Emanuel Chacim:
Guys, i had the same issue. After upgrading Pixinsight and re-started, it was not showing on Processes.
It worked out when i went to PixInsight website, and downloaded the version released on March the 1st ( if im corrected).
After that, it became visible on Processes 
Yes this is correct, I didn't think to do it that way. I downloaded directly from PI's website the correct build and it installed just fine and its in the Process's tab.
Dale
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jim... I have been playing with it. Didn't read this whole thread so someone else may have already mentioned it, but decided to use an inverted Range Selection mask on the targets to protect them while I worked on the gradient, which was quite significant stemming from [a] poor capture sky conditions, and [b] too little data. I was simply seeing what there was on the target and was surprised to get as much signal as I did. Anyway, masking definitely helped. Without a mask I ended up basically hollowing out the main target [SNR G166.2+02.5] of its internal structure. With the mask applied that didn't happen. I'm not ready to post this yet as I need much more data, and the Milky Way is disappearing quickly here near Boulder CO.
...Stephen
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Stephen Garretson:
Jim... I have been playing with it. Didn't read this whole thread so someone else may have already mentioned it, but decided to use an inverted Range Selection mask on the targets to protect them while I worked on the gradient, which was quite significant stemming from [a] poor capture sky conditions, and too little data. I was simply seeing what there was on the target and was surprised to get as much signal as I did. Anyway, masking definitely helped. Without a mask I ended up basically hollowing out the main target [SNR G166.2+02.5] of its internal structure. With the mask applied that didn't happen. I'm not ready to post this yet as I need much more data, and the Milky Way is disappearing quickly here near Boulder CO.
...Stephen
Very much looking forward to your image Stephen.
Very interesting idea to use an inverted RangeSelection with GradientCorection. Something that I will also try out.
Thanks,
Jim |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
GC has a masking feature (structure protection) that I think is better suited than using your own mask.
Because if you use your own mask, the gradient model is not subtracted from the main object although it should be.
GC‘s structure protection creates the model ignoring the object‘s area (from what GC thinks is the object), but the model is subtracted from the whole image.
CS, Bend
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bernd Limburg:
GC has a masking feature (structure protection) that I think is better suited than using your own mask.
Because if you use your own mask, the gradient model is not subtracted from the main object although it should be.
GC‘s structure protection creates the model ignoring the object‘s area (from what GC thinks is the object), but the model is subtracted from the whole image.
CS, Bend
Thanks for clarifying that Bernd.
I just went into PI and learned a few more things about GC.
Jim
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Bernd, Jim... On the first trial Structure Protection was checked; threshold at 0.76 and amount at 0.37. I did three applications to satisfactorily remove the gradient. I see now that defaults are 0.10 and 0.50 respectively. So maybe with a higher amount it would be less damaging to the target. So I think I will post both the first image with significant loss of internal structure and the second image done with the mask, just so you can see the difference and make any suggestions. The dataset is 2 hours 50 minutes, so not much.
...Stephen
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
So I have to reinstall the whole thing? I can't get to the latest build using Resources->Updates->Check for updates
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
15.85
0.00
3.10
