Currently, when framing in the F&M wizard, when rotating the image, the actual image rotates.
For bright objects this is fine but when framing faint objects, the image quality degrades significantly when rotated (especially if stretched to show the target) and I often lose the target in a sea of blotchy pixels.
Any chance it can be changed to rotate the FOV rather than the image itself??
I second this request. It would be much more natural and usable to have the FOV rotate.
I’ll add a third to that,
or
Anything that would stop the blotching full stop
Appreciate the feedback. During the development of the MFW we implemented it both ways. By far, the more popular version was to keep the user’s perspective fixed. Because of this, we will not be changing that aspect of the UI (at least not right now).
I have never seen image quality degrade so badly on rotation that you can’t see parts of the target. Can you provide an example target? Maybe we can clean that up.
Also, do you guys adjust the sliders to darken or stretch the image? Sometimes I have a hard time seeing the object but then adjust the black point and it pops right out. Like Ken, I’ve never had an image that degraded to the point of being unuseable, or even degraded much at all.
Yes Ken I do stretch the image. This has only become apparent on a couple of new targets I’m aiming at. These are both dark nebulea and I need to stretch the image a lot before I can make out the shapes. As soon as I rotate them they kinda dissapear .
One target is LDN782 and adjacent Barnard nebulae (B211+B10)
And the other is NGC1333 and adjacent Barnard nebulae.
Do you want/need the sequence files?
I have not experienced the degredation mentioned here. But having the sky rotate rather than the telescope’s FOV seems highly “unnatural” to me. You’re telling me people actually expressed a preference for it to work that way???
Seems bizarre! I can rotated my camera. I can’t rotate the sky!
Yes, I for one strongly prefer that the image rotate rather than the camera FOV. That way I see exactly what will end up on my camera while the camera is in the normal orientation for the resulting images.
1 Like
Well I use Skysafari and use the framing fov function and in that software the fov rotates and I don’t find that unusual at all.
My thinking was that if the fov would stay fixed in the centre of the page and the image could be moved beneath it into the frame and then rotate the fov to suit the required framing.
But if the rotated image quality can be improved (especially when heavily stretched) then I’m fine with the current arrangement but I figured the image quality was fixed by the Simbad database?
I sincerely apologize, but I kind of need to end this conversation. There are a 1000 things going on right now and refactoring of a working product (this is not a tweak) is not going to happen right now.
Here is the bottom line…
There are camps of people that would prefer to have the image rotate and people that would prefer to seem the view rotate. Regardless of what you believe, we did due diligence on this when creating the MFW. If we change it we will have a set of folks complaining about the new implementation. I am a fan of the way it is… I like to see how the image will look to me when the camera is rotated properly. Another way of validating I suppose…
Either way, it is not our intent to refactor the way this works right now. We have a list of things to implement that we believe will be of far more value to our user base than things like this.
Please note… this is not to discourage feedback. I am a firm believer in letting folks know why… one way or another (rather than simply ignoring).
1 Like
That’s cool Ken. Fully understand 
Im not against its current implementation by the way (I personally think its bloody brilliant !) just that the image degrades a tad if heavily stretched and rotated but i can work around it, it just takes a bit longer and like many who aren’t software developers I have no idea how extensive a small change can be to do so appreciate the explanation.