Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Image processing software suggestions

Gina

By Gina
in Discussions - Software

Recommended Posts

Gina

Gina

Posted
Posted

I've been using the GIMP for processing astro images but have had it pointed out that this uses only 8 bit image processing. So I'm looking for suggestions for alternatives, please Preferably for Linux or that will run under WINE. Being an OAP I can't afford any of that expensive stuff like PhotoShop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trull

Trull

Posted
Posted

Candidly - don't worry about it for webcams, most struggle to get 256 levels in each colour so you'll be fine after stacking in the GiMP.

On the DSLR side, you have a mighty fine sensor, are you capturing in RAW? what's your complete workflow at the moment?

Are you in AdobeRGB or sRGB?

I'd be very tempted to stick with the DarkSide and run Nebulosity to control your Canon, then export the processed image to 16bit TIFF and let GiMP deal with your output from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ptarmigan

Ptarmigan

Posted
Posted

Hi Gina,

not sure if this should go into the mix :

ArtweaverFree

Artweaver

I used to use GIMP a lot but, long time ago, went looking for a 16bit alt

( cos it looked like GIMP was longterm stuck in a rut)

However, today before posting, I cannot find a ref for you to confirm that bit depth !

The home site (above) seems to have become more promotional than informative in the intervening years ! :cussing:

So for what its worth take a look ! (The wdoze implimentation isnt too scary for a linux user used to gimp :D )

It has levels, curves and things but like gimp it isnt astro oriented.

You can do addons but will need LUA scripting, not beyond your talants I think ?!

Dunno if it works in WINE

I have played with Linux since it was a young thing like dos and fitted on a floppy, but never found a ver that'll recognise my modems or dongles, so always switch back to wdoze to access the big library in the sky :clouds1:

PS There used to be a PixInsightLight,

cant find it anymore, shame,,, ???

IRIS ? Again, dunno about WINE

Iris software

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ptarmigan

Ptarmigan

Posted
Posted
Hi Gina,

If you convert your 16 bit tiffs into 16 bit pngs, then Gimp will process them in 16 bit. Think that 2.7 (out later this year) will support 16 bit tiffs.

Interesting info, thanks.

It has been a long time in the pipeline ! I'll have to start watching again :D

Do you happen to have to hand the version number(onwards) that supports 16png ? And if there is a wdoze build ??

I could trawl the site, but if you have it already ,,, :clouds1:

Ta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dph1nm

dph1nm

Posted
Posted
If you convert your 16 bit tiffs into 16 bit pngs, then Gimp will process them in 16 bit. Think that 2.7 (out later this year) will support 16 bit tiffs.

I don't think there is any sign of 16bit support until at least Gimp 3.0.

NigelM

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michaelmorris

michaelmorris

Posted
Posted
Candidly - don't worry about it for webcams, most struggle to get 256 levels in each colour ...

For the video stream that's correct. However, my understanding is (i.e. could well be wrong!) because stacking programs such a Registax calculate the mean brightness value for each pixel in 16 bit, you end up with a stacked image in 16-bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RikM

RikM

Posted
Posted

I am not sure of 16bit processing makes too much difference for us mere mortals. If someone could post a side by side 8bit vs 16bit to clearly show the difference it might reveal something. I used to use PS elements 7 (8bit) which came as freebe with my PC. Eventually I bought CS3 on Amazon for £130 simply for the curves functionality. The very next week I found a link to a curves plug in for PSe7 :) I am not sure my processing is any better with the 16bit package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted
I am not sure of 16bit processing makes too much difference for us mere mortals. If someone could post a side by side 8bit vs 16bit to clearly show the difference it might reveal something. I used to use PS elements 7 (8bit) which came as freebe with my PC. Eventually I bought CS3 on Amazon for £130 simply for the curves functionality. The very next week I found a link to a curves plug in for PSe7 :) I am not sure my processing is any better with the 16bit package.

I tend to agree. Until recently all my images were processed in Ps7 and 8 bit. It's nice to have 16 bit but I used to smile when avid tekkies would dismiss 8 bit out of hand as clearly useless... I didn't dare tell the truth for fear of ridicule!

Gina, if you keep an eye on Amazon Ps CS3 comes up at far more reasonable prices than the latest versions. It runs fine on my Windows7 as well. It's becoming fashionable to bash Photoshop but I think it's a beautiful programme with a great user interface that gets you into your image with a 'hands on' sensation that I really love.

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trull

Trull

Posted
Posted
For the video stream that's correct. However, my understanding is (i.e. could well be wrong!) because stacking programs such a Registax calculate the mean brightness value for each pixel in 16 bit, you end up with a stacked image in 16-bit.

IMHO... unless you are going the HDR route, your 8-bit input (if you are lucky) is still 8-bit output... so using 16bit numbers makes no great odds. That said you will avoid quantisation problems, and it gives you more latitude for processing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michaelmorris

michaelmorris

Posted
Posted

I agree that the difference made by using 16-bit rather than 8 bit iaree likely to be small, but from my rather rudimentary experience so far it appears that the whole image processing milarkey seems to be about a whole bunch of seemingly insignificant tweaks all adding up to make a significant improvement.

Would I upgrade an existing version of Photoshop just to go to full 16-bit processing? Probably not - but it depends on your budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Star Gazer

Star Gazer

Posted
Posted

Hi Gina,

Have you considered running Virtual Box in Linux. Virtual Box is free and gives you the chance to run Windows on top of Linux. When you run Windows of course there's all sorts of free software including the formidable Deep Sky Stacker.

..I hope you're not allergic to Windows :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gina

Gina

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have used VB in the past with success - yes.

:icon_eek: No, I'm not allergic to Windows LOL :) I use a lot of Windows software, one way and another. eg. Google SketchUp in wine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.