PixInsight - is it worth it?

[conspicuity]

Currently I use DSS and Corel Paint Shop Pro and get images like the two attached. PixInsight looks like a significant investment in time to master. Would it be worth the trouble? Or should I concentrate my attention elsewhere? Any advice welcome...

[Stickey]

Wow,  they're great. Why would you want to pay the price of PixInsight? What problem are you trying to fix?

[Clarkey]

I have had this mental debate many times. I now have a desktop capable of running PI, but I am still at the 'is it worth it stage'. I think this is a bit like the OSC vs mono debate. Good arguments for both sides. At the end of the day, in theory PI is the best AP software. Given the cost of AP as a whole, a bit more for software is not that big a deal really. My main issue is the amount of time needed to learn how to use it correctly - time for me is at a premium. Currently I use Startools, Astro Pixel Processor and Affinity. Could I get better with PI - possibly, but only once I know what I am doing. For me that might be a while🤪

[rnobleeddy]

I know it wasn't the question, but I'd take a look at Startools - it's lighter on price and time commitment to learn. 

[iantaylor2uk]

I've used Nebulosity 4 for quite some time, which I paid for five or six years ago, but I believe it is going open source soon, so will then be free. I find it quite straightforward to use - there is a Digital Development button I usually use first, then levels and curves, and repeat if necessary, and there is an option for auto colour balance. There is also a synthetic flat option if you didn't take any flat frames. I've tried more complex software and there is quite a steep learning curve, and I get results I'm happy with using Nebulosity. 

[alacant]

2 hours ago, conspicuity said:

I use DSS and Corel Paint Shop

Don't know them but looking at your images, I'd stay right where you are:)

We allowed out trial of pi to expire. 

The calibration and stacking part of it is good but this is now more than adequately covered by Siril, which is open-source. Beyond that it, like ps, is just another collection of unrelated stretch-and-hope modules largely unchanged since the 19-nineties. These days, there are alternatives.

1 hour ago, rnobleeddy said:

I'd take a look at Startools

+1

Linear data throughout.. No irreversible stretching. No levels or curves. No all-nighters. YOU decide how deep you want to go... A relief. 

Maybe the best way to decide though would be to take your data along to an astro club and see the alternatives being used first hand. Working in isolation with Internet and YouTube is perhaps not the best way to get going with new stuff.

Just our €0.02 but HTH anyway.

Edited October 2, 2021 by alacant

[conspicuity]

Thanks for all the advice and encouragement. The plethora of software does make choosing difficult. and, I guess, age makes the prospect of climbing another learning curve seem more daunting. I will investigate the other options before I take the plunge.

Stickey's question does focus the mind: I think I'm wondering if a more sophisticated and standardized approach would be better than the seat of the pants methods I use now. 'Better' might be defined in terms of extracting more detail or, at least, in being confident I had all the detail that was there to be extracted. Of course, if software existed that produced the ideal result with just one click, I am sure that would be profoundly unsatisfying. 🙄

[conspicuity]

Another vote for Startools! That has to warrant a close look.  You are right about working in isolation too, although that may increasingly become the norm...

[Budgie1]

Last year I got back into astrophotography and was using a standard DSLR, stacking in DSS and processing in Photoshop CS3. I was looking around for something better to process my images and went for the 45 day trial with PixInsight to see what I could do with it.

Sure it was a learning curve, but so is PhotoShop if you've not used it before. Yes PI isn't the cheapest processing software out there, but again, the latest PS is now a monthly subscription and when I bought CS3 it was over £400, IIRC.

With PixInsight, I followed a few YouTube tutorials and got a basic workflow which allowed me to process some images and I liked the results I could produce and the extra detail I could pull out of an image, when compared to PhotoShop. So, 30 days into the trail period I purchased PI and have continued that learning curve, there is just so much in there that I still haven't explored, don't understand or haven't figured out what it does.

I have my standard workflow for most images + a few extras I've learned or read about from others and this allows me to do what I want and get images I'm happy with.

I also have StarTools, but for some reason I just don't get on with it and I'm hardly ever happy with the results from it. I'm guessing it's just me because others won't use anything else and produce nice images with it.

Anyway, as I said above, the main reason I started using PixInsight was the extra detail. Here is the first image I worked on in PixInsight, the top one is what I produced with Photoshop and below is my first attempt with PI. Both produced from the same stacked file out of DSS. 

 

[Merlin66]

Have a look at Astroart V8.

http://www.msb-astroart.com/

I think it would do everything you need, including plate solving (if needed), guiding, pre-processing and post processing etc.etc.

[barkingsteve]

Have you tried Gimp and Siril ( both free )   I use DSS to stack then Siril and finally gimp to process. The noise reduction and shadow functions in Gimp can reduce your stars, I had a little play with your images in Gimp ( hope you don't mind ) just to show you what is capable with a free program.

 

 

[Dazzyt66]

6 hours ago, barkingsteve said:

Have you tried Gimp and Siril ( both free )

 

+1 for this suggestion. I use Siril for stacking and either Gimp or now Startools (free trial/lots cheaper than PI) depending on the subject. 

