[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kstars-devel
Subject: Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
From: Hy Murveit <murveit () gmail ! com>
Date: 2020-11-12 8:54:24
Message-ID: CA+B1P8uKiYv2e-fc+EM7p5Knuuooog22CJoz9Dcsz2ER=ep17w () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
BTW, just noticed a bug with these profiles, and I'm too sleepy now to
address it right now.
Rob/Jasem, let me know if you get to this before me.
When using the profile editor, it resets the SEP Profile spinbox (just left
of the edit icon that you click to enter the editor) to the "1" option
after you save, no matter what the profile in use was. Thus, say you're in
Focus using the "5-Big Sized Stars" profile, and you edit that, and
change a parameter. After you hit save, you will be set to using "1-Focus
Default", and you may not notice that Kstars has changed that
without you asking. Of course, it should not change your desired profile.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:37 AM Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com> wrote:
> *Eric:* I see. So, can you check to see you don't have a file saved
> that's messing things up (e.g. delete your
> ~/.local/share/kstars/SavedFocusProfiles.ini file if it exists, and then
> make sure you're using the "1-Focus Default" profile). You could play with
> the initialKeep and keepNum values in the
> kstars/ekos/auxiliary/stellarsolverprofile.cpp file in the Focus method.
> (Also see the note to Rob below).
>
> *Rob:* could there be a bug that if you have a saved .ini file, then the
> initialKeep parameter no longer gets set and uses a very high default? I
> wouldn't be surprised if that's what messing Eric up.
>
> Hy
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:24 AM Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, for the record, I do agree that Rob should either expose the
>> initialKeep parameter or make it a multiple of the Keep parameter.
>> As it currently stands, it effectively limits the maximum value of the
>> keep parameter.
>> H
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:19 AM Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jasem: I can go either way I suppose, but in my experience, it's running
>>> reasonably quickly. I won't object too strongly if you want to fix it.
>>>
>>> Eric: When I processed your images on my RPi4, they processed
>>> reasonably quickly:
>>>
>>> *Looking at the 1x1 image:*
>>> *Computing the HFR took 1-2s, but that's using my "quick HFR" which only
>>> looks at stars in the middle 25% of the image.*
>>> *Turning off the quick HFR option slowed it down to 4-5 seconds (again
>>> possibly alongside guiding).*
>>> *Are you using something slower than a RPi4? Could there be something
>>> else slowing down the computations?*
>>>
>>> *Looking at the 2x2 image:*
>>> *Seemed to take 1-2s without quickhfr, and 1s or less with quickhfr.*
>>> *FWIW, I run my focus with 2x2 binning of a ZWO ASI 1600.*
>>>
>>>
>>> We should figure out what the issue is.
>>> Hy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:50 PM Eric Dejouhanet <
>>> eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which is my case right now. But in the particular subject of 3.5, I
>>>> agree. I would like to know if the profiles are editable by the end-user
>>>> when they are saved locally, I mean, are all parameters from the file
>>>> loaded back properly?
>>>>
>>>> You know what I also mean here. Are there any tests validating that
>>>> part?
>>>>
>>>> eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com - https://astronomy.dejouha.net
>>>> *De:* mutlaqja@ikarustech.com
>>>> *Envoyé:* 12 novembre 2020 08:46
>>>> *À:* hy@murveit.com
>>>> *Cc:* rlancaste@gmail.com; eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com;
>>>> sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de; kstars-devel@kde.org
>>>> *Objet:* Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?
>>>>
>>>> That's fine with me. As long as it does end up generating too many
>>>> stars that ends up clogging HFR calculations unnecessarily.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Jasem Mutlaq
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:35 AM Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jasem,
>>>>>
>>>>> This close to the release, I'm inclined to be conservative here and
>>>>> let it be.
>>>>> It's just something I came up with, not some reference algorithm, and
>>>>> it seems to be working as it was implemented.
