0.90
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Is it possible to do post processing getting maximum result not using Pixinsight and BlurXterminator? Seeing what BlurXterminator is capable of, in terms of sharpening and improving star shape and count in an image, i am getting some doubt that using StarTools and Gimp will be good enough. What do you think? Is there a way around Pixinsight with its add-ons? Or am i getting dimished post processing results sticking to StarTools and Gimp? CS Haakon |
11.91
#...
·
·
8
likes
|
|---|
|
I think the best answer is given in Adam Block's interview with Russell Croman. Watch at the 32 minute mark, where Adam talks about processing NGC 2362. He shows that you can get similar results as BX2 using maximum entropy deconvolution for that particular case, but it takes technique, skill, trial and error, and time. And a different image may require a different technique. A different way of saying this is that you may be able to do what BX2 does using other methods or software, but with significantly more time and complexity. For many who do not have the skill, such results will be impossible to achieve. At the end of the day, PixInsight is the de facto standard for astro image processing, I think now used by over 70% of imagers. So it is to your advantage to learn it, since I think, increasingly, some of the more sophisticated tools will not be developed for other software. |
7.76
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
| There is no substitute for the best tools for the job and PI is the ONE. You "might" get good results with other tools but you *certainly* are going to get good results with PI (and add-ons) if you know how to use them. I made the choice 10 years ago and never looked back. |
1.20
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Unfortunately, PixInsight really does offer tools that are unlike anything else. However, many people produce great images only using free software. But with tools like BlurX on the market, I doubt you'll be able to achieve the same results without a lot of extra effort. That being said, if you're looking to wade into the deeper waters of processing without the time and money investment of PixInsight, I found that Siril was an excellent stepping stone. For a lot of people, it has enough tools and is powerful enough to completely pre- and post-process your images. Also, for deconvolution, DeepSkyDetail has some interesting tools that he's been working on. With StarNet 2, some free AI tools, including the new GraXpert, and Siril, I think you could come pretty close to the power and utility of PixInsight without the price tag. The main issues will be performance and cohesion. In Pix, everything is in one program and fits together really nicely. By going the cheap/free route, you'll be spending a lot of time learning and using a bunch of different programs. In the end, these are just tools, and it really is up to you which ones to use. If you can't spring for PixInsight, don't feel like you can't progress in the hobby. You'd be surprised how far you can get without it. I hope this helps! Also, here are links to everything mentioned above: https://www.youtube.com/@deepskydetail https://github.com/deepskydetail/AstroSharp https://www.graxpert.com/ https://siril.org/ https://www.starnetastro.com/download/ Clear Skies, Justin |
1.20
#...
·
·
5
likes
|
|---|
| You get what you pay for.....i`ll leave it at that. I wouldn`t be without Russ Cromans tools... |
|
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
|
OK thank's guys, a lot to consider. PI with add-ons ist the best software, no doubt. CS Haakon |
11.14
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
PI by itself is very potent, but some choose to pay for convenience. Pi is a revolutionary piece of software but its unorthodox GUI and lack of documentation made a market for third-party add-ons and a feedback loop of youtube promoters. I don't fancy the latest DL-based retouching tools which happens to make headlines nowadays because they are unnecessary, expensive, and at the wrong hands make all images look similar, boring and badly processed. You may not agree with me but if you are a proficient imager (I am far from being such an imager) I suspect that you will agree at least with the last parts of my statement. What I strongly believe is that even if someone chooses the easy way but at the same time he is willing to spend some time to embrace the native tools PI and the philosophy behind them, he will be doubly benefited. |
13.12
#...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
|
PI is very powerfull and is a dedicated tool. But it is far too expensive for what it brings IMO. Siril does IMHO everything it does in preprocesing for free, and faster. I prefer it than PI. The team is very sympathic and publishes regularly very interesting updates. Photoshop is also very powerfull if well handled for postprocessing. Version 6 is free. I use it for all m'y images. If I had to keep only one software, It would be it. Starnet is free and alows a lot of possibilities. Find your way. But PI is not mandatory at all if you understand what data is and each step of manipulation. I have produced beautiful images, with satisfaction, without this soft. JF |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
