teoria_del_big_bang

Anyone that has either bought this or using the free trial what are your thoughts on NoiseXTerminator

I have just downloaded it and for sure it seems to work I am just fiddling with the two parameters to see the optimal values as the defaults seem far too aggressive to me.

In PI which is where I am testing it then it is probably easier to use than the usual Mure denoise, TGV denoise and MLT then a bit of sharpening with deconvolution, but will it do the same ?
From what I see there are just two parameters one basically is how aggressive the denoise is and the other it supposed to sharpen the details to some extent.

Steve

That's just brilliant, and I do think it looks better not glaring in blue.

I can't wait to get my RC6 up and running, plenty of time before we get astro darkness back.

Steve

4 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Do you know based on what weights are decided?

Now be gentle on me my technical knowledge is not up to your standard @vlaiv 🤣

But now in PI there are several methods you can choose via a drop down menu.

The default is PSF signal weight.
All data for this is determined in the calibration stage and then stored in the fits header..

Now my understanding of NSG script which so far I considered worked slightly better, but that was only from one short test, is it detects stars and used the relative brightness from image to image .
Weighting the images is only a small part of the script as its main function is to make the background gradients equal on all images using a reference image. And, it seems to work very well at doing that, it does not fix then but equalises them so that if you pick a good reference image then it makes DBE a lot easier.
So it could well be that it is the normalisation that seemed to improved my final linear image rather than the weighting, at moment I couldn't say for sure.

Attached is the documentation for NSG script which will explain better.   PixInsight Reference Documentation _ NormalizeScaleGradient.pdf

Steve

14 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

What's worth mentioning now as it's a big "PI" deal is that not too long ago using the WBPP script would bring up a PI warning box that doing so was sub optimal and for best results it was advisable to do things manually. That is no longer the case, the warning has gone and the PI advice is the script is the preferred method now....

Also as Steve will no doubt testify to there has been a lot of work, and friction, gone into making the Local Normalisation tool an "option" to NSG......

I think an awful lot of work has gone into WPBB last 12 months or so, and up until maybe beginning of 2021 (cant remember exactly time goes so damned quick) I did not really use it and did it all manually but to me seems superb now and can see why you wouldn't use it, and once used I think it sort of sticks with you exactly what to do, such an easy learning curve,, its relatively simple and just works, as far as I can see anyway.

Regarding the NSG script yes there is some sort of friction between the makers of PI and John Murphy who was the instigator of NSG with help I think from Adam Block and probably others, but not really certain what it is all about except the last major upgrade of PI for some reason deleted the NSG script and i had to load it through the repository.

I believe PI have changed something in the way they weight frames for integration and believe it is how it should be done.
I cannot say for certain who is right or wrong and only did one comparison on some data and I was convinced the NSG weighting gave a better result on integration than letting PI do it in WPBB, more to do with the background being better normalised and as a result the subject seem to appear more defined. 

Now whether DBE would have coped with both results equally I am not sure but it certainly makes applying DBE much easier as it has very little to do, in fact could probably leave it out altogether on my test.

I intend to try the same test on other data too at some stage , but to be honest using NSG is so simple I see no reason not to use it, except I suppose if the WPBB script works just as well then it can be done all automatically and so less actions required .

Steve

11 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

Whats your opinion on stacking? DSS, PI or something else?  

I know you are asking vlaiv but as you have PI have you used the WPBB scrips ?
For me it was a gamechanger.
Yes, like most scripts it does nothing that you cannot do manually with PI but it automates everything, pretty much you can add all your files, the usual, lights, darks, flats, dark flats or flat darks whatever you call them, bias, and generally the defaults are fine just press go and it does everything for you from calibration to stacking.
It allows for you to change various things, including the registration and integration parameters if you want, or let the script determine these depending on number of frames,, you can use normalisation, drizzle as you do with manual integration.
If you do not have some correct exposure darks you get the option to use darks of differing exposures and PI will scale them for the exposure lengths of the lights.
When all things are there is a tab to check everything is there that is needed.

Also can click on the lights, or even flats and darks if not using masters to see a nice calibration diagram.
 

