AstroBin is the home of astrophotography - Share full resolution images, preserve acquisition details, discover equipment, discuss techniques, and learn from the community.Discover AstroBin

# PixInsight Gradient correction issues with MARS DR2 and luminance frame

10 replies200 views
Ron avatar

I have stacked LRGB frames from WBPP. I open the masters and combine the RGB into a color image. Both the L and the new RGB frames have a strong gradient. I am able to run SpectrophotometricFluxCalibration on both but when I run MultiscaleGradientCorrection with the MARS DR2 database enabled on either one, I get the default gradient correction with a warning that “Reprojected data outside reference image region - reference frame ignored”. First question is why does this occur, since I thought the new MARS covers the entire northern celestial hemisphere and these frames fall entirely within the northern hemisphere.

It turns out that the correction to the RGB frame is acceptable and removes the gradient completely, however, the correction to the L frame doesn’t eliminate a dust donut that my flats failed to correct. I’d like to use the corrected RGB frame as a reference frame to remove the gradient and dust donut from the L frame but I keep getting errors. If I use the RGB frame as the reference, the error is “Incompatible reference image color space: RGB.” So I extract the L channel from the RGB (RGB-L), run the SFC process on it, image solve it, and use it as the reference frame but now I get the error “Error: The reference image does not include the target image: RGB_L.” Second question is how is this possible? They are the identical regions of space. Finally, if I crop the L frame by about 5% around the edges, I get the error “Error: The ratio between the target and reference image fields exceeds the acceptable range.” I get that even with a severe crop of 30-40%. Third question is why is this error popping up? The image fields are nearly the same size.

Anyone know what I’m doing wrong with the MSG process?

Ron

Well written Respectful
mkbn avatar

I’ve run into a few of the tidbits on using my own ref at similar scale with MSGC as a builtin process. I believe I saw some tutorials on manually using your own image outside the MSGC pix process, but also I will note that I am a beginner.

To the tidbit “I get the error “Error: The ratio between the target and reference image fields exceeds the acceptable range,” from what I recall you can adjust the parameters in the history explorer (I can’t recall, remember, newbie) or modify the process execution to change one of the parameters that’s named something like scale tolerance. I totally can’t recall if that resolved everything, but I think it got it to run that way and not complain about the mismatch?

andrea tasselli avatar

No amount of flat framing would remove a dust bunny. Use Graxpert as an alternative.

Well written
ScottF avatar

andrea tasselli · Jul 21, 2026 at 09:05 AM

No amount of flat framing would remove a dust bunny. Use Graxpert as an alternative.

Flats won’t remove dust spots and such??

Mikołaj Wadowski avatar

The MGC process is notoriously clunky. I prefer using a mixture of this method and this method (either one will work fine on its own) if I can get my hands on widefield data. In your case you can use the average of your rgb data as an effectively pre-aligned lum reference. Since you're try to correct a dust donut your correction scale should be lower. If you'd rather stick to MGC, trying adjusting the gradient scale and structure extraction values.

Well written Helpful Concise Engaging Supportive
Mikołaj Wadowski avatar

andrea tasselli · Jul 21, 2026, 09:05 AM

No amount of flat framing would remove a dust bunny.

Is your dust sentient and does it run away every time you are about to take flats?

Well written Respectful Engaging
Kristof Vandebeek avatar

Think of ‘MGC’ as a large-scale gradient removal tool, while those dust bunnies are rather ‘local’ artifacts that require different tools for removal (like Andrea suggested, GraXpert, or any similar tool).

With regards to ‘I open the masters’: does this mean the “autocrop” masters that are produced by WBPP, or do you use masters that might have slightly different dimensions and thus contain a slightly different view?

Helpful Engaging
Ron avatar

Thanks for all the responses. I’ll look into the other methods for removing the bunny from the luminance.

With regard to “I open the masters…”, yes, the files are the autocrop masters from WBPP, so they are registered and cropped to each other. That’s why the errors about not including the target and the ratio between the two frames makes no sense to me.

ScottF avatar

Ron · Jul 21, 2026 at 03:29 PM

Thanks for all the responses. I’ll look into the other methods for removing the bunny from the luminance.

With regard to “I open the masters…”, yes, the files are the autocrop masters from WBPP, so they are registered and cropped to each other. That’s why the errors about not including the target and the ratio between the two frames makes no sense to me.

Can you retake the flats or has the dust moved? Proper flats in my experience will remove dust motes without issue. I tend to reuse flats from previous sessions out of convenience, but I get burned sometimes.

Well written Concise Engaging Supportive
andrea tasselli avatar

Mikołaj Wadowski · Jul 21, 2026, 02:23 PM

andrea tasselli · Jul 21, 2026, 09:05 AM

No amount of flat framing would remove a dust bunny.

Is your dust sentient and does it run away every time you are about to take flats?

My bad. I meant flattening after calibration. Long night…

Ron avatar

ScottF · Jul 21, 2026, 03:47 PM

Can you retake the flats or has the dust moved? Proper flats in my experience will remove dust motes without issue. I tend to reuse flats from previous sessions out of convenience, but I get burned sometimes.

I took two sets of flats, a couple of days apart, but neither set removes the luminance dust bunny. The flats work well with the RGB frames, though. I suspect the dust particle shifted.

But focusing on the cause of the dust bunny is shifting away from the real question of why PixInsight’s MGC is giving strange errors when using a user-defined reference frame.

BTW, I have now tried GraXpert with the same result - the bunny persists. I still need to look at Mikolaj’s suggestions.

Well written Respectful Concise Engaging