The Definitive Guide to WBPP: Monochrome LRGB Configuration with Interactive LN (Part 1)

[@terryrobison]

Great content Adam. Cosmetic correction is a sanity saver with my STL-11000. Cheers.

[@AdamBlock]

Thanks Terry.

[@ergio1]

Another great video Adam, thank you for sharing. This is very helpful. The updated version of WBPP looks amazing. I have now just recently changed from a windows to Mac M1, so fingers crossed everything works well. Weather has been horrible in terms of rain here Down Under (perhaps good for farmers), however, I have some data In LRGB. that I captured a few months back on the HorseHead and I want to combine this with the data I captured last year.

[@Safestassets]

Is this the same method when using narrowband data?

[@ibnulhussaini3791]

Hi Adam, do you recall what the pixel scale is for this data & at what pixel scale would you look to drizzle?

[@AdamBlock]

In this video? I do not even think I show the images...I just use the dataset as a way to show configuring WBPP. This particular data was taken with a large telescope (0.4" per pixel I believe). I would not drizzle data like this.

[@ibnulhussaini3791]

@@AdamBlock Been away from astro for a couple of years so I've been watching a bunch of your vids. I probably replied to the wrong vid

[@ibnulhussaini3791]

I did the 0.5 weights like you did & it's rejecting nearly an hour & a half out of 5 for a couple of the filters. Do you think that's too many frames getting rejected & that I should bring my weights down to like say 0.3? Got a bunch of satellite trails too so I'm gonna rewatch your vid on that topic & adjust the integration parameters

[@AdamBlock]

Satellites will not be an issue. Something that people do not appreciate is how hard it is to get good data. Applying a threshold (relative) weight shows you how good and bad your data is relative to itself... and what I am to say?... this is telling you is that your data has significant variability in quality. It doesn't lie. Lowering the threshold will let in crappier data... but do you think it will help? (Don't believe me? Do the experiment... compare the masterlight you get when you 0.5 compared to 0.001 for the minimum. Is it significantly different?) Typically the real answer is to go out and get better data if possible.

[@ibnulhussaini3791]

@@AdamBlock Mate it's not easy getting data here in Melbourne let alone data that is good. I had variable seeing over the multiple nights that I was imaging this target. Gotta make do with what I have right now but I'll test with the different weights & compare. Btw, I noticed one of the ESD parameters that you adjusted (made it a higher to 1) for satellite trails doesn't show up in WBPP. Not sure why

[@AdamBlock]

@@ibnulhussaini3791 Yeah. I understand...I get it. But my point is that bringing in more lower quality frames may or may not help (depends). Some of the controls for ESD are not available in WBPP (and ESD changed sometime ago if I recall correctly...so my video might be dated in this respect). If you ever need more control- reverting back to Winsorized Sigma Clipping is just fine.

[@ExoPhotography1]

Love your vids, and trying to learn the new 2.4.5 but can't really understand why it takes 30 min to load my files... (not processing but loading them into wbpp) Any idea? /Daniel

[@AdamBlock]

Wow! No...I do not know. That sounds like a hardware issue (perhaps external drive)? Sorry... can't help.

[@ExoPhotography1]

@@AdamBlock It worked fine with wbpp for two or three versions ago. I do run a network storage (1gbit ethernet with raided disks, and that has been working for four years.) Is wbpp now reading FITS-headers differently? I do run quite large sets (often 600+ images) with a minimum of 50hrs of data.