| Summary: | Variable HFR values | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Applications] kstars | Reporter: | Jean-Claude <jcjesior> |
| Component: | general | Assignee: | Jasem Mutlaq <mutlaqja> |
| Status: | REPORTED --- | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version First Reported In: | 3.6.1 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Other | ||
| OS: | Other | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed/Implemented In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
| Attachments: |
HFR = 3.93
Variable HFR values |
||
Created attachment 153253 [details]
Variable HFR values
I believe this is because different algorithms are used to measure. Some only examine a small area in the image to measure HFR, others measure HFR in all the stars and take an average. Your explanation could be valid : in my attachment, the "Just recorded image" uses 1747 stars while the "Same image read from disk" uses only 244 stars. But why not using the SAME algorithm ? This is confusing ! Good question, it comes down to performance issues. This might not matter on very fast computers, but it makes a big different on limited hardware. |
Created attachment 152612 [details] HFR = 3.93 SUMMARY During a session , recorded images are displayed in the FITS Viewer with their HFR value. But if the SAME image is read immediately after in the FITS Viewer its HFR value is different . Why ? STEPS TO REPRODUCE 1. Record an image and note its HFR 2. Open the same image 3. It has now a different HFR OBSERVED RESULT EXPECTED RESULT SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS Windows: macOS: 11.7.6 Linux/KDE Plasma: (available in About System) KDE Plasma Version: KDE Frameworks Version: Qt Version: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION