Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_lunar_landings.thumb.jpg.b50378d0845690d8a03305a49923eb40.jpg

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, coatesg said:

It makes a lot of sense from a linux point of view (remember Cygwin is used by AT, but is not maintained by the AT developers). Packages have inter-dependencies due to references against required libraries and the way that packages are built requiring certain versions - many of these libraries change on a regular basis due to bug/security fixes, or feature updates. It avoids the need for the AT guys to keep (essentially) their own copy of the cygwin distribution and to have to repackage it with their own software on a regular basis when there are security releases. There are also many instances where cygwin is already present on a client PC - you wouldn't want to force conflicts with any pre-existing Cygwin install, but rather let the relevant cygwin installer sort out itself what is needed.

Hi Graeme. I have been thinking about this, and, although I can see what you are saying, I don't think it addresses the point I am trying to make.

My AT installer is a 'fixed' piece of software - it does not alter with the changes made to cygwin. Somwhere within it is an instruction that equates to "go get cygwin", or more specifically "go get cygwin bits a, b, c, d, x, y & z". Now the content of these individual bits may alter as the program develops, but  presumably there are cygwin protocols in place such that getting these bits will always produce the desired result. The AT installer certainly doesn't know that the contents of a, b, etc have changed.

Now, when AT says "I am going to install cygwin", to me that tells me absolutely nothing useful - ok, it's telling me that I need cygwin (or some unspecified bits of it) and it's going to do it, but nothing more than that. And it restricts the machines upon which it can be installed. Whereas the comment "I am going to install cygwin bits a, b, c, d, x, y & z" would now make the package truly useable on any machine - connected to the internet or not. I could now go to the cygwin download site and know that I needed bits a, b, etc.

But this is the very information that is withheld, even in the case of so-called open source programs. And that is what I find so irritating.

Or am I still missing something?

Thanks.

Edited by Demonperformer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed that AT is very slow with TIFF files but if you convert the TIFF to JPG(8bit) it speeds up (and solves where the TIFF image fails) -  a lot - so Tiff image solved in 250 secs converted Tiff to JPG image solves in 29-40secs Blind. As I pointed out doing it manually you can alter the fields and "Down Scaling" does help - AT or Astrometry Software does not seem to like too many stars and that is what the Downscaler effect does - it reduces the number of stars used to build its solving algorithm(it seems) - so for example  my Tiff image produced 1200 reference stars, changing the "Down Scaler" reduces this to say 20 (depending of the DownScaler factor input) which then reduces the time and actually ,in some cases, goes from a negative to positive solve.  ASPS doesn't allow TIFF - only fit/jpg

Now I don't know if this reduces the accuracy (my AT setting was 1 arcmin for testing) but it works for me.

Be careful installing more  than one Cygwin as it can get confusing especially if you load the indexes manually - LOL - I admit it I put them in the wrong place and wondered why ASPS didn't use them!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - this may indicate more about the last tiem I installed AT, but the recommended method is now moving (with AT 0.8) to install the astrometry.net solver as a standalone from http://adgsoftware.com/ansvr/ - see FAQ at:

https://sourceforge.net/p/astrotortilla/home/FAQ/

ANSVR is a standalone installer so it looks like the cygwin portion will become redundant.

4 hours ago, Demonperformer said:

Now, when AT says "I am going to install cygwin", to me that tells me absolutely nothing useful - ok, it's telling me that I need cygwin (or some unspecified bits of it) and it's going to do it, but nothing more than that. And it restricts the machines upon which it can be installed. Whereas the comment "I am going to install cygwin bits a, b, c, d, x, y & z" would now make the package truly useable on any machine - connected to the internet or not. I could now go to the cygwin download site and know that I needed bits a, b, etc.

But this is the very information that is withheld, even in the case of so-called open source programs. And that is what I find so irritating.

But it's not really "withheld": A brief look in the AT source code gives me this file: https://sourceforge.net/p/astrotortilla/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/AstrometryNetPackages.txt - I presume that's enough to get astrometry.net running locally (and to build - so you might get away without the dev packages to just run it). However, a lot of people may see the code behind the project and then have a bit of a meltdown, and so providing an installer that does it all for you is a very friendly way of doing it.

