Ain’t PixInsight brilliant. A mini review from a newbie

[dannybgoode]

I think like everyone I decided to try PixInsight with some trepidation and to be honest I was rather hoping I’d hate it. But...

By golly it’s a fantastic piece of software. Having tried Nebulosity and APP as well as fiddling in PS and Affinity I just felt I could do better with the (admittedly paltry) amount of data I am able to collect in a session so signed up for the free trial and am about 36 days into it. 
 

Having watched a few YouTube videos I had an initial attempt at integrating the data for each channel and then combining it and the result was ok but no better than any other package I’ve tried so I finally got stuck into ‘the book’, shot some flats and darks and set to work.

Note it’s not really a piece of software you can just fiddle with a few bits to see what they do unlike say Lightroom (although you can to an extent). You really do need some guidance be it youtube or a book or both. 
 

Having watched the vids and having an initial play I could at least navigate around but there were a few initial hiccups as to be expected. But as I’ve followed the first few chapters of the book I’ve found I really like the granular approach to the processing workflow, and the total control you have over every single aspect. It’s daunting yes but the default settings are often ‘good enough’ but over time I’ve been tweaking and playing with them to see what they do. 
 

Another aspect I like is how quickly you can create a cloned instance to work on save in the knowledge the master is just a click away if you mess up. The non-destructive previews and the way you have to consciously apply a setting is a help rather than a hindrance. 
 

And then there’s the magic tools like Dynamic Background and that’s before I’ve even started getting into the custom modules etc. 
 

All in all I’m incredibly impressed - the workflow, once you’ve got over the initial familiarisation, is very logical.  But now there’s the issue that I’m going to have to actually buy a licence hence why I was rather hoping I’d get along better with APP on the basis it’s cheaper. But no, having had a taste of PI it’s the only route for me. 
 

Of course I’ll be using PS, DxO and LR as well and I’ve only scratched the surface but for the core heavy lifting it’ll be PixInsight all the way. 
 

My advice to anyone considering it - watch some YouTube videos so you understand the basics of the interface etc, invest in the book (Inside PixInsight) and register for the free trial and give it a go. Worst case you’ll have to sell the book on and will lose a few quid on that but you may just like it . Just don’t be scared of at least giving it a try...

[Viktiste]

As another newbie agree completely. And yes it is pricey, but at least it is a one off cost, and not subscription based like the trend seems to be these days. Well worth the money imho.

[geeklee]

Funnily enough I've just started a trial too and using "Inside PixInsight".  So far, the approach to workflow is very different but so much more useful and efficient.  Every time I wander "well how will that work in PI" (workflow, not functions) and it just does it right (new instances, minimising, reusing, the whole object based approach really).  

As far as "Inside PixInsight" goes, this has been an eye opener so far - not only in PixInsight knowledge but expanding on general AP topics and details that are really enhancing my understanding of processing and data.  

I am a paid APP user (subscription) as I found it was a straight forward approach to get good results with some useful post processing features that are fairly easy to get up to speed with.  The more things I want to adjust in my images (advanced stuff) just isn't possible with APP at the moment although they are all mentioned as coming at some point.

It'll be interesting @dannybgoode how you continue to get on with PI and whether you feel you're creating better final images.  As I continue learning AP in general, I'm hopeful my next image will be processed with PI and it'll have that extra "quality" I couldn't do previously.

Edited January 29, 2020 by geeklee

[MarcusH]

Excellent review @dannybgoode. Here's another vote for PI from a newbie. I started with the free trial but didn't get half way through that before a bought the license. It's simply that good.

The two biggest grieves people seem to have with PI is the cost and the steep learning curve. To that I would say Maybe and No. If you have just started and have a minimal setup, then yes, the license is going to represent a big portion of your budget. But if you're into this hobby with any seriousness you will soon notice that the license is just a drop in the ocean. And the software is yours to keep, you don't borrow it for a yearly fee that the developers can haphazardly change according to their own needs.

As for difficulty to use, astrophotography and post processing IS difficult, but that is in general. Not because of the software itself. You'll have to understand how and why your mount, telescope and camera works just as much as you need to understand why and how you do certain things in post-processing. There's no way around that. There will never be a thing like "Press-here-to-make-a-pretty-picture" in this hobby. PI has an wealth on online resources in the form of tutorials, videos and forums. It even has an excellent book written about it.

