1.51
#...
·
 |
|---|
| I have a newbie question and hope someone can assist… I am using a DSLR with an ASIair Plus and have a question about file formats. I have the ASIair set up to save one copy to its internal storage and one to my DSLR’s SD card. The copy saved to the ASIair is FITS format and the copy saved to my (Nikon) camera is NEF format. I use Astro Pixel Processor to stack and calibrate my images. Are both the NEF and FITS versions essentially the same quality or does one have more data/detail. In other words, what are the pros and cons (if any) of using one file format over the other. Thanks for any guidance and recommendations. |
7.90
#...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
| They aren't the same format in that they implent rather different headers and similar textual information but as for the amount of data they both pack they are essentially the same if you're using uncompressed .NEF format. |
11.35
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I don't know the technical specifics of the formats, I'm sure Andrea is correct, but there is a reason your asiAIR captures in FITS and it is that there is, more or less, an universality to the FITS format. There is probably no advantage to using your NEF images if you are capturing with the AIR. As you progress in astro photography you may evolve to a dedicated astro camera and never use any proprietary formats like RAW or NEF again anyway. scott |
0.00
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
The fits format has more information like coordinates of the photo that are used by several astronomy software for post treatment. (Pixinsight ) I started astrophotography with my D850 and NEF files but they are no benefit to even capture them. |
|
7.90
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
I don't know the technical specifics of the formats, I'm sure Andrea is correct, but there is a reason your asiAIR captures in FITS and it is that there is, more or less, an universality to the FITS format. There is probably no advantage to using your NEF images if you are capturing with the AIR. I'm sure there are many of us still (also) using DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras, now and in the future. After all most of modern astro-cameras are running on the tails of consumer camera technology. |
|
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thanks all for your replies. Ah... coordinate info. Yes, that definitely is a plus for FITS files. For me the only reason I was interesting in the NEF (RAW DSLR) files is that I can easily catalogue them for future reference in Lightroom (which I extensively use for my terrestrial photography). Unfortunately, Lightroom doesn't recognize FITS files. Thanks again. |
11.14
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| Proprietary or not, raw data are raw data = archival data. And metadata are useful only when they are correct. Do you trust ZWO converting your raw files to FITS? And ZWO's ASIAir was known to write erroneous focal length values at the FITS file header, causing problems to PI's plate-solving algorithms. I don't know if ZWO has already corrected this bug. |
|
6.89
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
NEF files with lossless compression are about 20% smaller.Die Launische Diva: I would add that NEF files with lossless compression are significantly smaller, not to be ignored when dealing with 24MP files on a Rasspberry Pie. |
5.77
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hi BlueSpeck, I'd be happy to share some of my experience on this topic ... I had the same dilemma - after many, many years of using NEFs and cataloging all my images in MediaPro, I was confounded by FITS when I first got into Astrophotography. In terms of the image quality, tNEF and FITS are exactly the same. Nikon provides lossless NEF compression, which will give you smaller files, otherwise the image quality is identical. If you're serious about AP, then it will eventually become necessary to embrace FITS rather than NEF - mainly because the FITS headers include much more metadata about your image - including things like RA, Dec, that you simply won't get in a NEF file and if you eventually get a dedicated AP camera, then also things like sensor temperature etc. Rather than trying to make my AP fit my existing workflow and tools, I realised that I needed to do it the other way around - adapt my workflow to new tools so I could manage and catalog FITS files. If you use a Mac, then Graphic Converter and the QuickLook FITS plugins are indispensable. I'm sure there is something similar if you use Windows. Also highly recommended is Affinity Photo - which is cross-platform, more-or-less direct replacement for Photoshop (and much cheaper), which handles FITs files natively and had a bunch of great features specifically for AP. I hope that helps  Gary |
|
1.51
#...
·
|
|---|
| @Gary JONES Thanks for sharing some of your experiences. I really appreciate it. Thanks also for the tips on Graphic Converter and QuickLook FITS. I am a MAC user and will check them out. I understand what you say about not trying to make my AP fit my existing workflow. It is good advice and you do makes sense. However it is hard not to try to find a solution that will satisfy both... even if just to a small extent. I have been a terrestrial photographer for a long time and while my processing and editing has evolved over time, my catalogue structure is already heavily embedded in the Adobe Lightroom world. As far as night sky imaging is concerned, I currently use Astro Pixel Processor for most of my night sky processing but also use Photoshop (and a couple of plug-ins from R.C. Astronomy) for final edits. I have looked at Affinity in the past and while it is intriguing, I have so much time invested in Photoshop that I would find it challenging to switch at this point. I don't mind separate processing tools and workflows for different projects, but it would be nice if I could find a way to review and catalogue my whole database of images (RAW, FITS, TIF, JPG, etc) using one tool. Hopefully there is (or will be) a FITS plug in for Lightroom out there somewhere. That would certainly solve my problem the easiest. Take care bluespeck |
|
5.77
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| @bluespeck Hi BlueSpeck, Many thanks for that feedback ... Glad to see you are a Mac user I've been using Photoshop since the early 90s, not long after Adobe first acquired the license from the Knoll brothers. I persisted with CS6 for years after Adobe converted its products to an annual license, and finally had to convert to an annual license after MacOS stopped supporting 32-bit apps. Adobe's crippling annual fee started hurting - at the end of 1 year, I refused to pay again, and looked for an alternative. I downloaded a trial of Affinity Photo - it was so good, I bought the software the same day - for 1/10 the Photoshop annual fee - now I own it forever. Making the switch was very clean - a bit like buying a new car - its feels different, but driving is the same. Affinity is almost a direct replacement for PS - but includes astronomy stacking and AP-specific macros all in one package. It's fantastic, and well worth the switch. The cash I've saved from not buying annual PS licenses paid for my new telescope ! Like you, I wish there was a single app that would let me catalog all my media, including FITs. Graphic Converter is great for browsing images, and for converting FITs to other formats, but isn't really designed for cataloguing. NeoFinder is the best overall - it creates catalogs from many media formats, including FITs. I recommend installing the QuickFITs plugin - it lets you browse FITs files in the Finder - and also displays basic metadata - very handy ! |
|
1.51
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| @Gary JONES Hi Gary. Thank you so much for taking the time to share this valuable information. I think that I will download some trial versions in the coming days and do a bit of a test drive. I definitely like the idea of saving money and if I can get past the "teach an old dog new tricks" scenario, I could happily put the savings towards my future purchase of an ASI2600MC camera. Take care. |
|
5.77
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| @bluespeck Ah - that's good Also noteworthy - my savings from dumping Photoshop paid for my new setup - including a new mount, a new OTA and a ASI 2600MM You will love the camera too. BTW - After 30 years with Photoshop, I guess I qualify as an 'old dog' - if I can make the switch, anyone can |