>>>>> I suggest that we can play with this in 3.5.1 if you want, but not
>>>>> mess with this now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:11 PM Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja@ikarustech.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Robert,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good catch on the partition & keep stars. I think we ought to resolve
>>>>>> this not by simply dividing by the number of chunks as this might skew the
>>>>>> results. In some images, some regions are more star-rich than others. Maybe
>>>>>> we should do a POST star detection but PRE star filter step where the # of
>>>>>> stars are then trimmed to the required initial keep?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Jasem Mutlaq
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:41 AM Robert Lancaster <rlancaste@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh the more significant question that I asked though, I don't think
>>>>>>> we addressed it yet. Right now initial keep doesn't work the way you meant
>>>>>>> it to due to the partitions. Does that need to be changed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > On Nov 12, 2020, at 1:37 AM, Robert Lancaster <rlancaste@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Yep they are the same kind of thing when it comes to stars
>>>>>>> certainly. Your argument that HFR should correlate to magnitude is
>>>>>>> probably very true for stars, but not for nebulae or galaxies. They can be
>>>>>>> large but dim. It also might not be true for some stars with dust around
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> On Nov 12, 2020, at 1:24 AM, Hy Murveit <murveit@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr">BTW, just noticed a bug with these profiles, and I'm too sleepy now to address it \
right now.<div>Rob/Jasem, let me know if you get to this before \
me.<br></div><div><div><br></div><div>When using the profile editor, it resets the SEP Profile spinbox \
(just left of the edit icon that you click to enter the editor) to the "1" \
option</div><div>after you save, no matter what the profile in use was. Thus, say you're in Focus \
using the "5-Big Sized Stars" profile, and you edit that, and </div><div>change a parameter. \
After you hit save, you will be set to using "1-Focus Default", and you may not notice that \
Kstars has changed that </div><div>without you asking. Of course, it should not change your desired \
profile.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:37 AM Hy Murveit <<a \
href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com">murveit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr"><b>Eric:</b> I see. So, can you check to see you don't have a file saved that's \
messing things up (e.g. delete your ~/.local/share/kstars/SavedFocusProfiles.ini file if it exists, and \
then make sure you're using the "1-Focus Default" profile). You could play with the \
initialKeep and keepNum values in the kstars/ekos/auxiliary/stellarsolverprofile.cpp file in the Focus \
method. (Also see the note to Rob below). <div><br></div><div><b>Rob:</b> could there be a bug that if \
you have a saved .ini file, then the initialKeep parameter no longer gets set and uses a very high \
default? I wouldn't be surprised if that's what messing Eric \
up.</div><div><br></div><div>Hy</div><div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:24 AM Hy Murveit <<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">murveit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr">Also, for the record, I do agree that Rob should either expose the initialKeep parameter or \
make it a multiple of the Keep parameter.<div>As it currently stands, it effectively limits the maximum \
value of the keep parameter.</div><div>H</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:19 AM Hy Murveit <<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">murveit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr"><div>Jasem: I can go either way I suppose, but in my experience, it's running reasonably \
quickly. I won't object too strongly if you want to fix it.</div><div><br></div>Eric: When I \
processed your images on my RPi4, they processed reasonably quickly:<div><br></div><blockquote \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><i>Looking at the 1x1 \
image:</i></div><div><div><i>Computing the HFR took 1-2s, but that's using my "quick HFR" \
which only looks at stars in the middle 25% of the image.</i></div></div><div><div><i>Turning off the \
quick HFR option slowed it down to 4-5 seconds (again possibly alongside \
guiding).</i></div></div><div><div><i>Are you using something slower than a RPi4? Could there be \
something else slowing down the \
computations?</i></div></div><div><div><i><br></i></div></div><div><div><i>Looking at the 2x2 \
image:</i></div></div><div><div><i>Seemed to take 1-2s without quickhfr, and 1s or less with \
quickhfr.</i></div></div><div><div><i>FWIW, I run my focus with 2x2 binning of a ZWO ASI \
1600.</i></div></div></blockquote><div><div></div></div><div><br></div><div>We should figure out what the \
issue is. </div><div>Hy</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div \
dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:50 PM Eric Dejouhanet <<a \
href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div \
style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);background-image:initial;line-height:initial"><div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733response_container_BBPPID" \
style="outline:none" dir="auto"> <div name="BB10" \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733BB10_response_div_BBPPID" \
dir="auto" style="width:100%"> Which is my case right now. But in the particular subject of 3.5, I agree. \
