0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hello all, I am having a rather strange problem when using DSS that I have never had before. Regardless of which result mode I choose in the stacking settings (i.e. standard, mosaic, intersection), the stacked image is cropped in an arbitrary area and the desired DSO is out of frame compared to the unstacked reference image. For reference, I am using all other settings appropriate for my data set (narrowband via optolong l-enhance filter). The number of stars detected during registration is just fine and I know my focus and guiding are not the problem. I have manually stepped through each light frame and verified there are none that may have a tree or house in the frame which might mess up DSS alignment.   The only way I have been able to make the output result framed correctly is to define a custom rectangle, which I have never had to do before in all my years of using DSS. Does anyone know what could cause this? |
9.48
#...
·
|
|---|
| I suspect DSS might be ignoring your chosen reference frame. I have noticed that it refuses to align images to certain types of fits files, including stacks that were created in DSS itself. I have always had to use a single, raw image from the camera as a reference frame. If you are already doing that, then I guess it must be something else. |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I have noticed that when I have my FITS settings in the 'superpixel' mode, I obtain a full frame (i.e., original native camera resolution) image with my 'binned' image in the upper left half of the frame, and the remaining part of the image is black. I then just crop the dataless parts of the image within Photoshop. However, I get my intended image. This seems like you are having the opposite issue, but I post here as a potential settings area for your consideration. Are your darks the same resolution as lights? If they're 2x2 binned, perhaps that will crop the stacked image? |
6.76
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi Fabian There are only two things I can think of that would crop and make your image to be magnified. Check on the left menu near the bottom: Options > Settings > Raw/Fits DDP settings > Fits tab Make sure super pixel mode is not selected. Check you stack settings, make sure drizzle is not being selected. I don't think this is it though, as you would have had to accidentally set a custom box on your reference image show it where to crop the image as well. You can also try: Options > Settings > Load > Restore default settings This should reset everything back to nominal settings. Note, I always close DSS between runs. Otherwise DSS does have things alive in memory, so new settings are not necessarily properly noticed, and it has got me into trouble before. And on opening DSS can sometimes come up with oddball settings, for example switching to mono from color (because in another run I had done mono, so it somehow would not forget that. So I tend to always check the important settings every run. If all this doesn't work you could remove the DSS program and then add it back in. Also DSS on Github does have a forum which usually can solve odd problems, the response is very good there. Good luck Rick |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
@Rick Veregin so it turns out I did have super pixel mode selected, however, I was under the impression that when stacking narrowband data (which I am) this setting should be chosen for best results? At least thats what DSS recommended for narrowband data.  Was I shooting myself in the foot this entire time when stacking my images by having this checked? What are the best settings to use for narrowband images then? Also, I do have drizzle checked as I saw in a video from Astrobackyard he recommends always enabling 2X drizzle when stacking and then downsampling later, since I am defining a custom boundary box this is why I was able to get my result framed correctly. |
|
6.76
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
IFabian Butkovich: I'm trying to remember why SuperPixel mode can give problems like this. But if you are using superpixel mode that combines pixels, reducing the number by 4X, but then adding drizzle doubles the pixels each dimension increasing by 4X the pixels, this could be it. I bet the two are totally confusing each other. But possibly there are other issues, as I said, SuperPixel mode can cause issues like getting 1/4 of the frame, I just can't recall what the interactions are. You are using an OSC camera with a dual band filter is that it? If you are truly narrow band then you would be mono, and not debayering? I think this is what superpixel was meant for, a true narrow band mono image. And I think there are some issue around perhaps debayering with anything other than bilinear, when using superpixel and an OSC camera, but I don't recall for sure. For an OSC camera with a duoband filter I use bilinear debayer, as I do with broad band RGB--this seems to work best. For true narrowband mono I do not use superpixel, I use exactly the same settings as for other images. If I want to do a 2X bin a NB Ha for example (same as Superpixel) I do it in Startools (or you can do it in PI or PS, whichever you use for post stack processing). No need to do it in DSS, easy enough to do it later and see if it helps or hurts. And this avoids problems with Superpixel mode. I do not find doing any of the calibrations in DSS useful, I think a lot of this is legacy stuff, that maybe had a basis when the program was initially written. The program is in new hands now, where the focus has been improving the code, but not changing the basics behind it. My suggestion is to be careful of doing more than basic register and stack in DSS. I find the 2X drizzle does work well, as by the way does the rejection methods rather than basic averaging. And those things must be done in stacking, so one can't put them off to do later. But otherwise, I do any other calibration/binning later that I can do later. Indeed, Startools, which I use for processing my DSS stacks, warns not to have DSS to do anything to the image in terms of WB, background calibration, etc. I suspect if you use PI that would be best too, PI will do anything much better than DSS. DSS is not wonderful for image processing, so limit what you do there in terms of color balance and background calibration. Any other processing software can do a better job. Rick |
 #...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Hi Fabian. When I have software glitch that I can't resolve, I usually uninstall and reinstall the program. After all you have nothing to lose since it's free :-) Clear skies Mark. |
|
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Rick Veregin: I ended up modifying my stacking settings and what a world of difference! thanks everything works great now and DSS produces properly frames stacked results as well as an proper stack for narrowband with OSC which is my case. |
|
6.76
#...
·
|
|---|
Fabian Butkovich:Rick Veregin: Super, that's great to hear Fabian! CS Rick |