You can include cosmetic correction too.

As I said you can do normalisation and drizzle if you want but I prefer to not select these options and use the NormaliseScaleGradient script to weight the images and it does, in my opinion, a better job of normalisation, and if you want to drizzle it can now do that too.

Steve

29 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

I sometimes find that with interests though. I make some progress and then lie fallow for a while before picking it up again. The trouble with processing is that the learning curve is steep but the ‘forgetting curve’ is even steeper. 😀   A well known symptom of anno domini. 

I really do empathise with you as also have felt the same. And the more I do it I think that does get better when you do know what you are doing. There's nothing more frustrating than following a tutorial, or even your own notes to find that the same thing you did on one Nebula doesn't produce the image you wanted on another Nebula, and then processing a Galaxaxy is nothing like what you did before and then have to start working things out all over again. 

And on top of that you can looks at several tutorials all do things differently.
And even then in NB what colours should I really be getting.

It's not easy.

I too find that the forgetting curve seems to override the learning curve, and whilst that is probably made worse with age so I guess its just down to practice and not have long periods of hiatus. 

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

 I have been able to type up a several page work-flow for the pre-processing and early processing stages - background subtraction, colour balance etc.  It’s basically a summary of the main steps covered in the first few chapters of Warren Keller’s book Inside Pixinsight. Having that list is a great help.  So far I have been unable to construct a similar ‘algorithm’  for the later stages of post processing.

Something I keep doing but again not easy as different subjects can require different actions. But most are the same for the early stages so maybe I need to make a flow for the linear stage and then for the non-linear there may be more than one workflow, maybe several for different types of target.
I think most people will find the actual stretching and the bit that comes after that the hardest by a long way. Probably because so much depends on the quality of the data, the subject itself, light pollution, whether broadband or narrowband, and very much your expectations of what the image will end up like and steering it in that direction. I think you are correct in that a strict workflow is not even possible as in someway this stage is part artistic licence rather than a strict set of rules you need to follow to get a certain result.

What I do like is Olly's suggestion of maybe a checklist to see if you have achieved certain objectives on the image rather than a list of what to do to get there.

Steve

6 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

What a brilliant pub shed...

Alan

I really do not know what you mean, I am not jealous whatsoever.

.......................................................................................................................................................................Honest 🤥

Steve

Best I can tell 3rd party Scripts I have added:-

NormalisedScaleGradient
Generalised Hyperbolic Stretch (GHS) V2

Modules I have added:-

StarXTerminator
StarNoiseTerminator
Starnet
Starnet2
 

As far as I can see thats all, not easy to see what is native to PI and what is 3rd party.

Steve 
 

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

 I’m OK with it up to the transition from linear to non-linear processing. Up to that transition I’m pretty much working through a sequence of fairly well defined tasks. After the transition to nonlinear it feels like I’m in a multidimensional possibility space. It all comes a lot more subjective. I

I think with processing that is the stumbling block or hurdle for everyone. But it is a hurdle you can get over, for sure.

Whilst in the linear stage really there is pretty much a well defined path of what to do and how to do it and worth any software worth it's salt you can watch one or two tutorials, or read a book on it and after a short while you can just do it on your own. 
Pretty much the steps are laid out what to do with very few decisions to what to do, the aim is pretty clear to end up with all your frames aligned, integrated with anomalies such as Sat trails, dead pixels, dust bunnies etc removed. Yes there are a few things to make decisions on such as the integration method and how you remove the dead pixels, and so on, but these are not difficult to learn.

But, the non linear, that is where you can create almost whatever you want, but what is right ?
You can end up with a terrific representation of your target (after all in some way it is a representation as it does not appear naturally to our eyes like that otherwise no need to stretch it in the first place,  also if in NB the colours aren't even true at all) or with bad processing you can end up with a poor washed out image missing lots of detail, or go mad and its awful with too much contrast, crazy colours and stuff in there that actually is not there.