And lastly, which is important for me, it is made by a small group (company) of people sharing the same passion as all of us, astrophotography. Not some multi-billion $ / € / £ company that has a profit margin to think about....

[teoria_del_big_bang]

3 hours ago, Viktiste said:

As another newbie agree completely. And yes it is pricey, but at least it is a one off cost, and not subscription based like the trend seems to be these days. Well worth the money imho.

The price was what initially stopped me getting it as I thought it was too costly.

But then I used the trial and was pretty much blown away with what it can do and thought that we think nothing of spending hundreds on a new scope, camera or other equipment yet many of us tend to shy off spending anywhere near that on software. Yet, without decent software getting a decent image from our data relatively easily then the equipment is useless.

So I bought it and am so happy I did 🙂

Steve

[dannybgoode]

For a labour of love and for such as polished piece of software I am happy with the price. Yes it’s mid - priced for a piece of software these days but the support you get and the care and detail that have gone into it means its value for money. 
 

It’s a limited market so it’s not like it’ll be flying off the shelves and then there’s all the plugins etc-many of which are free. 
 

My trial ends on 9 Feb and I’ll definitely be buying it. 

[James]

I am a fan of PixInsight but my problem is that I so rarely get round to processing I've forgotten everything I learned the last time round so I do find the learning (or re-learning) curve a tough one.

I've relied very heavily on tutorails from Harry Page here http://harrysastroshed.com/pixinsight/pixinsight video html/Pixinsighthome.html  and Kayron Mercia here: https://www.lightvortexastronomy.com/tutorials.html

The developers strike me as real hardcore maths/stats types - as processing is maths/stats that's got to be a good thing...

James

[dannybgoode]

@geeklee - see post here for my attempt at processing with APP v PixInsight. I could probably get much more out of APP but I like the fact that the PI workflow encourages getting the maximum out of the data by design. I found APP was too automated for my liking. 
 

 

[teoria_del_big_bang]

4 hours ago, James said:

I am a fan of PixInsight but my problem is that I so rarely get round to processing I've forgotten everything I learned the last time round so I do find the learning (or re-learning) curve a tough one.

I've relied very heavily on tutorails from Harry Page here http://harrysastroshed.com/pixinsight/pixinsight video html/Pixinsighthome.html  and Kayron Mercia here: https://www.lightvortexastronomy.com/tutorials.html

The developers strike me as real hardcore maths/stats types - as processing is maths/stats that's got to be a good thing...

James

James,

I know exactly what you mean and have the same issue with not doing it often enough for it to become natural to me.

I also have used various tutorials form https://www.lightvortexastronomy.com/ but I have found it really helps if I use these to begin with,  then make my own tutorial in Word, taking my own screen shots as I go. This way it reduces the size of the tutorial because I can either leave bits out I know what to do, or just add a small reminder to do something, with the bits I am "au fait" with, then maybe enhance somethings I struggle with. Also just doing this seems to help with things going into my aging brain and understanding better.

Then as I am old school and like a manual to look at I can print these shortened tutorials out and keep in a binder for reference anytime.

Steve

Edited January 29, 2020 by teoria_del_big_bang

[geeklee]

3 hours ago, dannybgoode said:

@geeklee - see post here for my attempt at processing with APP v PixInsight. I could probably get much more out of APP but I like the fact that the PI workflow encourages getting the maximum out of the data by design. I found APP was too automated for my liking.

Yep, you definitely seem to have got more out of the image in PI 👍

I haven't stacked anything yet in PI, will be interesting to see if I miss APP's "Adaptive Airy Disk" debayering mechanism.

@James and @teoria_del_big_bang make good points about the ability to retain the detailed knowledge when you have gaps without processing as it looks like the more you put in the more you get out so those extra tweaks or processes you run - definitely keep your own notes!

For me, I thought PI was "above me" and the processes were "beyond what I should be looking at" as a beginner... but the more I read and absorbed, the more I could see (even with a handful of images under my belt) what could be improved and how that might be done.  There are other tools out there and I've given some of them a trial but I end up back at APP. 

