WBPP process workflow

I have, in the past, used subframe selector after blinking but before pre-processing. It lets me set a minimum threshold for FWHM (or whatever value(s) you think appropriate). However, the trend is not to use subframe selector at all now that WBPP incorporates things like "PSF Signal Weight" for subframe weighting and the ability to set a minimum weight in the integration section of WBPP.  The weighting is intended to account for both SNR from air mass and passing clouds/haze as well as tracking/focus accuracy and give you the best possible balance of resolution and SNR in your final image stack. The fact that you can set a minimum threshold for image quality (as determined by PSF signal weight) will let you set that cutoff you would otherwise set in subframe selector and thus save some processing time. 

I would recommend you try it yourself to see whether it really gives the best possible balance given your telescope, your sky conditions, and your data. In my case, I found it did.  I could not get a better result setting minimum thresholds in subframe selector for FWHM and Eccentricity than I got using WBPP alone. I could get sharper results, but I could not get a better compromise of sharpness and image depth. 

End result? I now just skip subframe selector entirely and trust that the PSF signal weight will do the job better than I can manually. If you don't like the balance created by PSF signal weight, there are lots of other options to choose from as well, including the ability for you to set your own weighting parameters based on FWHM, eccentricity, and various other factors including a pedestal value if you want all frames to get at least a certain minimum weight. Personally, with my scope and my data, I have not been able to beat the default values of PSF Signal Weight. 

Try a stack doing SFS manually yourself after blinking, and then skipping the step and just trusting the PSF signal weight. See which is better in terms of sharpness and SNR. Then you can make the call yourself as to whether SFS is actually helpful. I would argue it isn't any more–at least not with my data on most targets. I still use it sometimes when processing things like globular clusters where I really want to de-emphasize SNR and look almost exclusively at FWHM/Eccentricity, but that's about it. For everything else, I just trust WBPP alone.

If you have debayered calibrated frames, you could just use the Star Align process to register the frames then Local Normalization process then Image integration.

I used to do all the steps manually in PI until I figured out the Keyword Grouping and folder structure process. Now, with all my files in the properly named folders, after choosing the best lights with Blink, I enter the Keyword, click the Directory button to load everything in WBPP, select a cosmetic correction template and click Run.

Dustin Gazz:
If you have debayered calibrated frames, you could just use the Star Align process to register the frames then Local Normalization process then Image integration.

I used to do all the steps manually in PI until I figured out the Keyword Grouping and folder structure process. Now, with all my files in the properly named folders, after choosing the best lights with Blink, I enter the Keyword, click the Directory button to load everything in WBPP, select a cosmetic correction template and click Run.

That’s what =Apple-tab-span ‘lol probably do but I’d still like to incorporate SFS to weed out the bad files that I didn’t pick-up with Blink.

I've never heard of SFS, but this thread has piqued my interest in it for sure. What measurements do you typically use?