As I am writing this Olly has replied with more or less what I was going to say, but he is far more concise, and probably he is like that with his processing and why his images end up so great as he does just enough to bring the image to view without spending hours tweaking here and there and eventually taking the processing too far and ruining the image altogether (mind you a nice dark sky also helps 🙂 ).
I think one of Olly's bits of advice, if I remember rightly,is to be very gentle on any noise reduction, and watching many tutorials I think many people spend a lot of time on noise reduction and often remove stuff that should be there.

So for sure as  Olly has said a lot of small steps is far better than few big steps, and as I am learning now, mostly by watching Adam Blocks tutorials, learning what you are doing to those pixels is the key. If you follow tutorials religiously and just enter parameters shown in the tutorial then you learn nothing and end up having to follow the tutorial every time you process a new image. 
Also don't want to end up putting in parameters willy Nilly hoping that will  magically do what you want.
I think that's when it does become a chore and you begin to hate processing.
Also with the small steps I would say regularly comparing before and after images after applying some process is a good practice and do not be afraid to undo and go back and try again, don't just carry on and try to re-correct by applying another process.

I think you need to enjoy processing, it is such a big part of AP, otherwise what are you doing that makes the hobby a joy to do, setting up a scope and camera, picking a target, then telling the software to take loads of images and going to bed, I mean these days the imaging software does pretty much everything for you, even focussing every so often, so a good setup should be capable of getting some good data depending on the sky quality, I think the processing of that data is what makes that image your image and a unique image.

I am not saying this as any expert at all, far from it, I still have a way to go and currently with weather and lack of spare time so far this year getting data is my issue, although can always use somebodies data, such as the data from the IKI competitions on SGL is a great way to practice as you know the data is good.

Steve

And sorry @Anthonyexmouth your thread had wandered a bit not helped by me, you have bought PI already and not for us to argue whether that was a good decision or not you asked for help regarding plugins, scrips and tutorials.

I think mostly the most needed scripts get loaded with the download of PI but I will check what I have later and let you know , tutorials I would recommend looking at Adams Blocks tutorials, not all are free though.

Steve

12 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm always intrigued by these comparisons between the relative complexity of Photoshop and Pixinsight and there is no right or wrong answer since, if you find one easier than the other, then that's it, you just do.

I knew nothing whatever about image processing or any kind of digital photography when I started taking astrophotos but, back then, post processing really was an almost universally 'Photoshop activity.' Nearly all the available tutorials were for Ps, as were the bought-in actions.  I think the reason for the irresistible rise of Photoshop (which is now a commonly used verb in anglophone countries) derives from its user interface which is largely based on metaphors drawn from film photography and printing.  Unsharp masking, dodge and burn were darkroom techniques, layers come from printing, the eraser from draughtsmanship and so on. These metaphors clicked with me, intellectually, and made me feel at home - though a little overwhelmed at first. However, the consistency of the underlying logic was reassuring. Compare that with this randomly chosen bit of Pixinsight menu:

What does this mean?  Continuity order of 2?  If you understand the mathematics behind image manipulation then fine, this will speak to you. But how many imagers are in this position? So to whom do the authors of this menu think they are talking? If they are well entrenched on the Asperger's continuum they won't care...

However, terms like opacity, feather, erase, select, minimize, maximize, etc etc, though used metaphorically to describe mathematical manipulations, make intuitive sense to me and create an analogue processing experience.

Olly

Olly as you say there is no right and wrong, but there are always two sides to things.
I know you are not a fan of PI and you have explained a few times in various threads to why you do not get on with it and I understand.
But I like many really like PI and I have also said before I think when you understand the way it works and the penny drops then it is not as difficult as originally perceived.
I do think as well that the example you give above is not really fair because all because whilst I agree that at first sight the parameter names may not seem understandable if the whole process were displayed and you knew what the process was they would probably make more sense, and on top of that if you hover over any parameter then quite an extensive explanation appears. 
I think you already know from previous threads that I have had almost the opposite experience whereby I could not understand photoshop at all and some of that may come from having very little previous knowledge of photography before getting into AP, and whilst I am not saying PI came easy to begin with it came whereas I still cannot drive PS, but then again I have spent a fair bit of time with PI and far less with PS.