[PeterCPC]

Affinity just keeps getting better all the time.

[nephilim]

I'd personally say PI is definitely worth investing both time & money in. Give the 45 day free trial a go, its the full version with nothing left out.
This hobby can be very expensive but @£220 (ish) PI is the cost of a half decent filter so in the grand scheme of things pretty cheap in my opinion. Yes, its a steep learning curve but isn't the entire hobby a steep learning curve?
There are countless very good YouTube tutorials that you can easily follow step by step to produce a very good image from your data (assuming your data is good).
I've been developing my own workflow & I'll never go back to PS which for some reason I found harder to get my head around. I've been using it for around 3 months now &  IMO PI is the best post processing software out there & its made my life so much easier. PI is constantly been updated & all updates are always free. Give the free trial ago & I'm sure you wont look back.

On a side note, I still use PS for the odd tweak. This was my second image processed in PI, not great but I'm getting there.

Steve

Edited October 3, 2021 by nephilim

[conspicuity]

Thanks for the further suggestions. The examples of PI products are seductive - particularly the comparison (Budgie1) of the same data processed in two ways. The PixInsight tutorials I've looked at seem to spend a lot of time explaining the interface. The Startools ones got more directly to the sort of stuff I want to do. I think that indicates my way ahead: Startools to start with and, if and when I gain some competence, then I'll reconsider PI. It's a sort of Stannah stair lift approach to the learning curve 🙂.

[alacant]

11 minutes ago, conspicuity said:

PixInsight tutorials

Hi

There's a tutorial for those upgrading/migrating from PI to StarTools here. 

HTH

[ollypenrice]

15 hours ago, alacant said:

 

The calibration and stacking part of it is good but this is now more than adequately covered by Siril, which is open-source. Beyond that it, like ps, is just another collection of unrelated stretch-and-hope modules largely unchanged since the 19-nineties. These days, there are alternatives.

 

You've said this before but I'm left a bit baffled. The log stretch in any program is what it says it is, a log stretch which  has a mathematically pure relationship with the linear data. It's not 'out of date,' it's a basic building block which you can take or leave. It's what you get if you stretch in Levels, but you don't have to stretch in levels, you can stretch in Curves and, in so doing, have full control over shape of the Curve/nature of the stretch. You can also stretch under masks made by an assortment of means, you can import ready-made stretches like DDP if you like, you can blend different stretches in layers and so on.  The Layers log stretch is one tool out of many.

Re Pixinsight, it certainly isn't compulsory. I still use it almost exclusively for gradient removal (DBE and ABE) and green noise reduction (SCNR Green.)  These processes usually give me good colour calibration as a welcome by-product. Other than that, it just doesn't work with my way of going about processing. I'm visual-touchy-feely, if you like, so the highly metaphorical user interface in Ps suits me. (Layers, eraser, Dodge and Burn etc etc are really just Photoshop metaphors for the underlying maths but they work for me in ways that PI doesn't.) PS owes its commercial success largely to the intuitive nature of these metaphors which draw on the old techniques in graphics, printing and film photography. It's purely personal, I think.

Olly

[Budgie1]

34 minutes ago, conspicuity said:

Thanks for the further suggestions. The examples of PI products are seductive - particularly the comparison (Budgie1) of the same data processed in two ways. The PixInsight tutorials I've looked at seem to spend a lot of time explaining the interface. The Startools ones got more directly to the sort of stuff I want to do. I think that indicates my way ahead: Startools to start with and, if and when I gain some competence, then I'll reconsider PI. It's a sort of Stannah stair lift approach to the learning curve 🙂.

Well, if you decide to try PixInsight in the future then I can highly recommend this set of tutorials by Mitch. I used these to learn the program and taking one of your own images to run through the processes alongside the videos helps you understand better what each task is doing.

To start with, I would also recommend sticking with DSS to do the stacking and concentrate on the processing side of PixInsight so you get used to the software. It just reduces the curve slightly.  

[alacant]

3 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm left a bit baffled

No need to be.

On a superficial level, have a look at the StarTools app -there's only one screen- and see if you can find anything to do with levels/curves.

I placed a link here which may help further. If not, I'm certain that @jager945could fill you in on what's what far better than my level of technical english will allow;)

I think it good that alternative methods of processing images are emerging. Of course, if you're happier with curves and masks, just stick with it.

Cheers and HTH

Edited October 3, 2021 by alacant

[conspicuity]

Thanks for that recommendation, Martin. It certainly looks like a comprehensive programme of instruction - something to keep me occupied on cloudy nights. Following this discussion I am beginning to appreciate how little I know about astro processing. Basically I've relied on habits and methods derived from 'normal' photography (acquired through trial-and-error experience). Time to learn some new tricks!

[wimvb]

On 02/10/2021 at 20:19, conspicuity said:

PixInsight looks like a significant investment in time to master. Would it be worth the trouble?

