<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">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_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733response_container_BBPPID" style="outline:none" dir="auto"> <div name="BB10" id="gmail-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_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%"><br></div><div name="BB10" id="gmail-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_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733response_div_spacer_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%"> <br style="display:initial"></div> <div id="gmail-m_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733blackberry_signature_BBPPID" name="BB10" dir="auto"> <div id="gmail-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_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_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_7337234694170452649gmail-m_2033396795361749696gmail-m_-1918649374322300733sent"><b>Envoyé:</b> 12 novembre 2020 08:46</div><div id="gmail-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_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_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>