I am not saying that some things about PI are difficult and the fact that they continually develop and improve it as time goes by is great as you get the upgrades included in the initial outlay, but it is also a bit of a double edged sword because yes its great they improve the program, but it means you can never stop learning it and also many of the older tutorials become out of date, yes they still work as the old processes are still there but they may not be showing the best way to do at the present time.

But whilst we are in different camps regarding processing software as I say I agree no right and wrong, it all depends what you can get your head around and feel comfortable with 🙂 

Steve

3 minutes ago, Elp said:

There's nothing worse than a print error (usually warping) after a couple of hours running an incomplete print job.

Apart from after 24 hours when something geos wrong and the print fails 🙂 

Steve

Mine has shorter legs as my knees are bad and so can't walk too far but she still does well despite her short stature and 5 mile walks (albeit slowly and thats my fault 🙂 ) she does with ease so keeps me mobile which is good as I could easily end up not moving as much as I should as it does hurt getting up and down but not too bad once I am moving.

Steve

23 minutes ago, fireballxl5 said:

PS my Border Terrier is from Skipton 🙂

 

Awww 🙂 

No idea why everyone says that when they see pics of dogs, maybe because they are generally so much nicer than many humans are to each other 🙂 

Steve 

27 minutes ago, fireballxl5 said:

I have the StellaLyra RC6 and use a flattener, the TSRCFlat2, with my ASI533MC. 

This may be widely believed but is certainly not true with the RC6. I thought the same but had to crop my earlier APS-C shots without the flattener. FLO told me that the limit with the RC6 was a 4/3 sensor and so the ZWO1600 may be ok without flattening, but I've seen poor corner stars with the 1" 533 on AstroBin, hence why I leave it in place with mine. 

Also, I no longer BIN2 but image at BIN1 nowadays, as this seems to give better final images. 

So is THIS the flattener you use ?
That looks a good choice so may well be what I go for if I need it.
This is just a flattener not a reducer then which if I do have a problem then is what I would prefer.

I will get everything else together as it is and on a rare clear night at least get dome stars imaged to fully check collimation and also how flat the field is with both cameras and then go from there, if I need a flattener then I will fit one.

Steve

9 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

Hi Steve,

I've had a StellaLyra RC6" for a couple of years and almost immediately upgraded the focus unit to a BDST and purchased an AstroEssentials reducer.

I was reasonably happy with the results but the star shapes were never that good. Just this week I have 'played' at improving the collimation using a star test and, with reducer fitted, got the best concentric rings patern I could - it wasn't perfect but I couldn't get it any better. I then went on a imaged M13 and was pretty happy with the results. On Thursday night I removed the reducer and imaged M13 again with better results- better focus and better star shapes across the image. I'm not saying I have a perfect collimation but for a £375 OTA I am more than happy with the result.

My reducer is staying out and I am going to enjoy 1370mm for a while.

Adrian

P.S. I did share the results - I guess you've seen this:

 

Cheers for that Adrian, as yet had not seen that thread so thanks for the link , I am pretty convinced now to at least start out without any reducer or flattener. I had sort of decided that a while ago when I first started setting it all up but after doing some searches generally on various sites I just couldn't see many not using a reducer.

Steve

I have done my fair share of searching around to find out the best setup for doing AP with a RC6 and getting there but very confused to what reducer or Flattener to use, or whether I really need one.
I know this sounds maybe something fundamental I should be able to work out myself but so far I have only used a flattener, which I understand why is required for AP, but I have never really understood why most RC6 users seem to use reducers. 
Also when you read the advertising for the RC6 it sort of hints that they produce a pretty flat FOV without any reducer or flattener. I cannot comment on what mine produces as not yet used it for AP.

So my setup is an IOptron RC6, Upgraded with a Baader Steeltrack focusser, filter-wheel and either my ZWO1600 or QHY268M camera.

So my questions are:

• I know I do not need anything to take images but is there a need for a flattener or reducer to get a full flat field ?
• Or does this really depend on chip size of the CCD ?
• What advantage is there in using a reducer, I understand it can reduce the exposure times but surely unless the image is far bigger than the FOV produced by scope on camera chip why would I want to reduce the size and then have to crop the image more, surely that reduces the image resolution ?
• If it turns out I will be better with one what are the recommendations for this setup easily obtained in UK ?

