Stacking - which software?

[groberts]

For some years I've sucessfully been using DSS with both DSLR and mono cameras.  Having moved to mono a few years ago, I'm finding dedicated processing of calibration files for my library a bit tricky without also using accompanying lights and am wondering if it's time to move on to new software that would enable stacking + alignment etc. + in particular in this case building a library using just calibration subs, to be achieved more easily and perhaps quicker, though in this regard DSS isn't too bad?

I recently tried Pixinsight for this purpose and it found it to be way to complicated - although I did not use their batch processing facility.  Otherwise I'm attracted to Astro Art and APP.

Any recomendations + personal insight much appreciated.

Graham  

  

[DaveS]

My vote goes to Astro Art, now at V7. I use it for most of my processing, only recently getting Affinity Photo for "polishing". It is very fast for stacking.

[tomato]

APP has IMO a well deserved good reputation for its image calibration and stacking capabilities.
 

I have put data through both PI and APP packages and to my inexpert eye there is not much to choose between the output, I just find the user interface on APP much easier to handle.

[groberts]

Thanks for your comments on personal experience. 

Apart from the ability to do the job well, ease of use is an important feature I'm looking for.  As mentioned,  I have PixInsight and spent 10-days or more stacking + aligning a test image guided by the excellent Light Vortex tutorials.  However, in the end I can only say it was a nightmare - exceedingly complicated and messy to use.  Notwithstanding, I do hope to use PI for post processsing. 

Any more thoughts on AA and APP or others much welcomed.

Graham  

[tooth_dr]

37 minutes ago, groberts said:

Any more thoughts on AA and APP or others much welcomed.

Personally I use APP for stacking and some processing, it does a very good job.  I then use PS to ruin it.  I struggled with APP at the start, but persistence paid off.  I have also tried PI and I just couldnt get gel with it, however like yourself I am tempted to look at it again

[steppenwolf]

On 22/08/2020 at 08:47, groberts said:

Apart from the ability to do the job well, ease of use is an important feature I'm looking for.  As mentioned,  I have PixInsight and spent 10-days or more stacking + aligning a test image guided by the excellent Light Vortex tutorials.  However, in the end I can only say it was a nightmare - exceedingly complicated and messy to use.  Notwithstanding, I do hope to use PI for post processsing. 

Graham, as you already have PI, I would be tempted to persevere with it as it does an excellent job of aligning and stacking and I have an almost foolproof workflow that so far has never let me down!

Have you tried using the 'Batch Pre-processing' script supplied with PI? This is an excellent tool for Calibrating and Star Aligning your images prior to using the 'ImageIntegration' process to carry out the final stacking? You simply select all your Light, Bias, Dark and Flat images from within the script and it will apportion them to the correct area of the software automatically and will then produce a nice set of calibrated and aligned images for you. Although this script will also stack the images for you, I would recommend that you untick this option and stack the data as a separate process to give you more control. From within the ImageIntegration process, try to use 'Winsorized Sigma Clipping' whenever possible.

[PeterCPC]

+1 for APP - very easy to use and has easy to understand interface.

Peter

[groberts]

Thanks Steve, no I have not used the Batch Pre-processing script, I was so worn out by the step-by-step approach it completely put me off but before heading off elsewhere I will give it a try.

Would appreciate any more on the "amlost foolproof workflow" if you have any more please? Otherwise., thanks again, Graham 

[steppenwolf]

2 hours ago, groberts said:

Would appreciate any more on the "amlost foolproof workflow" if you have any more please? Otherwise., thanks again, Graham 

If you are interested in using data from a mono camera and filters, I would be happy to walk you through the process.

[groberts]

Thanks for the offer Steve.  I'm OK for the moment but will certainly get back to you as suggested if needed.

I moved over to mono a few years ago and am now reasonably familiar with what is a surprisingly different process to DSLR, though ultimatelky far superior.  The ability to control temperature has been a real game changer but, as a result, I'm rather lazy in keeping calibration up-to-date; having built a library some 18 months ago and changed nothing in my imaging train since, I continued to use the said library.  However, this summer I needed to clean the filters and sensors and thus build a new library, only to realise that doing so without lights in DSS required a different approach, which DSS is not ideally suited to, thus the thought to move on from DSS to something else.

Graham     

[DaveS]

With AA there's no need to faff around with Batch work-arounds. Drop your Lights, Darks, Flats and Dark-Flats or Bias frames into the relevant sections, choose how you you want to stack and align, and click OK. AA will then do all the calibration, alignment and stacking automatically, and it's fast.

[steppenwolf]

7 minutes ago, DaveS said:

With AA there's no need to faff around with Batch work-arounds.

🤣🤣

[ollypenrice]

3 hours ago, DaveS said:

With AA there's no need to faff around with Batch work-arounds. Drop your Lights, Darks, Flats and Dark-Flats or Bias frames into the relevant sections, choose how you you want to stack and align, and click OK. AA will then do all the calibration, alignment and stacking automatically, and it's fast.