After many months of effort I had my breakthrough with learning Pixinsight this fall and I am totally committed to it now. I've learned enough Pixinsight to make images that impress me (see the more recent ones in my collection here) and there's still a huge amount left to learn, so I'm very happy to stay with it. I don't know the other tools well enough to make valid comparisons. I've seen images from such methods that are excellent. My philosophy is to find a technique that works for me and allows me to grow in my expertise. Pixinsight does just that. |
12.64
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| AstroPixelProcessor (APP) is another option to consider. It isn't free (around $180 US dollars) but it is a full end-to-end processing program. While I primarily use PI and some of PS, APP is excellent, especially when it comes to its stacking and light pollution removal tools. |
10.80
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Jeffbax Velocicaptor: +1 Siril is an exceptional piece of software with GHS stretching and starnet built in… to add to that, you also have tool like DeepSNR for noise reduction which are also amazing. https://www.deepsnrastro.com Unfortunately it is a PI extension only at this stage but I’m sure will be added to Siril at some point. i love Pixinsight and Photoshop together. This is what I use. I however I only use Pixinsight for pre processing with BlurX. PI in my book is not very conductive to a creative workflow for colour grading with layers and realtime feedback . This is where photoshop is king. Affinity photo is another software that is cheap and does everything photoshop does… |
0.90
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I mainly use PI, and Photoshop for post (color fine adjustements, stars saturation.....etc), although I started with Siril which is also a really efficient piece of software I agree. PI is great, as PS also is. Not the same goal exactly. I gave APP a try, but I have to go deeper into it (seems really great as well). Almost everything is already said in this thread so far. I use add-ons, such as BX, NX, SX or GraXpert, and it's true that they are sort of game changers (Starnet2 does a really good job though), for the already detailed reasons told above. But as it was also said, something which starts to concern me, is the way AI seems starts leading the game to. Time passing, the more AI will do, the less astrophotographers will have to do (by themselves). Seeing the speed it grows up these last few weeks/months/few years, I'm thinking about the next 10 coming years. I cannot prevent myself to think that there is a possibility to really lose personnal creativity. Indeed, not so far ago, doing a deconvolution was a skills game, and the quality of an image was -not only but it was- linked to these sort of difficult skills to get. I agree that making things simplier is time/effort saving, which is very pleasant in astro-processing. But at the end, if everything is managed by AI, everything will be standardized and gathered around this simplicity, which makes, ironically, the success of AI nowadays. A sort of sofware Fordism. Talking about color palettes these days, sometimes it seems to end more or less the same for an increasing (not all of course) number of images. Maybe just my feeling I don't know. That being said, I really don't want to be pessimistic, things can hopefully take another way. Time will tell. Its was just a thought to share  Laurent |
15.85
#...
·
|
|---|
|
When I started “true imaging” about 3 years ago I started with a stacked image from SharpCap then moved it into Gimp, picked up Topaz and Starnet and was plenty happy with what I was getting. I SWORE I’d never spend that kind of money on software. But then I started wanting more out of my images so I decided to get APP which was my stepping stone to PI. Now I use PI exclusively for post processing and APP for processing the data. (I know a lot of people like Siril and I recommend it for newbe’s because its free, but I just couldn’t get it to work for me.) Just as a second option if I can’t get something to work in APP I’ll use WBPP just as a second check so to speak (not very often) I now have a workflow that I use and thanks to RC’s tools I’m very happy with my results. Could it be better? Sure but that would take probably more time and energy for this old brain to do so I’ll stay with what I have for now. Dale |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
andrea tasselli: Exactly the same for me: a 100% Pixinsight user since 2013 and Inconsider it the best solution for astrophotography. It has evolved a lot during these years, and always improving. |
|
11.91
#...