Steve

If you can get a tool then of course no harm but I have an old 2nd hand HEQ5 and replaced all bearings and did the belt mod and the nut came of easily with just a couple of alen keys and putting it back I could actually apply the correct preload by hand.

Steve

Although they look a faff to remove these nuts should be no more than hand tight and you should easily remove it as it says in the description above, either with long nose pliers or a couple of alen keys.
If they are over tightened then it puts loads of preload on the taper roller bearings and the axis will not work as the stepper motor will stall.

Steve

Incredible with so little data, I too love this target 🙂 

Steve

24 minutes ago, callisto said:

Great prices 👍

Why oh why did you have to show me this site 😬 😈

Sorry 🙂 

Steve

Ha Ha, well believe me in Sunny Yorkshire maybe just what I need, I can't remember last clear night when we had Astral darkness and not a near full moon 🙂

A tad pricey mind.

Steve

To be honest I love PI and many others do, but it seems to be a bit of a Marmite thing and there's also those that hate it and just don't get on with it including some very renowned imagers on this forum.

My own thoughts are is that it works on a totally different principle to long time popular software like Photoshop, and the newer Affinity Photo and many others and it may be difficult to adjust to how PI works and how you use it.
For me after some initial attempts with Nebulosity (which I still think is great to start) I bit the bullet and after trialing PI bought it despite not getting far with it in the trial period. And once it clicked how it works then came to love it.

I then tried Photoshop and I couldn't get to grips with it so dropped it as I didn't want to carry on paying each month. Again I put this down to my aging brain finding it difficult to use a different mindset from that used in PI that I would not say I had mastered but had started to get familiar with.

One thing about PI that is a bit of a Godsend but at the same time a bit of a PIA is that it is constantly being developed, which is a good thing. Mainly its small improvements to processes that do help improve things and are almost unnoticed but occasionally they drop a new process or there is some major change which is fine but that then makes a lot of older tutorials you may find obsolete, They do not delete the obsolete processes so the tutorials still work but really you should be doing the processing using newer methods as this either provides more options or just gives better results. 

Just be aware if you do try PI do not judge it on the month trial period (or whatever the period is) its nowhere near long enough, but I would really recommend Adam Block's Tutorials,  there are quite a lot of his stuff free on the net but some of the better ones are paid for, and again not exactly pennies, but I found them really useful.

Steve

Some good stuff on that website, I bet if those cases were sold as astro gear they would be at least 50% more 🙂 

Steve

1 hour ago, Olli said:

not really sure where to start!

Its not easy and its good to get to grips with one or two software packages rather than trying loads of them as you then never really get into any of them.

I guess it all depends on how much you invest (or intend to invest) in your imaging gear to how much you spend on the software.
Also to whether this is just dipping your toe into AP or its definitely for you and you intend to see it through as some software can be quite costly but I suspect some of the paid software might be much more versatile or easier to use than some free stuff (cannot comment fully as only tried one or two of them).

If you end up spending £1000's on gear then my reasoning was a couple of hundred on good processing software was well worth it.

When I was dipping my toe in the water I used Nebulosity. I had to pay a small fee but I think it may be free now. Its very easy to use some very good tutorials on the internet and is very good for pre-processing and stacking but a bit sparse on the post processing, however a very good starter and can create pretty good images very quickly.

I use Pixinsight and love it but it is not cheap and admittedly takes a bit of practice to get into it so maybe just one to consider when you are sure AP is definitely for you.

Another really popular one is Adobe Photoshop, not specifically astro but has all the tools in there. Again if you use this long term it can get quite costly as its a subscription but again if you are just testing the waters paying for a few months may not be too bad.

A lot of good imagers do use a combination of PI and PS.

A good alternative  to PS is Affinity Phot which is quite cheap and along the same lines as PS, they often have sales I think, I bought mine at half price some time ago.

I cant really say much about others as never used them, good luck on the journey 🙂 

Steve