PixInsight software

[neil groves]

Where can I get PixInsight software?...I see tutorials for it and it looks very good but I can't find where to download it from?

is it free?

Neil.

[Physopto]

Definitely not free!

https://pixinsight.com/trial/

Derek

[tingting44]

comes with a trial tho so you can see if you like it, its the only software I now use for stacking and processing

[Phillyo]

Isn't free no, but then when you compare it to the cost of Photoshop it's a good deal. It takes a bit of getting your head around but there are more and more video's and tutorials becomming available to help out. I know a lot of people balk at the thought of spending this much on post processing software, but I think having good software is as important as having good hardware. It's all well and good gathering good data, but if you can't pick it out and make it useable what's the point?

Would definitely recommend trying out the free trial at the link given above.

Phil

[RobRob]

I totally agree, PI is great software for a very decent price. I'm also wondering why people find it so difficult to spend money on good software while having very little problem on spending it on hardware...

[beamer3.6m]

I totally agree, PI is great software for a very decent price. I'm also wondering why people find it so difficult to spend money on good software while having very little problem on spending it on hardware...

Because you can physically touch hardware.

Software is only as good as YOU can utilize it and these software titles take a lot of work to get to know.

I think in hardware terms it would be like spending a lot of money on a scope which only shows you ANYTHING if you know every part of it inside and out and at the very beginning when you do see something it is limited in its quality and you now that to get better you have to invest a lot of time and effort. I would guess that it may not be a popular scope!

[beamer3.6m]

I think someone needs to invent the software equivalent of SYNTA.

They make decent scopes (don't all shout at once) which, out of the box, give decent (note I did not say amazing) views and come with the simple tools needed to achieve it.

If software was invented which could stack and then process an image based upon the subject matter to produce a decent (note I did not say amazing) image that would be fantastic as a Launchpad to move on from. I suppose I mean kinda like a toaster. You put in bread and out comes toast. If you want to spend time refining that toast to the perfect setting then you can but at the very least you have basic toast which functions as toast, takes like toast and EVERYONE else sees as toast.

At the moment the software stacks and then you are left to find your own way in the processing.

[Physopto]

Most toasters I've had burn the toast

Derek

[chrisvdberge]

I think someone needs to invent the software equivalent of SYNTA.

They make decent scopes (don't all shout at once) which, out of the box, give decent (note I did not say amazing) views and come with the simple tools needed to achieve it.

If software was invented which could stack and then process an image based upon the subject matter to produce a decent (note I did not say amazing) image that would be fantastic as a Launchpad to move on from. I suppose I mean kinda like a toaster. You put in bread and out comes toast. If you want to spend time refining that toast to the perfect setting then you can but at the very least you have basic toast which functions as toast, takes like toast and EVERYONE else sees as toast.

At the moment the software stacks and then you are left to find your own way in the processing.

I don't agree. 

You can use either masked stretch or even autostretch in pixinsight to stretch the image. All that is left to do is some curves maybe to get the 'decent' version you describe. 

[Phillyo]

At the moment the software stacks and then you are left to find your own way in the processing.

I disagree with this. A simple google search brings up a multitude of websites with tutorials and there are umpteen video tutorials on youtube too. Harry has some VERY good videos which explain everything from stacking right through to final image processing. It just takes a bit of time. Pixinsight is a VERY powerful tool that the vast majority of people won't get the most out of; but then again so is photoshop. Possibly even more so. However, you use what you want to use to get what you want out of the data. If you want to learn more than you read up on the documentation. Read the help files and user guide, the same as you would with any new piece of software OR hardware

Phil

[beamer3.6m]

People seem to miss my point.

Phd is popular becuase in general it just works. Stellarium is popular becuase in general it just works. Byeos is popular because in general it just works.

By this I mean you load it and it is obvious what to do. However if you want more than the basics then delve deeper.

You open pixinsight and its not entirely clear where to start. The lack of manual does not help and having to google it just proves my point.

My point was why in this age can we not have software which knows what you are aiming for by reference to a given object (for example m57) and then proceed to complete a number of actions to produce that from a simple 1 button press.

The software could use a reference image of m57 taken by hubble for example and then calibrate your own stacked image against it.

Would the result be perfect... no.

would the result be toast... yes (not burnt)

[Physopto]

Aye, You still may need a knife to scrape it into shape!

I'm on the long slow path to learn PI. But each success brings a warm glow !

[Phillyo]

I do agree that that would be lovely beamer. However I think therein lies the problem. We see a picture and it looks nice, it looks pretty or whatever. That is subjective; what you think looks good another person may disagree with. It becomes even harder with software that doesn't see the picture. All it see's are 1's and 0's. You say you can provide it with some data, press a button and have a pleasing picture. I honestly don't think that's possible with post processing.

It can't compare it to a reference image because it doesn't 'see' the picture. It see's data. That data that has been captured by the hubble (to use your example) will be VASTLY different to data captured by you or I from our back garden. How does the software know to make it look like the reference image?

I agree in that some software just works. Byeos, APT, stellarium etc. But they are doing a very simple job of "slew to this area, open sensor for x amount of time, repeat x amount subs" etc. I think that's very different to post processing.

This is, of course, all my personal opinion and I love a good discussion

Phil

[beamer3.6m]

I like a good debate also.

I agree its all 1's and 0's but software must be capable.

Photoshop can interpret the 1 and 0 to make the image appear as it is so I assume (with no knowledge of software design at all - can you tell) that it can be 'made' to match something else within limits.

Image a is heavy in red. Image b is heavy in blue. We want image a to be more blue so it increases blue until it matches (I mean this loosely) image b.

This is my very simplistic view of the world.