I would like to know if the profiles are editable by the end-user when they are saved locally, I mean, \
are all parameters from the file loaded back properly? </div><div name="BB10" \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733BB10_response_div_BBPPID" \
dir="auto" style="width:100%"><br></div><div name="BB10" \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733BB10_response_div_BBPPID" \
dir="auto" style="width:100%">You know what I also mean here. Are there any tests validating that part? \
</div> \
<div name="BB10" id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733response_div_spacer_BBPPID" \
dir="auto" style="width:100%"> <br style="display:initial"></div> <div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733blackberry_signature_BBPPID" \
name="BB10" dir="auto"> <div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733_signaturePlaceholder_BBPPID" \
name="BB10" dir="auto"><p dir="ltr"><a href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a> - <a href="https://astronomy.dejouha.net" \
target="_blank">https://astronomy.dejouha.net</a></p></div> </div></div><div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733_original_msg_header_BBPPID" \
dir="auto"> \
<table width="100%" style="border-spacing:0px;display:table;outline:none"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" \
style="padding:initial;font-size:initial;text-align:initial"> <div \
style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid \
rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in;font-family:Tahoma,"BB Alpha Sans","Slate \
Pro";font-size:10pt"> <div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733from"><b>De:</b> \
<a href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com" target="_blank">mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</a></div><div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733sent"><b>Envoyé:</b> \
12 novembre 2020 08:46</div><div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733to"><b>À:</b> \
<a href="mailto:hy@murveit.com" target="_blank">hy@murveit.com</a></div><div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733cc"><b>Cc:</b> \
<a href="mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com" target="_blank">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>; <a \
href="mailto:eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.dejouhanet@gmail.com</a>; <a \
href="mailto:sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de" target="_blank">sterne-jaeger@openfuture.de</a>; <a \
href="mailto:kstars-devel@kde.org" target="_blank">kstars-devel@kde.org</a></div><div \
id="gmail-m_-4127465095473942924gmail-m_-6303917958834978578gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733subject"><b>Objet:</b> \
Re: KStars v3.5.0 Release Date?</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> </div><div name="BB10" \
dir="auto" style="background-image:initial;line-height:initial;outline:none"><div dir="ltr">That's \
fine with me. As long as it does end up generating too many stars that ends up clogging HFR calculations \
unnecessarily.<div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div \
dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Best Regards,<br>Jasem \
Mutlaq<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 10:35 AM Hy Murveit <<a \
href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" target="_blank">murveit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Jasem,<div><br></div><div>This close to the release, \
I'm inclined to be conservative here and let it be. </div><div>It's just something I came up \
with, not some reference algorithm, and it seems to be working as it was implemented.</div><div>I suggest \
that we can play with this in 3.5.1 if you want, but not mess with this \
now.</div><div><br></div><div>Hy</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:11 PM Jasem Mutlaq <<a \
href="mailto:mutlaqja@ikarustech.com" target="_blank">mutlaqja@ikarustech.com</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hello Robert,<div><br></div><div>Good catch on the \
partition & keep stars. I think we ought to resolve this not by simply dividing by the number of \
chunks as this might skew the results. In some images, some regions are more star-rich than others. Maybe \
we should do a POST star detection but PRE star filter step where the # of stars are then trimmed to the \
required initial keep?</div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><div \
dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Best Regards,<br>Jasem \
Mutlaq<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div \
class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:41 AM Robert Lancaster \
<<a href="mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com" target="_blank">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Oh the more significant question that I asked though, I don't think we \
addressed it yet. Right now initial keep doesn't work the way you meant it to due to the partitions. \
Does that need to be changed?<br> <br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
> On Nov 12, 2020, at 1:37 AM, Robert Lancaster <<a href="mailto:rlancaste@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">rlancaste@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> > <br>
> Yep they are the same kind of thing when it comes to stars certainly. Your argument that HFR \
should correlate to magnitude is probably very true for stars, but not for nebulae or galaxies. They \
can be large but dim. It also might not be true for some stars with dust around them<br> > <br>
> Sent from my iPhone<br>
> <br>
>> On Nov 12, 2020, at 1:24 AM, Hy Murveit <<a href="mailto:murveit@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">murveit@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> >> <br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic