need stacking and you can also download the calibration frames. Bit confusing really***
Hi Abdul.
All of the data available from Telescope Live will have been calibrated although you do have the option to download both the uncalibrated data and the relevant calibration frames. It's very unlikely that you'll need to do any calibration yourself as the calibrated files will have been quality checked before being made available.
Also, all of the datasets that are available should consist of many sub-exposures per filter (in some cases LOTS of them as the datasets are continuously updated allowing very high quality images to be produced).
Stacking just one sub-exposure per RGB or SHO filter will produce a low-signal washed-out image but adding just three or four per filter will improved things dramatically. If your Telescope Live trial permits, try downloading additional datasets and stacking them. You'll see a a huge difference.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Nik Szymanek
All of the data available from Telescope Live will have been calibrated although you do have the option to download both the uncalibrated data and the relevant calibration frames. It's very unlikely that you'll need to do any calibration yourself as the calibrated files will have been quality checked before being made available.
Also, all of the datasets that are available should consist of many sub-exposures per filter (in some cases LOTS of them as the datasets are continuously updated allowing very high quality images to be produced).
Stacking just one sub-exposure per RGB or SHO filter will produce a low-signal washed-out image but adding just three or four per filter will improved things dramatically. If your Telescope Live trial permits, try downloading additional datasets and stacking them. You'll see a a huge difference.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Nik Szymanek
Well Written Helpful Respectful Engaging Supportive
Nik Szymanek:
Hi Abdul.
All of the data available from Telescope Live will have been calibrated although you do have the option to download both the uncalibrated data and the relevant calibration frames. It's very unlikely that you'll need to do any calibration yourself as the calibrated files will have been quality checked before being made available.
Also, all of the datasets that are available should consist of many sub-exposures per filter (in some cases LOTS of them as the datasets are continuously updated allowing very high quality images to be produced).
Stacking just one sub-exposure per RGB or SHO filter will produce a low-signal washed-out image but adding just three or four per filter will improved things dramatically. If your Telescope Live trial permits, try downloading additional datasets and stacking them. You'll see a a huge difference.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Nik Szymanek
*** Hi Nik. I have tried to stack 3 or 4 files per filter using WBPP but image solver kept coming up saying not enough stars have been read and for that reason it failed. But how can i download the data that is already calibrated or stacked?***
Hi Abdul,
It sounds like the Image Solver part of WBPP is failing. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this as I'm not a regular user of WBPP. You could try turning off the Astrometric Solution option under the 'Light' section of WBPP and see if the images align and stack successfully. Hopefully, the many advanced PixInsight users here can correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree!
Also, let me now which dataset you are working with and I'll try to solve the issue from my end.
Regards,
Nik
It sounds like the Image Solver part of WBPP is failing. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this as I'm not a regular user of WBPP. You could try turning off the Astrometric Solution option under the 'Light' section of WBPP and see if the images align and stack successfully. Hopefully, the many advanced PixInsight users here can correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree!
Also, let me now which dataset you are working with and I'll try to solve the issue from my end.
Regards,
Nik
Helpful Respectful Concise Supportive
PS: When you go to the One Click page on Telescope Live, ALL of the images there are pre-calibrated. When you download the individual subs from each set you only need to carry out alignment and stacking to produce master frames for each filter.
Nik
Nik
Well Written Helpful Concise
Okay will try these Nik. Thanks a lot. And I'm currently working on Gum 15
OK, I've got that dataset.
I'll try WBPP here and will get back to you a bit later. 👍
Nik
I'll try WBPP here and will get back to you a bit later. 👍
Nik
Hi Abdul.
I ran a couple of Telescope Live datasets using WBPP and they both completed with no problems. The Astrometric Solution was also successful. I've attached a screen grab of the WBPP parameters I used for this.
I agree that, once combined, the small dataset master frames do look a bit lacklustre (left). I ran a similar small dataset in Astro Pixel Processor and it came out much more as I would have expected (right). I presume that there may be some tweaks required in WBPP to correct this but once again I'm a novice with WBPP so hopefully the PixInsight experts can help!
Hope this helps.
Nik
I ran a couple of Telescope Live datasets using WBPP and they both completed with no problems. The Astrometric Solution was also successful. I've attached a screen grab of the WBPP parameters I used for this.
I agree that, once combined, the small dataset master frames do look a bit lacklustre (left). I ran a similar small dataset in Astro Pixel Processor and it came out much more as I would have expected (right). I presume that there may be some tweaks required in WBPP to correct this but once again I'm a novice with WBPP so hopefully the PixInsight experts can help!
Hope this helps.
Nik
Well Written Helpful Concise Supportive
Nik Szymanek:
Hi Abdul.
I ran a couple of Telescope Live datasets using WBPP and they both completed with no problems. The Astrometric Solution was also successful. I've attached a screen grab of the WBPP parameters I used for this.
I agree that, once combined, the small dataset master frames do look a bit lacklustre (left). I ran a similar small dataset in Astro Pixel Processor and it came out much more as I would have expected (right). I presume that there may be some tweaks required in WBPP to correct this but once again I'm a novice with WBPP so hopefully the PixInsight experts can help!
Hope this helps.
