Activity

A new kind of error message pops up. This time I tried to mosaic a subset of panels to see if I can avoid the out of memory error.  Then I saw this new error message soon after I initiated the stacking procedure.

More to report.

This time I used a different computer and allocated 80 GB of RAM to APP.  It still shows an out of memory error.  What’s funny is that I once successfully stitched all the panels together using a computer with just 16 GB of RAM.  Then I couldn’t reproduce the success on the same computer and on the more RAM-rich computer: al…[Read more]

Yeah, you’re right. I was exploring to many settings at a time.

It would be great if you can find a problem and fix it. 7% overlap is indeed pretty low though.

Looks like Registar can deal with both additive and multiplicative terms simultaneously.  Unfortunately I have no idea how that was achieved. It can even handle images that are not linear.  (It was produced during the film era.) So it may be doing more than simple multiplicative+additive calculations.

In my own data processing for large t…[Read more]

Hi @whwang,

Excellent, transparancy is indeed a multiplicative factor which plays its part.

Creating a normalization method which uses both additive and multiplicative terms for the lokation can be made, but my question would then be:

How to determine which part should be multiplicatively and which part additively. If we have different ISO or…[Read more]

Ideally, we will need both additive and multiplicative.  As you mentioned, the sky brightness can change with time during the night.  So an additive term is needed.  At the same time, a multiplicative term is also needed to account for the change in sky transparency, even if the photographer did not mix different ISO.  And of course, in add…[Read more]

Hi @whwang,

No problem,

” Let’s say the images were taken under different sky brightness (strong light pollution and less light pollution).  So obviously there is a need for an additive term. ”

The additive term is for differences in sky background between your lights indeed due to additive terms like differences in light pollution indeed. Bu…[Read more]

Okay, the amount of overlap between the 2 problem frames is only 7% of the height dimension. That’s pretty low.

And if I try to register them to each other, it works fine if I choose

St-avg-9000.0s-WSC_1_3.0-x_1.0_1.0_dr-sqr-full-qua-add-sc_BWMV_nor-AA-RL-MBB5_2ndLNC_it3.fits

as the reference, but if I…[Read more]

@mauricetoet, I am studying your data.

First of all, I again notice an instability in the complex model, which causes it to run for quite some time. This is the complex model for

– Multiple View, not”same camera and optics” with “dynamic distortion correction” on

This is fixed, now.

Secondly, I have lokated the two problem panels. I notice…[Read more]

I am still a bit confused by the difference between add-scale and multiply-scale.  Let’s say the images were taken under different sky brightness (strong light pollution and less light pollution).  So obviously there is a need for an additive term.  Also, for some reason, the images were taken with different ISO.  So a multiplicative term is als…[Read more]

“Looks like equirectangular is more suitable for a Milky Way pano. I always hate to see a rectilinear projection. The distortion is just too severe.”

Indeed once the field of view becomes larger than 90 degrees, the perspective distortion in the rectilinear projection becomes rather significant.

“The 2pi sky pano just cover half of the whole…[Read more]

Looks like equirectangular is more suitable for a Milky Way pano. I always hate to see a rectilinear projection. The distortion is just too severe.

The 2pi sky pano just cover half of the whole sky, or a hemisphere. Looks to me a fisheye or a stereographic projection would be more suitable.

Another question here.  In the normalization page, one…[Read more]