(It also avoids dependency issues etc - it's not just that you need a, b, c and d, but you need versions of a,b,c and d that are all self consistent - packaging/automated dependency management ensures that; asking a human to download them manually doesn't. I've been into "dependency hell" before in administering Redhat and Debian based systems - albeit more complex than simply a cygwin install, but it's not a pleasant place to try and work your way out of sometimes :-/). 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I am much more hopeful about ansvr. Just waiting to hear back about how to get round the download index files issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have received a reply from Andy at ansvr and things look good.

I can confirm that ansvr installs its own cygwin package from the installer and does not require an extra download. The solution for the index files is:

Open the index file downloader from the start menu and click the folder button. Select the directory where the index files reside and it then displays a message that it has found the files and you can close the dialog box.

The good news is that when I went into Sharpcap, it had automatically detected the ansvr presence. Solved the standard M42 pic, with a full set of index files, in just over 2 minutes. Currently trying my NAN pic (which has over 5000 sources found - so don't expect miracle times!) again with all the index files. At this stage, I will be happy if it does not place it in Gemini!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after over an hour it was still chuntering. Probably a combination of too many sources and too many index files. 

First change, increase to sigma to reduce sources to 218 and use only 41xx index files. It promptly failed due to "Too few sources". Don't really understand that.

Anyway, reduced sigma to generate just over 1000 sources. Currently chuntering using the 41xx files - objects 51-60.

Edited by Demonperformer
Autoincorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm ...

41xx totally failed to resolve.

This image did solve on astrometry.net website. Size was 21d x 15s.  So now trying with 4219》4213.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, that totally failed as well :hmh:

It did work with astrometry.net, so it can be done.

Can I ask anyone who has SC set up to platesolve, to give this image a go and upload the log file if it works so I can compare and see where things are diverging?

Thanks.

NAN.fits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

OK, that totally failed as well :hmh:

It did work with astrometry.net, so it can be done.

Can I ask anyone who has SC set up to platesolve, to give this image a go and upload the log file if it works so I can compare and see where things are diverging?

Thanks.

NAN.fits

Hi, what's your focal length and pixel size? I only have the index files I need installed, so if your resolution is vastly different from mine it wouldn't solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without setting anything in Sharpcap - and just using the Test Controls for the Test Camera your file solved on my PC see attached log

new 2.txt

Now I haven't checked the DEC/RA results but it took about 12mins - it needs the Scaling factor IMHO to speed up but I can't find a way in sharpcap to alter that. Might try manual run of Astrotorilla

Edited by stash_old

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, cuivenion said:

Hi, what's your focal length and pixel size? I only have the index files I need installed, so if your resolution is vastly different from mine it wouldn't solve.

50mm focal length & 3.75 um pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, stash_old said:

Without setting anything in Sharpcap - and just using the Test Controls for the Test Camera your file solved on my PC see attached log

Thanks,  that's brilliant. I will go through it when I am back on the desktop and see if it gives me any hints. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran your image against Astronometry.net and Ra,Dec not the same so looks like a bum hit !! :sad2: Unless I miss read it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Converted image to JPG(see attached) then using ASPS it solved (using your 50mm and 3.75um) in 74secs and gave this as the solved image and the dec/ra match Astrometry.net - result

clivesolve-1.jpg

clivesolve-1a.jpg

nan.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stash_old said:

Ran your image against Astronometry.net and Ra,Dec not the same so looks like a bum hit !!

On 13/04/2018 at 09:04, Demonperformer said:

AT has started not performing as required ... it has placed NAN in the middle of Gemini, with a field size about 1/8 of the actual image.

Interesting - your run has placed NAN slap bang where my version of AT (through Sharpcap) placed it - in the middle of Gemini with field of 2.5 x 2 degrees, instead of about 20x15 deg - that has got to be more than just a coincidence. And it suggests to me that the problem lies more with the image than with the setup.

As I mentioned above, the M42 pic in SC solved perfectly. Think the next step is to find a different image and see if I can solve that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stash_old said:

Converted image to JPG(see attached) then using ASPS it solved (using your 50mm and 3.75um) in 74secs and gave this as the solved image and the dec/ra match Astrometry.net - result

Hmm ... I will have to give that a try on my system. Back in a bit ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this looks a little more promising.

Using the complete set of 41xx index files, SC found 49 sources at 15:25:25.8 and solved it at 15:25:28.4 (2.6s). Checked the coordinates and they are right over NAN.

So I guess the problem lies in using a FITS file instead of a JPG file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for fun, I ran it through with the selection of 42xx index files for this size field: 15:35:19.9 to 15:35:22.9 (3.0s - a whole 0.4s longer).

