Astro Pixel Processor vs DSS thoughts

[PeterCPC]

I have been trying to compare these 2 software programs. I am ignoring the cost issue and just trying to concentrate on ease/speed/quality. DSS is getting a bit long in the tooth now but, so am I so, I have not let that sway my findings. Also I am not that familiar with APP so would really like to see what others have found.

I have run some historic data sets through both and have found that generally DSS is so much quicker to give an output. It was taking up to 3 times as long for APP to stack images compared to DSS. I am using a quad core desktop.

I also found that, with one particular data set, that DSS gave better alignment but maybe that's just me not doing something right in APP.

I liked the fact that APP gave a better end result as regards colour but that's easily adjusted in DSS and I use PI and Paintshop etc to adjust images anyway.

So from my point of view I haven't found APP worth buying/renting.

I would really like to hear what others have found and if you find APP better and why before I write APP off.

Peter

[sloz1664]

Hi Peter

I've used APP for a while now and really like it. I use flats, bias and dark, processed as a bad pixel map, for processing and have found the results to be very good. I used to use MaximDL for my preprocessing but I couldn't remove all my bad pixels effectively. I also tried Pixinsight's 'reprocessing algorithms but I found them too long winded and tedious. APP fits my current needs admirably.

 

Steve

[PeterCPC]

Thanks Steve

I'm glad that APP suits you. I would still be ineterested if anyone else has done the APP/DSS comparison. I don't use darks anymore since I started dithering. I agree that PI is long winded so I just use it for post processing tasks like DBE.

Peter

[swag72]

I have found APP works like a dream, but I've not compared it to DSS as I've not used that for years. I was using Maxim before I switched to APP and the final calibrated outcome was as good in APP as Maxim, so I would imagine that it would compare equally as favourably to DSS.

[PeterCPC]

Thanks Sara - good to know.

Peter

[PeterCPC]

The lack of responses would indicate that nobody else has done this comparison. Surprising!

Peter

[PeterCPC]

Well no futher responses so I will write this thread off. From my experiments APP is not worth the switch from DSS.

Peter

[swag72]

I think that perhaps the people that are using APP moved from DSS previously and so can only compare it with another program (such as Steve and myself able to compare it to Maxim) ... not DSS. Why don't you do the test? You can download an APP trial for free and then you can see for yourself and be a trailblazer for people coming after you wondering the same   

I can compare it to Pixinsight with regards to mosaics, but that's it.

[PeterCPC]

Sara

That's the point - I have downloaded it and compared to DSS and DSS comes out on top with my comparisons.

Peter

[swag72]

Sorry Peter, I missed that bit.... I didn't think you'd done the comparison. If you feel that DSS gives you better results then it's a no brainer! May be worth a post in the APP forum about DSS being better, as I'm sure that Mabula the developer would be keen to know how he can improve things.

[PeterCPC]

I have done that Sara. Thanks for your input.

Peter

[PeterCPC]

I have carried out a direct comparison using a fixed data set and here are the output files. The DSS output took 11 mins and the APP output took 16 mins. No post processing at all other than adjusting saturation and luminance in DSS. The first is the APP result and the second is the DSS result.

Peter

 

[happy-kat]

When zooming in I think there is more data on the DSS version on the spiral arms. I would process both files to see what final image you can extract.

[PeterCPC]

This was old data. Just used for comparison. This was my final image using the DSS process. Not very happy with it but it was limited by weather conditions. I will be having another go at M101 if the weather ever allows.

Peter

[gnomus]

I went back and forth on APP a little.  In my view, its strength is in calibration, registration and stacking, including the construction of mosaics.  It has things like 'Local Normalization' and 'Multi Band Blending'.  I have no real idea what these are, but what it seemed to be doing was retaining more of the data in the final stack - I did not need to crop as much as with PI (my usual calibration -> stacking program).  It produced a much better result on my North America & Pelican mosaic -  https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/298781-north-america-and-pelican-mosaic-in-hubble-palette/?do=findComment&comment=3270889 and it was much easier than the PI method.  

I think sometimes it is useful to have a range of tools available.  I slogged away at an M4 image recently in PI and, try as I might, I could not get the colour the way I wanted it.  So I tried APP and its 'Calibrate Background' and 'Calibrate Stars' routines got me where I wanted to be straight away.  Other times I am sure I will get a better result in PI.

I spend an awful lot of time processing (way more than is healthy) - having a decent launching-off point is extremely important, otherwise you are fighting an uphill battle.  Anyway, my point is that 11 minutes vs 16 minutes is, to all intents and purposes, irrelevent. 