I've got a long way left on the trial so once I get some new data to run end to end, I'll be in a better place to evaluate, but it's really impressed me so far (with the help of "Inside PixInsight") 🙂

[Allinthehead]

Pixinsight is great and has some wonderful tools DBE, Starnet, scnr etc. Comparing it to APP however is a little odd as APP is really just image integration software with a couple of handy tools. The light pollution removal is exceptional.

Pixinsight is everything you need in one package to integrate and process. 

I think it's worth getting to grips with layers based software too such as Gimp or PS

 

[dannybgoode]

46 minutes ago, Allinthehead said:

Pixinsight is great and has some wonderful tools DBE, Starnet, scnr etc. Comparing it to APP however is a little odd as APP is really just image integration software with a couple of handy tools. The light pollution removal is exceptional.

Pixinsight is everything you need in one package to integrate and process. 

I think it's worth getting to grips with layers based software too such as Gimp or PS

 

As a 'normal' photographer first and foremost (at least for now) I wouldn't be without DxO PhotoLabs, Lightroom and PS CC and they all certainly pay a significant part in my astro workflow too.

I do have Affinity as well but unless I am on the iPad I prefer PS although for the money and if you don't fancy an Adobe sub of some description it is fantastic value for money.  Worth the £50 entry fee over GIMP because it is so much nicer to use (IMO YMMV etc).

[geeklee]

15 hours ago, Allinthehead said:

Pixinsight is great and has some wonderful tools DBE, Starnet, scnr etc. Comparing it to APP however is a little odd as APP is really just image integration software with a couple of handy tools. The light pollution removal is exceptional.

That's fair.  In my head I'm not doing a direct comparison, just looking to move to something with more post processing tools (more all-in one).  I agree on APP, the LP tool is very good and I've found (with some work) the star colour calibration is also good.  I also find all the pre-processing steps excellent too... I think I just clicked with the application and hence found others more challenging.

Right now I picture a future where I still use APP just to pre-process 😂.  I've only been using APP for 4 months but I've started to get a little frustrated with the lack of documentation and also the slow release schedule of updates (1.076 must be imminent).  I know, I know, it's niche (excellent) application with a single developer (if I understand their setup correctly) 😋

15 hours ago, Allinthehead said:

I think it's worth getting to grips with layers based software too such as Gimp or PS

Currently I always end up in Affinity Photo after APP but some more advanced layer and mask knowledge would be useful... 👍

[Aramcheck]

I'm another fan of Pixinsight... I'd highly recommend the Warren A. Keller book "Inside Pixinsight" too, which is well worth getting.

[dannybgoode]

Well I've finally but the bullet and bought the full licence.  Trial didn't expire until 9 February but there's no way I was going back so got it sorted.  Just a shame it's still permanent cloud and with little chance of getting any imaging done for at least the next week!

[Ollyb]

I agree with all the above, Pixinsight is now my ‘go to’ processing software. 

 

[Planitair]

Is it really VFM ?, I think it is too expensive, yes it does quite a bit, I tried the trial version but in any case I cannot afford it.

eric

[Whistlin Bob]

20 hours ago, Planitair said:

Is it really VFM ?

I do sympathise- it's a lot of money in one go when we're used to software being free or subscription based. But if there was some physical gadget that improved images as much as PI does then it would be thought an absolute bargain. AP is a hobby, so it's always an indulgence, but for me it is good value for money.

[billhinge]

I  think after a while it just clicks and becomes second nature without have to follow a prescriptive workflow - best book I  found was Mastering Pixinsight by  Rogelio Bernal Andreo. It explains why PI tool settings are not what you may assume when tweaking .  Well explained with a second reference volume

Also  try the monthly competitions from last year, they have virtually perfect data to experiment  on

The starnet app is good but my gripe is it seems to get fooled by really bright stars etc

[Chefgage]

22 hours ago, Planitair said:

Is it really VFM ?, I think it is too expensive, yes it does quite a bit, I tried the trial version but in any case I cannot afford it.

eric

If you compare it to the cost of all the other gear that generally people buy then I think it's just a small amount of money. As the processing side of things is a very bit part of astrophotography in my opinion then yes it is value for money. I have just bought a filter for about £200. 

[tocster]

To each their own - I'm not a fan of the user interface, and Ive given it a fair crack.  If Im not using it regularly its like starting all over again, and I find that extremely frustrating and annoying.