Nik
*** Yeah thank you for your time. Much appreciated. Im gonna have to leave telescope live for now until i can figure it out ***
I've processed a number of Telescope.live images. At the least expensive subscription level, calibration data is not available, but then all the subs are calibrated when you download them, so it really is not needed. However, it is important to run CosmeticCorrection to remove bad pixels and, in the case of images from the older CCD cameras, bad columns. This is easy to do with WBPP. Typically, I run CC, registration, and integration using WBPP. This process yields good-quality masters that can then be used to create an RGB.
I have found that the best data is from the CHI-1 system (Planewave CDK24). Some of the data from smaller scopes (e.g., Takahashi FSQ106) have very distorted stars along the edges of images. Chromatic dispersion is also sometimes a problem. However, many of these defects can now be corrected by running the latest version of BlurXterminator (2.0.0, AI4). The improvement is amazing, to say the least. I no longer have to restrict my interest to images from the CDK24.
Another problem with using the "one-click observations" is that you might only get 2 subs per filter, which makes it difficult to remove satellite tracks and other similar issues. Integration is also problematic with just 2 subs, but one can always get around that problem by adding two copies. Now, I normally download at least three of these bundles for a given object, so I have a minimum of 6 subs per filter. The very reasonable price of these bundles makes this practice affordable, and the resulting masters are of much better quality. They also have bundles of one-click observations that can provide hours of data. Of course, the cost is higher, but for me OK for an occasional indulgence.
George
I have found that the best data is from the CHI-1 system (Planewave CDK24). Some of the data from smaller scopes (e.g., Takahashi FSQ106) have very distorted stars along the edges of images. Chromatic dispersion is also sometimes a problem. However, many of these defects can now be corrected by running the latest version of BlurXterminator (2.0.0, AI4). The improvement is amazing, to say the least. I no longer have to restrict my interest to images from the CDK24.
Another problem with using the "one-click observations" is that you might only get 2 subs per filter, which makes it difficult to remove satellite tracks and other similar issues. Integration is also problematic with just 2 subs, but one can always get around that problem by adding two copies. Now, I normally download at least three of these bundles for a given object, so I have a minimum of 6 subs per filter. The very reasonable price of these bundles makes this practice affordable, and the resulting masters are of much better quality. They also have bundles of one-click observations that can provide hours of data. Of course, the cost is higher, but for me OK for an occasional indulgence.
George
Well Written Helpful Insightful Engaging Supportive
George Hatfield:
I've processed a number of Telescope.live images. At the least expensive subscription level, calibration data is not available, but then all the subs are calibrated when you download them, so it really is not needed. However, it is important to run CosmeticCorrection to remove bad pixels and, in the case of images from the older CCD cameras, bad columns. This is easy to do with WBPP. Typically, I run CC, registration, and integration using WBPP. This process yields good-quality masters that can then be used to create an RGB.
I have found that the best data is from the CHI-1 system (Planewave CDK24). Some of the data from smaller scopes (e.g., Takahashi FSQ106) have very distorted stars along the edges of images. Chromatic dispersion is also sometimes a problem. However, many of these defects can now be corrected by running the latest version of BlurXterminator (2.0.0, AI4). The improvement is amazing, to say the least. I no longer have to restrict my interest to images from the CDK24.
Another problem with using the "one-click observations" is that you might only get 2 subs per filter, which makes it difficult to remove satellite tracks and other similar issues. Integration is also problematic with just 2 subs, but one can always get around that problem by adding two copies. Now, I normally download at least three of these bundles for a given object, so I have a minimum of 6 subs per filter. The very reasonable price of these bundles makes this practice affordable, and the resulting masters are of much better quality. They also have bundles of one-click observations that can provide hours of data. Of course, the cost is higher, but for me OK for an occasional indulgence.
George
*** Thanks George***
NINA ROI; how to handle Darks/Biases
Hi, I'd like to use the ROI feature in the Target Scheduler to cut down on the size of the subframes when I'm not going wide with my full-frame camera. But how do you handle getting matching Darks/Biases during stacking in WBPP? Does NINA wri...
Discusses calibration frames (Darks/Biases) relevant to stacking workflow.
Flat Darks prep and use in PI
Recently, I switched from the ASI 2600MC to the ASI2600 MM Pro with LRGB filter wheel. It's been a complicated journey for sure. Im trying to figure out dust motes, flats etc and was really stumped. I often find numerous dust motes in my my linea...
Covers calibration frame preparation essential for stacking process.
¿Do you use dark-flats in WBPP?
Hi, I’m taking lights, darks, bias, flats and dark-flats but when stacking with WBPP I don’t know how to use de dark-flats. Maybe I have to upload them with the other darks and WBPP will understand that they will be used to callibrate flats? Many tha...
Relevant - addresses stacking with calibration frames using WBPP or similar tools.
Latest WBPP Results with ASI2600 MCP (Celestron 9.25" Edge HD) seem to Indicate a Problem - What am I doing wrong?
Hello- I am imaging at F10 with Celestron 9.25" Edge HD, ASI2600 MCP and EQ6 R Pro mount with Celestron OAG from Bortle 4-5 skies. I use ASIAir Plus, a camera gain of 100 and BIN 3 normally with this set up. Previously I had no issues with the a...
Documents WBPP stacking results with specific camera/equipment configuration.