Nebulosity v Maxim v Pix in sight etc. etc.

[earth titan]

My intention is to buy a piece of software that will perform the same functions as DSS and a few more. I only want to buy one piece of software and stop using about half a dozen.

I currently have camera control through Artemis Capture (which I love)

PHd does a reasonable job of processing

I have access to PS CS6

So my criteria are:

• Must allow image alignment and registration
  
• Must be able to resize accurately
  
• Stacking and calibration is a must
  

Nebulosity

I've looked at Nebulosity and it seems to do a lot of it, but seems weak on resizing. Will work on a mac which is nice, but not essential. Also, I like the license agreement which means you can have more than 1 copy, as long as you only run one at once - sensible.

Registrar

Only does one thing - but does it well.

Maxim DL (basic copy)

Seems like it will do all I need - so seems like a good option.

PixInSight

Seems to be good, but is the most expensive. Also works on a mac.

Astroart

Looks useful.

I would value peoples comments if they are using any of the above and most importantly, anything these bits of software cannot do.

[swag72]

Here's my thoughts based on using a couple of the programmes you mention. I too wanted a one stop solution that did everything as far as possible and so started using Maxim. I thought I'd use it for guiding, capture, stacking and calibration. I found the following things.

1) It happily stacked my 314L+ images, but when I moved to the 460 it wouldn't play ball, likewise for data capture, it did some very odd things with the 460. I loaded the drivers, but it didn't work well from the start.

2) Calibration for Maxim was rather mysterious. I think I did manage to get there in the end, but it was very difficult to do and cumbersome.

3) I do guide with Maxim, it works well.

Pixinsight - I have had this for over a year and have recently used it for calibration (pre-processing)

1) The Pre-processing script works well, the calibration is fine and it's an easy process.

2) The subsequent alignment and image integration is a little long winded, but again works well.

3) I've found the alignment in PI work well, but I have struggled if the images weren't the same size. It shouldn't be a problem as I understand it, but I've never got it to work.

4) There's some great processing stuff in PI that means it is well worth it's money (DBE for one)

Registar easily aligned images, but I've only used it once and now I've forgotten what to do!!! I must go back to it at some stage!!

So, in my quest to find a one programme fits all, I've found that this doesn't work. Some programmes are just better at some stuff than others. Artemis and it's simplicity I love - It would take something very special to pull me away from that. PI, calibration and then the DBE tool is great. I think there's many on here who wouldn't now be without DBE!! Of course PI is a complete processing package, if you persevere with it, you may grow to like it. I went the other way, tried to learn PI and then moved to

CS - So much easier!

I think if you want one programme to do it all, you will end up making compromises in other areas, they are not VERY good at everything in my experience.

[earth titan]

Thanks Sara.

One package is unrealistic. I'm happy with PS CS6, Artemis Capture and Phd, so it's the initial calibration and aligning I need.

I've read good things about Maxim and have just downloaded the trial.

I'm concerned that you say you struggled to get different sized images to align in PI. With binned images being very common, I would have thought this would be straightforward?

[earth titan]

Wow! Maxim isn't what I would call user friendly! Just spent the best part of 2 hours trying to work out calibration and still none the nearer.

Seems as though Maxim may not be designed for Muppets like myself!

Typed by me on my fone, using fumms... Excuse eny speling errurs.

[ollypenrice]

If you want to multiply the complexity of astrophotograhy be ten (or possibly ba a hundred) limit yourself to one programme. It just doesn't work. No one programme does everything best. Programmes like Astro Art (great value), Maxim and Nebulosity are capture, pre-processing and graphics programmes but as graphics programmes they are highly incomplete. You need layers. You HAVE to zone off different parts of the image for different treatments. And what does that spell? Photoshop! But Pixinsight, the most manual-free and autistic bit of non-communication ever visited on humanity - but with some of the best astro processing tools ever written - is wonderful when you can find out how to operate it.

It's a bit like the dreaded one shot colour debate. One shot colour must be easier to process? Not a chance. Similarly graphics prgrammes. It is far easier to mix and match, letting each one do what it's good at. Photoshop is a monstrous rip off but comes up at reasonable prices on Amazon etc. CS3 is fine. Pixinsight is very fairly priced indeed. I'd happily pay more, a lot more, and have a manual.

