Jump to content

1564402927_Comet2021Banner.jpg.a8d9e102cd65f969b635e8061096d211.jpg

SGP and PlateSolve2


Horwig
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just upgraded from version 2.4.1.10 of SGP to 2.6.0.21.
I used to use Astrometry.net, but now want to give PS2 a go. 
Both star catalogues are installed. I loaded up some images taken with version 2.4. A couple solved within seconds, and I was impressed, but most didn't solve, and they eventually fall over to Astromentry. but a few times it will lock me out of sgp entirely.

The two images that solved were from entirely different equipment profiles, and the images that failed were from the same profiles. Am I doing something wrong?
Huw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Platesolve 2 needs to have really accurate pixel scales otherwise it gets confused about how far apart the stars really are. If you pixel scales are different in the second equipment setup, that would explain why Platesolve2 failed to solve them.

Effectively it gets it's speed by not looking too far outside the parameters you have given it, whereas Astronomy.net will scan the whole sky at a variety of pixel scales which has a higher chance of success, but will take longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Horwig said:

Hmm, I've put in 1.2 and 3.5, and Astrometry reports 1.204 and 3.48, so I'm not that far off. Must be something else

How much sky area do your images cover?

If you could post an image at each scale, I could try solving them with a later revision of PlateSolve, so see if perhaps the algorithm has been improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MCinAZ said:

How much sky area do your images cover?

If you could post an image at each scale, I could try solving them with a later revision of PlateSolve, so see if perhaps the algorithm has been improved.

My images are relatively wide, from 85*57 arc minutes to 325*216 arc minutes. Thanks for the off of trying your version on my images, I'll PM you a wetransfer link.

 

Huw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Sky coverage should not be an issue. I've downloaded your files, however I've learned that my current installation of PS3 does not include catalog data. I have those files at home, but won't be able to install them until Monday.

  I note a slight discrepancy between the center coordinates in your FITS headers and those reported by Astrometry.net. This may be enough to confuse PS2. You might attempt a solution after clearing the coordinates loaded from the FITS headers. Don't know if that will remedy the issue, but its worth a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MCinAZ said:

 

  I note a slight discrepancy between the center coordinates in your FITS headers and those reported by Astrometry.net. This may be enough to confuse PS2. You might attempt a solution after clearing the coordinates loaded from the FITS headers. Don't know if that will remedy the issue, but its worth a try.

Yes, I noticed the discrepancy, so blind solved the images, and input the new co-ordinates into the hint window, but Platesolve still failed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any platesolver works on the same principles.  You pass an image along with a set of parameters about the image, if you use saved images that may invoke an image conversion on the fly and depending on the image type may or may not contain FITS headers.  A live image is similar but is likely to use the host program to pass across the parameters and image information  - usually a bit more fiocused on the image supplied and easier for the plate solve to resolve. You would of course want a live image solved the quickest.

If you were to give as much info for your saved images as the host program does  then you should see the same resolution speed.

I would expect the host program passes across more of the optional data by default since it already has the data and it speeds up the process. Whereas a saved image may only pass across the mandatory and some of the optional - or even just enough for a blind-solve.

Have seen a lot of this whilst debugging the process when I was attempting to have my local astrometry server and change astrotortilla to use that instead of it's hard-coded settings for cygwin.  Never did get it sorted to my satisfaction though it would solve when given the right parameters.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After installing catalog data, I found that the M81+M82 and pacman images solved using PlateSolve-3.48 without issue. The other two solved after I manually entered approximate image dimensions. Curiously, when the pacman image is loaded, the image size dialog boxes are populated with approximately correct values. This is not the case with any of the other three files. Looking at your FITS headers, I don't see any obvious reason why the program behaves as it does.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for taking the time to do this MCinAZ, that's very much what I was finding. The M81+82 solved every time, the Pacman would sometime solve, the others would not.

Now that I'm imaging with the currenet version, everything seems to work fine, but if I were to be going to add data to existing sequences, I'd need to solve with another solver, so not a big issue.

 

Thanks again

 

Huw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.