Image processing software

[CSM]

As a really ancient programmer of more than 50 years I am wishing I were 20 years younger.  I would then have the time and patience to write some image processing software of my own.

Why am I saying this?  Well I have been trying to get to grips with the various image processing offerings from AstroArt, Nebulosity,  CCDStack, Maxim and DSS.  DSS I can sort of get to work, except that it seldom manages to find more than 1 image to stack - no doubt the images aren't that good but the Orion Studio software that I use doesn't have that problem.  But the latter is very idiosyncrate, a bit flakky and rapidly runs out of memory and they still haven't done the 64 rewrite.  So I wanted something better.

One of the things that happens with a program is that it usually starts off relatively simple and straightforward.  Then, to keep up with the opposition at the first update you add some features, and at the next you add more features and so it goes on and on.  In the end you are probably getting very deep into the complexities of what you are dealing with and all the possibilities that you can offer.  In fact, and I have seen this happen so often, so deep into the intricacies and options that, particularly for newcomers/outsiders, it becomes difficult to navigate your way through the program.

Then there is the documentation, or lack of.  For a long time now that has been the last concern.  After all, everything nowadays is INTUITIVE.  Except that one person's idea of intuition can be the complete opposite of someone else.  Relying on outsiders to 'explain' how a program works is just plain lazy, though perfectly understandable and so far I haven't found any decent, 'simple' explanations of any of these.

I have some One shot colour RAW images and corresponding Darks.  I want to calibrate these, convert to colour, square the pixels, align and combine and then I can fiddle with the histogram and so on.  How hard is that?

Ok, I know there are a hundred and one other things I could do both before and after, but just to be able to do the simple things in these programs would be so nice.

Am I expecting too much, too old and too impatient?

Colin

 

[happy-kat]

Hi

DSS can be fussy on stacking when the images aren't in focus. Could you perhaps share one of your light frames please?

[vlaiv]

I think you might want to give ImageJ a go. Or rather Fiji distribution of it (it includes bunch of plugins).

That is what I use. There are a lot of options to do things with images, so you can create your own routine / processing stack. I use it to do: Calibration, debayer (if using OSC frames) - custom written plugin for this, registration, transform, stacking (also couple of custom written plugins like equalize background, sigma stack). Only thing that I'm missing to be fully satisfied with this processing stack is control of transform step - not sure what filter it uses for transform, I would personally opt for supersampling rather than classical bilinear/bicubic or similar. Also, I think I can do better job of equalizing background than current "bring all medians to same value" that I use. I think that sort of fitting planar function for lp gradient removal would be nice feature - I have the algorithm thought thru, just need a bit of time to implement it.

[spillage]

Could you let us know which version of DSS is being used as an older version will cause issues. Should be 3.3.2.

[ronin]

Think I find similar to you. However DSS I can get to stack, perhaps the other way to you as it will stack the not good ones also - and no it is not set to do all 100%.

The image processing I cannot really be bothered too much having to get to grips with it all. I want something fairly simple that does a half reasonable job and in effect allows me to produce something at least quick and easy at first. SOmetimes it is just finding the bit/window or whatever that I need to play with.

Read instances of Buy AstroImagerX and all problems are solved. If you spend the next 4 years getting to grips with all it can do. Whoever developes these needs to realise that at least myself I am not going to spend 4 hours.

If I have obtained twenty 30 seconds exposures of say M13 , at least initially I want to stack them (OK I can do that) and then with a little straightforward no-previous knowledge get something out. Needn't be great but it needs to look a bit like M13. Think one M13 I tried went in as M13 and came out more like M31, or theother way round.

I am probalbly impatient as when I loaded up the assorted free planetariums all came off within minutes as they just didn't perform, At least SkySafari 5 did and I kept is and am happy with it (well sort of 98% happy).

Tried on package that is often mentioned and after some action the image became strange and inverted in colour. exited 3 times and reloaded and 3 attempts later I was getting the same. I spent about 20 minutes trying to work out how I could simply get back to white stars on a black background.

A lot of software instructions I find is produced by who wrote the software, and they write on the assumption that you have the knowledge they do.

If you find anything that a single brain cell amoeba like myself can operate let me know, BUT, do NOT assume 2 brain cells. One is al lthere is. And not sure where that one is at present either.