Olly

[billhinge]

Heh, heh

I understand what you say about pixinsight documentation but I must admit I do admire their no compromise attitude

Many years ago there was a book called 'the unix haters handbook' complete with free barf bag, perhaps someone should write the 'pixinsight haters handbook'?

http://homes.cs.wash...nix-haters.html

PS I love unix, much better than linux

[opticalpath]

I haven't tried all the other products mentioned but I now use Maxim DL for capture, guiding, calibration, stacking and colour balancing. I also do a moderate DDP stretch on the summed image whilst still in floating point format. Then convert to 16 bit and pass to PS for all the rest.

Guiding in Maxim is good. I also like the 'Astrometric' alignment method - seems very accurate. Calibration and stacking works well but the workflow is quirky and frustrating to learn. I hated it at first .... but learned to like it in the end.

For me, Maxim is a good all rounder for the preliminaries ...... after that it has to be PS.

Adrian

[harry page]

Heh, heh

perhaps someone should write the 'pixinsight haters handbook'?

Sorry I am not going to write it

Harry

[billhinge]

Don't get me wrong Harry, I love PI but I'm still a novice at the mo

great videos by the way

[Sp@ce_d]

I use Artemis & Neb for capture.

For processing I have CS3, PI & RegiStar. I don't think there is a Jack of all trades.. Is there? Only masters of none?

If I had to choose only one for calibration & processing it would be PI. I put off trying it out for some time because everyone says its a steep learning curve.. Well, I found it easier to get results than I did when I started out with PS. Ok I'll admit I spend my working days in Unix land so it feels familiar, but Harry's tutorials played a key part in learning to be sure and I've only scratched the surface, there is so much to it!

[Sp@ce_d]

Thanks Sara.

One package is unrealistic. I'm happy with PS CS6, Artemis Capture and Phd, so it's the initial calibration and aligning I need.

I've read good things about Maxim and have just downloaded the trial.

I'm concerned that you say you struggled to get different sized images to align in PI. With binned images being very common, I would have thought this would be straightforward?

I find the batch preprocessing script in PI a lot more flexible & intuitive to use than DSS or Neb. I'm also finding I have to use RegiStar less when matching the 314 & 1000D Subs the more I get to know PI. So I'm sure it'll do the job, it's just a case of working out how :-)

[JacobvonChorus]

I use Artemis Capture for the main camera stuff (focusing, framing, acquisition, etc). I use PHD for guiding. I use PixInsight for everything else. I really like the program, there is a learning curve but I found it no harder to learn than I did Photoshop a few years ago. Contains many powerful tools that allow the most to be brought out of an image. For example, the HDR tools are wonders in what they can do. It's important to not overdo it but once a balance is found, great images emerge.

Jacob

[Sam]

I can only echo what others have said, it's a big ask to have only one application to do everything. Invariably you going to end up with at least two, possibly three. I've tried the PI stacking etc but always come back to DSS because its so easy, same with PHD, it's just so easy to use.

[Steve 1962]

I agree with the others - there's no one-stop-shop here. I capture with Nebulosity 3 (because that's the software I "grew up" with while imaging with my DSLR and I really like its simplicity). I guide with PHD and then calibrate, register, stack and do most of my "global" processing with Pixinsight (another vote of thanks to Harry for his videos) , then finish off in Photoshop. I understand exactly what people say about PI's user interface and documentation, but it's one heck of a piece of software once you get into it. Incidentally I've had no problems with PI aligning different size images at varying angles - but I did find that it works a LOT faster on a 64 bit machine. They're not supporting later versions of PI on 32 bit windows anymore - so that's something to take into account - maybe £400 for a new laptop or £150 for a new OS!

[earth titan]

I've just downloaded the 64 bit version of PI for my mac. Looks like a learning curve coming up over the next 45 days, while the evaluation version remains live.

[earth titan]

Hey the PI video tutorials are great!

[harry page]

Hi

Shout if you need help with PI

Harry

[earth titan]

Thanks Harry. Followed some of your tutorials last night - they work really well. Thanks.

I will have a million questions I'm sure, so brace yourself over the next 44 days :-)

Typed by me on my fone, using fumms... Excuse eny speling errurs.

[Gina]

At present I use the following - but once I work out how to use AstroArt 5 that might take over from PHD and DSS :-

1. Artemis Capture for imaging and sequencing filters - love that - great software.
   
2. PHD for guiding ATM which is now working fine now I have a Lodestar guide camera (maybe AA later).
   
3. DSS for stacking which seems to work fine and fast on my 64bit quad core Win 7 desktop (maybe AA later).
   
4. RegiStar for aligning and resizing images - works brilliantly.
   
5. PhotoShop CS5 for all the rest - combining, stretching histogram, colour correction etc. Possibly some functions in AA later.
   