Next step, run some tests with some other subs. Now I know that the system does work and just how long it should take, I won't go waiting around for hours any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

Well, this looks a little more promising.

Using the complete set of 41xx index files, SC found 49 sources at 15:25:25.8 and solved it at 15:25:28.4 (2.6s). Checked the coordinates and they are right over NAN.

So I guess the problem lies in using a FITS file instead of a JPG file.

Maybe a case of "cant see the wood for the tree's" when using fits. Still could do with SC letting users change some more paramters - Downscaling as I have said does seem to make a difference. Only glad I dont use "Blind" solving very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you use to convert that to jpg? I have tried several progs and they do not like it. In addition, when I try other images that do convert, they don't solve ...

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. That was the first one I tried yesterday, but it keeps returning "error during conversion process". Which, considering you got it to work, makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. But then, why should this bit be any different??

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, before chasing too far down this rabbit hole, I have sent a pm to Robin to see if I am doing anything obviously stupid which can be easily solved to enable me to solve the fits files. That would eliminate the need for conversion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By KevS
      This evening/morning I am having some problems getting my unmodified canon 600d to live view via apt. One hell of a palaver trying to get focused. Has any one suffered similar problems? Was working fine yesterday, tonight a bit of a disaster all round. I am running the feed for the guide camera down the same USB cable via a non powered hub, the camera works fine during the data gathering phase but no dam preview. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
      K
    • By BUDA
      Hi All!

      I have guiding problem with the following guider setup: 9x50 finder + ZWO ASI 120mm mini + PHD2.
      The imaging scope is a 6' newtonian + canon dslr on a HEQ5, driven by a laptop via diy EQDIR cable.
      When the mount is set up and running correctly, polar aligned and all... I connect the guider camera
      and mount with phd2. All nice and easy, I run a calibration, then it starts to guide. All seems ok.

      Then I am starting to take pictures. The first seems OK, then the second have the star trails...
      I check phd2 and there is a message: the camera (ASI) did not take a picture for "xy" seconds so it is disconnected.
      Grrr.... I reconnect try to set up a longer period for "xy" in the settings as mentioned in the message.
      And all the same again and again. Whatever I add for connection timeout for the camera, it just reaches that
      and disconnect the camera.
      PHD + philips toucam has worked for me flowlessly. I changed to PHD2 because I gave myself a birthday present,
      the little ZWO camera. (and PHD did not recognize it)
      Do you have any idea what can be the problem? I will contact PHD2 help also, but maybe somebody had already
      the same problem and figured out how to overcome. I am almost sure I make some dumb mistake in the PHD2
      software settings, however I tried to change only what was needed.
    • By Coastliner
      Hi All,
      I'm trying to balance my AZ-EQ5 as perfectly as I can, all was going well (all 3 axes) until I added the Polemaster. As this is off-axis it applies torque to the RA causing the axis to rotate until the Polemaster is hanging at the lowest point.
      I need to couterbalance this, any ideas how?
      or,
      Do I need to counterbalance this? Am I being too picky?
      I have considered taking the arm off and gluing the Polemaster onto the on-axis point of the top cover, but again, is this overkill?
      Thanks,
      Neil.
    • By bottletopburly
      Currently setting up a pi4 with indigosky which will be run via APT , running win10  and the the latest APT Beta release 3.75.2 , now I can connect to indigosky server via browser , but I can’t connect via APT  indigo control panel throws up an error can’t connect to indigo or indi server  server address is default Indigosky , server port 7624 , on pressing navigate server error says dns address can’t be found , has anyone been successful in connecting to indigosky via APT running win10.
    • By Demonperformer
      The other night, I got a rather weird thing happen using Sharpcap. In live-stacking, the first image arrived and it was full of stars. So, without changing any settings, I did a "platesolve" (which also realigns the scope) to centralise my target. It did its single frame capture and I got a practically blank screen and a message saying it could only detect 3 stars. I tried reducing the "sigma" setting, as advised by the on-screen message, with little effect. What gets me is that the same settings produced a whole mass of stars in each of the subs that were being live-stacked. Never had this happen to me before, and no, of course I didn't do anything intelligent like saving the log file!
      I can always try to replicate this next time (although I always find trying to replicate something that isn't working to be a weird activity in itself!), but on the off-chance that anyone can see what was happening without the log file, I thought I would ask.
      Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.