[CSM]

It is the latest DSS 3.3.2.  Will try to send a light file which hasn't been affected by the other programs.  I did copy originals to various folders to preserve but I think Maxim may have claimed them though perhaps some are untouched.

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, CSM said:

except that it seldom manages to find more than 1 image to stack

Try the advanced tab, I bet you have the star detection threshold set too high.

[Cornelius Varley]

1 hour ago, CSM said:

It is the latest DSS 3.3.2.  Will try to send a light file which hasn't been affected by the other programs.  I did copy originals to various folders to preserve but I think Maxim may have claimed them though perhaps some are untouched.

The latest version is 3.3.4.

[pete_l]

5 hours ago, CSM said:

Ok, I know there are a hundred and one other things I could do both before and after, but just to be able to do the simple things in these programs would be so nice.

Am I expecting too much, too old and too impatient?

Colin

 

I think the basic problem with most software, including astro software, is the documentation. Generally all I want is a recipe book - instructions at the "press this, click that" level. I have little interest in how the stuff works, the subtleties of one option over the dozens of others. And I hate packages that tell me "you can't do that", because you chose to do something several steps ago. Just give me a workflow to follow. If I'm going to be asked questions, explain simply why I would want one choice or another. Don't ask X or Y or or Z? If there is no simple explanation there probably isn't much difference, anyway.

My ideal user interface would simply be a box with the question WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? in large friendly letters, and for the software to work out the details. 

 

[CSM]

Star detection level set to high.  Unfortunately not.  Even set very low it makes no difference.  And don't think focus is a problem.  But maybe I am wrong.

3.3.4 is for the latest DSLR's and 3.3.2 is the one shown on the website for download.  Mine is a CCD camera not a DSLR so  I doubt it would make any difference.

Glad to see that others - Pete_l - have similar reactions to mine.  Documentation - what documentation!?  Actually in some cases I think it is too kind to describe it as documentation. But rant over and will try to read it all a bit more carefully.  Eventually something will get through - somewhere.

[CSM]

Quote

I think you might want to give ImageJ a go. Or rather Fiji distribution of it (it includes bunch of plugins).

Where is the best place to download it?  I don't want any other cleaner software or anything else with it.  Just the actual program.

[Stub Mandrel]

37 minutes ago, pete_l said:

My ideal user interface would simply be a box with the question WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? in large friendly letters, and for the software to work out the details. 

The latest versions of Word and Excel have just that, a box with 'tell me what you want to do'.

Sometimes it even works...

[Stub Mandrel]

12 minutes ago, CSM said:

Star detection level set to high.  Unfortunately not.  Even set very low it makes no difference.  And don't think focus is a problem.  But maybe I am wrong.

3.3.4 is for the latest DSLR's and 3.3.2 is the one shown on the website for download.  Mine is a CCD camera not a DSLR so  I doubt it would make any difference.

Glad to see that others - Pete_l - have similar reactions to mine.  Documentation - what documentation!?  Actually in some cases I think it is too kind to describe it as documentation. But rant over and will try to read it all a bit more carefully.  Eventually something will get through - somewhere.

In that case check you are debayering (or not) correctly for your camera under RAW/FITS settings at bottom left.

[vlaiv]

13 hours ago, CSM said:

Where is the best place to download it?  I don't want any other cleaner software or anything else with it.  Just the actual program.

ImageJ is open source platform it uses Java, so you need Java Runtime on your machine to run it. There is download with bundled Java.

There is no installer so you don't have to worry about "add on" software of any kind.

For pure ImageJ use following: https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/download.html

For Fiji (that is distribution with various plugins, probably better choice because it has registration plugins): https://imagej.net/Fiji/Downloads

But after reading carefully discussion in this thread, I'm not sure that ImageJ will suit you. It is far from wizard style processing software. I mentioned it because you said you are programmer, so I thought that like me you would enjoy freedom to do your own data manipulation and processing, and creating processing stack out of basic image operations.

[CSM]

Quote

But after reading carefully discussion in this thread, I'm not sure that ImageJ will suit you. It is far from wizard style processing software. I mentioned it because you said you are programmer, so I thought that like me you would enjoy freedom to do your own data manipulation and processing, and creating processing stack out of basic image operations.

I did download it - have Java as I run Qgis - but you are probably right.  In another life, maybe.  Am hoping that when the weather improves I will be able to use my new guiding camera and get some better images anyway. But I will continue to look at the various offerings.  Maybe something will click.