Exactly. I've had several guests try to convert me to stacking-calibrating in PI. It goes like this: Look, here are our lights, our darks, our flats, so this goes here and that goes there and... click.  Oh. Ah. Hang on, that wasn't quite right. Oh yes, I know, let's do this: there we go. Oh. Ah, no, that's not right. Hang on, lets try again... NO, let's not try-a-bloody-gain, let's use AstroArt!!!

🤣lly

Edited August 22, 2020 by ollypenrice
typo

[Davey-T]

Apparently Maxim will calibrate and stack your images after capturing and present you with them in the morning, never tried it myself 😁

Dave

[steppenwolf]

32 minutes ago, Davey-T said:

Apparently Maxim will calibrate and stack your images after capturing and present you with them in the morning, never tried it myself 

I can confirm this too and for many years, MaxIm has been my weapon of choice for stacking but in my numerous tests, PI has produced slightly better results which is why I now use it for this process. However, after deconvolution, I can't wait to get straight on to PhotoShop for the rest of the processing tasks.

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, steppenwolf said:

I can confirm this too and for many years, MaxIm has been my weapon of choice for stacking but in my numerous tests, PI has produced slightly better results which is why I now use it for this process. However, after deconvolution, I can't wait to get straight on to PhotoShop for the rest of the processing tasks.

In what way do you find the PI results better, Steve?

Olly

[steppenwolf]

9 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

In what way do you find the PI results better, Steve?

It's difficult to define exactly, Olly  but I feel that MaxIm gives a 'smoother' stack with an aesthetically appealing appearance straight from the stacking process so I often use it these days for a quick look at what I've captured so far. However, this apparent smoothness seems to release a little less of the very fine detail that PI seems to produce and I can deal with the lack of some smoothness by capturing more subframes or using some of the noise reduction tools in PI. I would still recommend MaxIm as an alternative in this role but PI does excel at this early stage of the processing.

Using either piece of software though, I move pretty quickly on to PhotoShop for the rest of the work! Now that might change in the future and I do still tap into some other processes in PI as I get up to speed with them but I much prefer the immediacy of PhotoShop.

[ollypenrice]

I certainly agree on the immediacy of Ps. In my processing I rely heavily on layers to do what is done using masks in PI. I find it much easier to globally modify a lower layer then erase the top from only those places where I want the modification (and the extent to which I want it.)  For me the PI/Ps debate hinges largely on the masks/layers alternative.

Per used to say that PI gave a lower FWHM than other stacking routines but your preference seems to be more subjective. I suppose I ought to bite the bullet and do a comparison. I'll wait for a PI guru to turn up here and show me!

Olly

[freiform]

Hi,

there was a nice thread over at CN comparing different software with one set of raw images. And what dou you know? It was the user, not the software. People were producing amazing results using PI, PS, APP, DSS, GIMP, StarTools and whatnot. Also, different people using these exact tools were producing not so pretty images.

You have to learn the tools. There's not really a shortcut. If you're put off by the UI, well, stick with it until you get it or use something else. If your're put off by pricing models (as am I for some of the software discussed here), use something else.

But I cannot stress it enough, better is very subjective here... assuming there is no magic (there is none, although some tools of the AI variety make artefacts and interpretation appear very convincing), and further assuming that the tools in question implement the scientific and mathematical principles properly, it's down to the user interface, presets and/or the time you're willing to invest. I use PI and struggle constantly (but not with preprocessing ). I have access to PS due to my job but mostly refuse to use it. I tried the trial of APP and didn't see how I would benefit, already owning PI, and rather spend the money on something else. 

Highly subjective, all this. But then again, if someone comes and hands you a silver bullet, it's most likely a quack.

CS

Sven

 

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by freiform

[johneta]

I used DSS for a long while but was never happy with it.
Tried APP -found the results were good, but I didn't like the UI.
My best results have been with a trial version of Pixinsight, so I would vote for that. But I haven't bit the bullet yet and bought a paid version.

I use Siril now (free) and find the results very good. Note: current documentation on Siril is pretty lacking

[wxsatuser]

Have used AA, PI and DSS and I still do mix them up depending how I feel.

All work just fine, it's just me that kills the final image. 😜

[MartinB]

The problem is that decent calibrattion, registering and integration isn't a simple process.  Factors such as number of subs, variable quality of subs, variations in exposure time all  have to be managed.  For me, using Maxim is like putting on an old pair of slippers since I've been using it  for the past 14 years.  However, if I was to come to it for the first time I think I would find it quite daunting.  I tried CCDstack for a while having worked my way through Adam Block's video tutorials.  It appeared to provide more control options than Maxim but I couldn't see any difference in the final stacks.   I have now ploughed my way through Adam Blocks tutorials for PI and the Batch preprocessing seems ok.  Again my results look very similar to Maxim's but @steppenwolf will have looked much more carefully than I have so I think I will persevere.  I also have APP but haven't had a concerted effort using this.  If you have PI I would stick with it.  The time and effort you put in now will hopefully stand you in good stead for many years!