I am always surprised that people suggest that the cost of PixInsight is one of the reasons they don't use it. So they baulk at a few hundred dollars, compared to the thousands they put into their equipment, when the software is such a huge part of producing a good image. It can even rectify some of the defects from lower cost equipment. I'm not suggesting that there isn't other capable software out there, but to suggest that it is too expensive is non-sensical to me. It is also a one off purchase and unlike all the subscription models out there, I am not up for an annual payment that can be inflated and requires my brain space to remember to pay it and then to organise the payment.
I decided at the outset to invest in PI. I realised at the time it was the pre-eminent software for astroimage processing and that I would probably end up there eventually. This saved me investing in the learning curve for other systems. I am satisfied I made that decision.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Been using PI since, not really sure, 2011?
Do not recall how much I paid for it but not a cent since. I know that one of these days Juan will come calling but PI has been an incredibly inexpensive thing really. Got sick of PS with its subscription model and went to Affinity Photo about 4 years ago. Learning PI was painful. Leaving PS for Affinity was painful too for several months.
But I do not regret either decision.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Haakon Rasmussen:
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
In my experience, there is no substitute for PixInsight and Russ's tools. Also don't forget about other excellent and useful add-ons such as GAME, the resurrected EZ processing suite, and Bill Blanshan's Color Masks and Star Reduction / Screening tools.
PI is truly the best of the best and I've not been able to get better results with any other software.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
|
Time is money and a lot of time is saved by using Pix and BXT. (and as some said, results that can't be achieve by lot of us without theses tools)
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
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
Wow Jeff…you are even cheaper than me! PI is a one-time purchase that comes with life time updates. I think that it has cost me maybe around $26/year for all the years that I’ve used it. That’s only about $2/month and for that you get a team that constantly produces valuable improvements and updates—not to mention access to third party tools like Russ Crowman’s BXT. I’m pretty amazed that PI hasn’t gone to a subscription model because I can’t figure out how they can possibly continue to pour so much work into the product for such a meager one time purchase price. Most folks dump thousands of dollars into their imaging equipment (and some of us spend a LOT more than that) so it seems completely absurd to grumble about paying a few hundred bucks to have world-class image processing capability. Yes, you can process images with free software but there’s a reason that PI has become a defacto standard.
John
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
John Hayes:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
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
Wow Jeff…you are even cheaper than me! PI is a one-time purchase that comes with life time updates. I think that it has cost me maybe around $26/year for all the years that I’ve used it. That’s only about $2/month and for that you get a team that constantly produces valuable improvements and updates—not to mention access to third party tools like Russ Crowman’s BXT. I’m pretty amazed that PI hasn’t gone to a subscription model because I can’t figure out how they can possibly continue to pour so much work into the product for such a meager one time purchase price. Most folks dump thousands of dollars into their imaging equipment (and some of us spend a LOT more than that) so it seems completely absurd to grumble about paying a few hundred bucks to have world-class image processing capability. Yes, you can process images with free software but there’s a reason that PI has become a defacto standard.
John
Hi John,
As I said, I have purchased PI and BXT and sometimes use them. 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.
May be is it because I have been using Photoshop since I began lets say 25 years ago...
JF
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
John Hayes:
Jeffbax Velocicaptor:
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
Wow Jeff…you are even cheaper than me! PI is a one-time purchase that comes with life time updates. I think that it has cost me maybe around $26/year for all the years that I’ve used it. That’s only about $2/month and for that you get a team that constantly produces valuable improvements and updates—not to mention access to third party tools like Russ Crowman’s BXT. I’m pretty amazed that PI hasn’t gone to a subscription model because I can’t figure out how they can possibly continue to pour so much work into the product for such a meager one time purchase price. Most folks dump thousands of dollars into their imaging equipment (and some of us spend a LOT more than that) so it seems completely absurd to grumble about paying a few hundred bucks to have world-class image processing capability. Yes, you can process images with free software but there’s a reason that PI has become a defacto standard.
John
Hi John,
As I said, I have purchased PI and BXT and sometimes use them. 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.
May be is it because I have been using Photoshop since I began lets say 25 years ago...
JF
I personally could not get decent results without PI, but looking at Jeffbax portfolio, obviously he doesn't need it...
Bray Falls is also a Photoshop guru.
I have used photoshop for years but I am not at either Bray or Jeffs level and I think most people could use both to get the best results.
I also use Capture one and Affinity photo for small things that neither PI or photoshop do.
I stack in APP which for me is gives better results on most targets compared to PI.
Affinity photo has a background removal tool that beats PI and it costs just $24 or something, worth it for that one tool IMO.
I obviously need all the tools available.......
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I think that there's a potential business model out there for an on the ball Astro company to preconfigure high end PC's / Laptop's togther with PixInsight (not sure if they would need PixInsight's co-operation re. corp. licenses etc.?).
The above highlights, again, the remarkable value of PixInsight as a software module, as the proper PC to run it dwarfs the software cost, maybe that turns some users off? But I'm sure PhotoShop PC's are just as demanding?
It might be an interesting topic to see what hardware PixInsight users utilize !? (I'm on a Dell i9 laptop with 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD and 17" 4K IPS Screen
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
I think that there's a potential business model out there for an on the ball Astro company to preconfigure high end PC's / Laptop's togther with PixInsight (not sure if they would need PixInsight's co-operation re. corp. licenses etc.?).
The above highlights, again, the remarkable value of PixInsight as a software module, as the proper PC to run it dwarfs the software cost, maybe that turns some users off? But I'm sure PhotoShop PC's are just as demanding?
It might be an interesting topic to see what hardware PixInsight users utilize !? (I'm on a Dell i9 laptop with 64GB RAM, 2TB SSD and 17" 4K IPS Screen
Any M based Mac runs PI like a greased lightning.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Haakon Rasmussen:
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
Hi,
BlurXterminator doesn't give maximum result. It gives a very good result with minimal effort. I tried using it with an image of Andromeda I had finished couple weeks ago and it achieved significantly better looking stars and non-stellar details than my best result with traditional deconvolution (which had taken hours of trial and error), at the expense of a purple halo around a few big stars which you must zoom at 1:1 to notice.
I think it is very useful and will be buying it. But it is just another tool, sometimes I will be using it, sometimes I won't. I think if the seeing is good and you don't mind some irregular stars, things just look more natural without BXT.
As for PI, it is the golden standard for astrophotography and this is why it has an add-on ecosystem and why there are so many tutorials around it. I prefer APP for stacking and light pollution removal because it is very streamlined, I prefer Darktable for finishing touches because I am used to it from my daytime photos, but for everything in between, PI absolutely rules. I am fully aware it can also do the other stuff, I just prefer the other software. I think it is well worth the money, especially by AP standards.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
4.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.40
13.12
4.67
1.51
0.00
6.89