[steppenwolf]

If I could only have two programs, it would have to be MaxIm DL (despite my recent post extolling the virtues of DSS!) and PhotoShop.

I have never had an issue with the calibration routine in MaxIm, it works superbly and once you get used to it, it is a doddle to use. MaxIm's camera, tracking and general mount control is robust. My normal workflow is to guide and sequence capture the lights in MaxIm DL then generate my Bias and Flat frames (using a plugin that automatically gets the right exposure values for the Flats) and then calibrate all in MaxIm DL. I then use MaxIm DL again to stack the images, carry put a plate solve (just for the record) and finally do a preliminary stretch before saving as a FITS file and as a 16bit TIF file. Everything afterwards is done is PhotoShop CS3 starting from the 16bit TIF.

Until a couple of nights ago, MaxIm DL had never let em down on stacking but it crashed on me whilst stacking first 76 x and then 40 x APS 'C' sized images and in a rage I used DSS which did a good job very quickly. I have yet to discover whether this was data overload, memory shortage, software blip of PC blip that caused my old version of MaxIm DL to play up.

[fwm891]

I've come down to using 3 progs - sometimes only 2?

Normally I use AA5 for capture and preprocess, then pass 16 bit files to PS CS3 Extended (from e**y for £75 full boxed copy) and guiding with PhD. PhD has been a pain in the past but since getting the Lodestar its working well.

Sometimes I use AA5 - 1st instance for capture and 2nd instance for guiding, the little guiding graphics are a great indication of how guiding is progressing. Then PS.

Haven't used DSS for some time as AA5's stacking is great whether auto or manual options.

I have a copy of AIP4WIN 2.0 which is awkward and you need the book. But its filter calibration routine for G2v stars is excellent.

I started to use Artemetis when I got my 383L+, had I also got the Atik FW I guess I would still use it but it doesn't (or didn't) recognise 'other' FW's so I had no control of filter changes.

I thought about Maxim, but as I already had AA5 I couldn't see a great deal extra that would justify the cost of Maxim.

[sloz1664]

If I could only have two programs, it would have to be MaxIm DL (despite my recent post extolling the virtues of DSS!) and PhotoShop.

I have never had an issue with the calibration routine in MaxIm, it works superbly and once you get used to it, it is a doddle to use. MaxIm's camera, tracking and general mount control is robust. My normal workflow is to guide and sequence capture the lights in MaxIm DL then generate my Bias and Flat frames (using a plugin that automatically gets the right exposure values for the Flats) and then calibrate all in MaxIm DL. I then use MaxIm DL again to stack the images, carry put a plate solve (just for the record) and finally do a preliminary stretch before saving as a FITS file and as a 16bit TIF file. Everything afterwards is done is PhotoShop CS3 starting from the 16bit TIF.

Until a couple of nights ago, MaxIm DL had never let em down on stacking but it crashed on me whilst stacking first 76 x and then 40 x APS 'C' sized images and in a rage I used DSS which did a good job very quickly. I have yet to discover whether this was data overload, memory shortage, software blip of PC blip that caused my old version of MaxIm DL to play up.

OK Steve, what's the plugin I'm intrigued...

cheers

Steve

[earth titan]

Well I've now produced my 1st image using PI (can't post it at the mo though, as I'm on hols in North Wales) and it's better than my image using DSS.

Once I got my head around the sequence of ops, it was straight forward.

Frames nicely registered, good colour correction and calibration.

Feel a purchase coming on :-o

Typed by me on my fone, using fumms... Excuse eny speling errurs.

[earth titan]

Here we go.

2 images - just for comparison.

Both have the same files. The 1st is done in PI and then in CS6 and the 2nd is done in DSS then finished in CS6.

This really was a rough try in PI as it is an enormous piece of software so all the defaults were set and I've hardly scratched the surface. I'm sure the image can be improved but I think there is more subtle detail in the PI image than the DSS one.

The biggest flaw in my previous DSS attempts is image alignment and registration. Alignment is also much better in the PI image (the software handled it without blinking) but I still have a few halos around stars to fix.

So my verdict? PI is a monster of a software product, but it is the only one I have really cracked. I tried Maxim but found it very awkward. Registar does just the one thing and AstroArt seems to lack some of the tools in PI.

I've uploaded the images via my phone from a holiday cottage in the Snowdonia National Park, so image quality is not the best.

[billhinge]

I prefer the first one as well