I have tried out some of the stretching tools and I have to say I found them not too useful.  But I think overall APP is worth having.  

[PeterCPC]

Thanks @gnomus for your insights. I too gave up using PI to integrate as it was so involved and gave worse results than DSS did, although I'm sure that was due to my ineptitide rather than the program. I have been in discussions with Mabula re APP and he has been very helpful and is going to produce a video going through the whole process to make it easier to master. I agree that the time is irrelevant but I felt that I had to include it as part of the comparison. There must be lots, like me, who use DSS who are still wondering if APP offers benefits over DSS. I am trying to be objective in my comparison.

Peter

[gnomus]

I have never tried DSS.  I have tried (and liked) Astro Art 6.  I think APP is, in many respects, more akin to AA6 than it is to PI.  

I too found Mabula extremely helpful.  It is unfortunate that there is no real manual, as yet, for APP.  Like PI, many terms are unfamiliar and it was never clear to me what setting needed to be changed if something was not quite right.  

[spillage]

@gnomus you may be able to answer a question I was just about to post. How do you compare aa6 to app. 

From my limited knowledge am I right in thinking that aa6 is an all in one bit of kit that will connect to my mount and dslr-platesolve-image-stack and process the final results where as app is more of stacking program. 

I have been looking around but so far there seems to be limited info on the basic setup for aa6.

As I am on limited funds so need to be careful where my money is spent.

At the moment I am using dss and apt but if aa6 could replace both of these then it would be something I could look at. I will download the trial version and have a proper look at some point.

 

spill.

[gnomus]

Hello Mr Spill

I cannot really answer your question, because only you know what you are prepared to live with.  I have never tried to use AA6 for connecting to my mount.  I use SGP for this (and I wouldn't be without it!).  I cannot comment on DSS because I have never used it.  I think APP is great for getting you to a point where you have linear stacks ready for stretching and further processing.  I do that further processing in PI and PS.  If I could only have one of these programs, I would go for PS.  

My thoughts are (and here I will sound like a broken record), we commit a lot of this time to this hobby (by which I mean astrophotography).  We spend a small (to large) fortune on kit.  I don't really see the point in trying to save on software.  SGP costs less than the price of an average night out (Ref: http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/30/british-men-spend-88-more-on-average-on-a-night-out-than-women-do-research-finds-5174295/) and will lead to fewer headaches.

Things are difficult enough - so my philosophy is that I should get the right gear.

    

[Ibbo!]

I am using APP for my mosaics and think it does a great job with them.

I think I have only done mosaics since i got APP.

 

I may have a go with some old data.

[gazza]

Hi,

I have Astroart 6 as well as Pixinsight and SGP.

If I was doing OSC imaging Astroart 6 would be what I use for almost everything - controlling mount, focuser, guiding, plate solving and image calibration. Calibration is super easy to do and stunningly quick. Its processing and deconvolution is very good. I could process a decent set of data in less than 30 minutes and get 90% of its potential. For mono imaging it is a pain when it comes to setting up a sequence using different filters - I could never get my head around its scripting abilities. I just want to tick boxes, not program. For mono imaging I use SGP, however it seems to crash/hang for me on a semi regular basis if I tick the wrong box. Recovering from user errors is not handled well. Pix is still new to me so I can't comment on it.

cheers

Gary

[spillage]

@gazza have you seen this. Currently at work so have no sound but seems to show how to deal with rgb. Did you find aa6 easy to set up with your kit.

[gazza]

t seen that....

AA6 is really easy to setup - just use Ascom and the built in camera plugins... Certainly no harder than any other program. If I was using the equipment in your profile I would be using AA6 for everything. There is an evaluation/trial version available for download.

cheers

gary

[gazza]

That video was about processing RGB - that is easy in AA6. I was referring to setting up a sequence of mono images through filters....eg take 6r, 6 b, 6 g, focus with each new filter and dither guiding between each frame... Easy as pie in SGP, but a pain in AA6. However if all you are doing is OSC, then setting that up is easy.

Gary

[PeterCPC]

After getting lots of info from Mabula re settings etc in APP, I did another run through with the same (not very good) data. 23 lights, 25 Bias, 26 Darks and 8 Flats.

This was the final stack from APP (no post processing) and you can see some strange artifacts (wiggly lines) and you can still see some satellite trails. The DSS result did not show any of these. I have asked Mabula about these but no reply as yet.

I do like the Bad Pixel Map that APP produces and the easy Background neutralisation. DSS sometimes throws a wobbly so it might be worth having APP as well.

I downloaded the trial of AA6 but am struggling with it without any manual - I use Canon CRAW images but the colour seems all wrong.

Peter