·
·
8
likes
|
|---|
Jeffbax Velocicaptor: Of course, value for money is subjective. I purchased PixInsight in 2018, I think for $300. Since then I have not paid them a single penny - PixInsight is not a subscription package. But in that time, I have spent several tens of thousands on scopes, mounts, tripods, filters, and cameras. Assuming around $25K in equipment (almost certainly I have spent more), PixInsight cost me roughly 1% of my total spend on astrophotography. Given how important post processing is, and how expensive everything else is, I would say that I have gotten my money's worth from it. The cost of virtually any software package is small compared to the total investment here. |
1.51
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I personally tried a few other (paid) packages and held off on PixInsight for some time before finally grabbing it - Best decision I ever made in AP!PixInsight is an amazing software package and the pricing is way too low in my opinion; I'd easily pay 5X the asking price. After considering the asking price against the typical equipment outlay the PI pricing is a pittance really. The RC tools compliment PI perfectly also at good price points. I’m just over one year into PixInsight, and In my opinion, PI is very easy to learn and to use (contrary to the erroneous prevailing belief that it's difficult to use/learn and has a steep learning curve). I think that you can never stop learning in PI. RC has just made some processes in PI far easier to apply. It's great to revisit old data every few months to see what new results you'll get from new experience/updates etc. Just my two cents worth ! |
|
2.41
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Honestly, I can’t stand pixinsight. I don’t want to fiddle with formulas and scripting. Some people love doing that, and I get it. You do you. I just find it archaic, slow, brutal programming. But… since I use blurx etc, I have no choice. |
|
13.12
#...
·
|
|---|
Arun H:Jeffbax Velocicaptor: Well, I do purchased PI and BXT and sometimes use it. But it is quite rare. I am not "against" PI but I usually don't need it in my flow. BXT is good when seeing is poor and/or for coma correction. JF |
2.94
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I started with DSS (free) LightRoomClassic, Adobe PS and DeNoise and as mentioned by Jeff bax these are very powerful tools. They can deliver better results compared to PI for some cases. Having said that, I found that the preprocessing using PI delivers better results than with DSS (less noise on very dim regions). Also, PI enables you to calibrate RGB images from a very comprehensive database and this a unique feature that you don't find with other softwares. As already mentioned BXT is also very powerful enabling you to optimize at best your images. Of course if you use a top notch setting BXT may have only a limited contribution, but for average instruments and images the improvement may become substantial. As the learning curve for PI is quite steep my advice is to start with PI and then to learn how to use other very powerful tools such as LrC and PS. Once you master all these tools you won't have limits to process your images. CS! Nicola |
2.10
#...
·
|
|---|
| PI is the premier product for processing astrophotography, however you don't need all the extraneous software if you capture clean data - dithered, noise-free, tight stars. The PI tools work well. Cheers! |
3.34
#...
·
|
|---|
| I too started with StarTools, but gave it up after a short while. After moving to Pixinsight I never looked back. PI is a great tool with scads of options. I later added the RC Astro add-ons and that was a very useful addition. While I think one can do the same things without Blur and Noise extras, it takes extra time. Russell’s tools are quite amazing on what they do and quickly they do it. |
5.21
#...
·
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
Having been imaging since 1993, I have a bit of historical perspective on this, and have to say that although PI is a daunting thing to learn, I would suggest that there is no software for any task that is not going to be daunting to learn and complex in structure when used to produce the best result and at the cutting edge of whatever task is being done. It is true of Photoshop, it is true of CAD programs, it is true of almost everything in software. I get a bit annoyed when folks expect things to produce great results w/o great effort (and at least some expense). To paraphrase JFK: I do imaging ......"not because (it is) easy, but because (it is) hard." For me the bottom line is that if it gets so easy that any putz can plunk a piece of hardware down in the backyard and produce perfect images with cheap and easy automatic processing - I will find a new hobby. It is special for me and it would not longer be special. As far as the future, there has always been evolution in astronomy software. From the very early days with the SBIG DOS version of CCDOPS and processing programs like MIRA (which most people these days have never heard of) to the rapidly vanishing fossil MaxIm DL, and now things like NINA, Voyager, PI and others. Who knows where it will go? PI, like it's predecessors, will probably not be around forever. It will be interesting to see, but the bottom line at this point is that I could not produce images at the same level for 95% of the data w/o using PI at some point in the process and for a significant percentage of the workflow. |
|
0.90
#...
·
|
|---|
| I think you have a point there, Bill. If astrophotography get so easy that there is no effort behind it, I think many people will stop doing it. Me included. I still struggle with basics like collimation and deformed stars. Perhaps BXT would take care of these stars, but would that be right? Where is my Motivation to get perfect collimation when a piece of Software takes care of my bad collimation anyway. Just thinking. |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Jeffbax Velocicaptor: As a long time Siril user and a relatively new PI user, I disagree. PI is worth more than they charge and it is beyond comparison with Siril. |
|
13.12
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Jeffbax Velocicaptor: OK, Every feeling is respectable as long as we take pleasure from our hobby. Clear skies. JF |