Yes. (Enough said)

Edited October 4, 2021 by wimvb

[nephilim]

4 hours ago, wimvb said:

Yes. (Enough said)

Pretty much that ^^ 

[jager945]

On 03/10/2021 at 23:29, ollypenrice said:

The log stretch in any program is what it says it is, a log stretch which  has a mathematically pure relationship with the linear data. It's not 'out of date,' it's a basic building block which you can take or leave. It's what you get if you stretch in Levels, but you don't have to stretch in levels, you can stretch in Curves and, in so doing, have full control over shape of the Curve/nature of the stretch. You can also stretch under masks made by an assortment of means, you can import ready-made stretches like DDP if you like, you can blend different stretches in layers and so on.  The Layers log stretch is one tool out of many.

Just to clarify how/why ST takes a different approach here.

You are absolutely right of course, in that the point of a non-linear stretch is to adapt linear data for human brightness perception (which roughly follows a power function).

However, the specific design goal for the global stretch in StarTools ("AutoDev") is not to pick any "winners" or "losers" (in terms of detail) yet in the dynamic range. E.g. in StarTools we solve for the best "compromise" non-linear stretch that shows all detail equally in the shadows, midtones and highlights. E.g. you don't fret so much about "showing the most amount of detail", and the software is able to get you in a ballpark optimum stretch by objective statistical analysis.

You then go on to progressively refine and optimise - from coarse to ultra-fine - dynamic range locally with subsequent tools. The process is much akin to how a sculptor starts with a rough block of stone and progressively carves out finer and finer features. As a result, one global stretch iteration is all it takes in StarTools, while subsequent algorithms (and you) have a much easier time lifting things from the shadows or rescuing them from the highlights.

Hope that helps / makes sense.

Sorry OP about hijacking this thread for this little aside! More on-topic; definitely have a look at the different trials on offer. And - most importantly - try software with good quality data. The worst thing you can do is judge software on how well it is able to hide flaws, because as you progress in AP, you learn how to minimise flaws and will become much more concerned with making the most of your hard won data.

Clear skies!

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, jager945 said:

Just to clarify how/why ST takes a different approach here.

You are absolutely right of course, in that the point of a non-linear stretch is to adapt linear data for human brightness perception (which roughly follows a power function).

However, the specific design goal for the global stretch in StarTools ("AutoDev") is not to pick any "winners" or "losers" (in terms of detail) yet in the dynamic range. E.g. in StarTools we solve for the best "compromise" non-linear stretch that shows all detail equally in the shadows, midtones and highlights. E.g. you don't fret so much about "showing the most amount of detail", and the software is able to get you in a ballpark optimum stretch by objective statistical analysis.

You then go on to progressively refine and optimise - from coarse to ultra-fine - dynamic range locally with subsequent tools. The process is much akin to how a sculptor starts with a rough block of stone and progressively carves out finer and finer features. As a result, one global stretch iteration is all it takes in StarTools, while subsequent algorithms (and you) have a much easier time lifting things from the shadows or rescuing them from the highlights.

Hope that helps / makes sense.

Sorry OP about hijacking this thread for this little aside! More on-topic; definitely have a look at the different trials on offer. And - most importantly - try software with good quality data. The worst thing you can do is judge software on how well it is able to hide flaws, because as you progress in AP, you learn how to minimise flaws and will become much more concerned with making the most of your hard won data.

Clear skies!

Very nicely explained. I had assumed that this would be the case and it was confirmed yesterday when I looked at ST for the first time. The initial stretch, and subsequent iterative 'local' stretches, describe the stages I take in Photoshop when developing the histogram, though (because Ps is not astro-specific) I do it through manual intervention by either shaping the curve by hand or by stretching through masks or blending different stretches in layers. The difference between ST and Ps, if I have this right, lies not so much in what can be done to the histogram but in the means by which it is done, ST having an astro-specific user interface designed to anticipate interventions which will be productive. Would that be fair?

My objection is to Alacant's implication that the best you can do in Ps is 'stretch and hope.' This is quite simply wrong but, for it to be wrong in practice, the imager does need to think through all aspects of the stretch, both global and local. I've come to like starting with a blank sheet, so to speak, when stretching but I'll enjoy working through ST's astro-structured approach.

Thanks for your excellent reply.

17 hours ago, wimvb said:

Yes. (Enough said)

Maybe! 👹😁  

Olly

Edited October 5, 2021 by ollypenrice
Clarification

[Clarkey]

I think at the end of the day it is a 'horses for courses' debate. There are multiple different options for image processing all of which have positives and negatives. For me I use the option that gives me the best results I can, in the time I have available. I find the Affinity interface easy to work with so it is what I use. Is PS better? Probably - but only if I can get it to do what I want. PI might be the 'best', but it is no good if I can't get it to work correctly.

FWIW I use different software combination for different types of image. I find Startools really good for galaxy images, but I struggle to get the result I want with nebulae. Whether this is the software or my incompetence is somewhat irrelevant. So as I have said - the best software is the one you can get the best result with. If I gave my data to someone else they might well get a better result with their software and processing skills - but if I cannot repeat it then it is meaningless other than to make me want to improve my own work flow. (What is 'better' is often subjective anyway).