Sorry I am a little behind on the Spanish translastion, been busier lately!
Nice set of improvements there, specially offloading more work to GPU seems interesting too
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/11cae/11caed03a6c66da5b68c47883f5236caaf352c37" alt="Very Happy :D"
Clear skies!
Wow, Dietmar,I tried Pi, 0, 1, sqrt(2) and some of the most important physical constants (don't know where to place the units?!) as well, but they all have one thing in common: nothing happens. Maybe my PSF samples are not distorted enough ... ?
![]()
Hi Jochen, I double-checked this because I usually have terribly deformed stars. But actually, this parameter has no impact on my dataset. With higher values, the image gets just a bit blurry. Maybe the stars are too fat at all or I used unsuitable samples? And there seems to be nearly no impact on the fat stars, only the cores are tightened ... ?
Thanks Carles. Good to hear you're busy and hope you're well!
That's odd... You should definitely see marked changes. You do typically need to increase the number of iterations however...decay wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:22 pmHi Jochen, I double-checked this because I usually have terribly deformed stars. But actually, this parameter has no impact on my dataset. With higher values, the image gets just a bit blurry. Maybe the stars are too fat at all or I used unsuitable samples? And there seems to be nearly no impact on the fat stars, only the cores are tightened ... ?![]()
Before, After, Spatial Error set to 3.51:
2022-12-06 19_17_04-Window.jpg
But as discussed with Mike, it's probably better to wait until Ivo starts beta phase. Holiday is holiday and Christmas is Christmas.
Best regards, Dietmar.
I did all that (and some more iterations, like Ivo suggested), but the result regarding the 'Spatial Error' (that was what I meant) is as before: No significant change from value 1 up to 6. Just a bit more blurry. But maybe that's totally fine, since the stars are not that much deformed?
Thank you, Ivo. I tried some more iterations (16), but there was no change regarding this "Spatial Error' parameter setting (please see post above). But as said, that's probably perfectly fine.
Any feedback related to the quality of the output/images is definitely helpful. Any quirks regarding UI may be a little early, as there is plenty to do... Thank you!
Saying that, I am actually looking for feedback on the SVDecon workflow/UI. The automatic determination of sample size and automatic apodization mask generation in particular (any failure cases). Note also that you should now be able to select stars that have overlapping sampling areas (if need be).