Jump to content

NLC-Banner.thumb.jpg.acb5ba835b9e8bf0718b90539633017d.jpg

Done with being cheap. Pix advice


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, PeterCPC said:

I can't understand moving away from APP. The words "Pixinsight" and "easy" do not go together IMO.

I found APP so frustrating, I used the trial of Pix a few times and with the tutorials on youtube made a much better job, its not that intuitive but once you know a good routine it works. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

I used the trial of Pix a few times and with the tutorials on youtube made a much better job, its not that intuitive but once you know a good routine it works. 

Hi, which YouTube videos did you use? I have the trial version and find it very unintuitive.

thanks

Ian

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IDM said:

Hi, which YouTube videos did you use? I have the trial version and find it very unintuitive.

thanks

Ian

Have a look at the tutorials by Mitch, I found them useful when I started with PI.

Others have recommended Adam Brock's tutorials.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a few recommendations:

EZ processing suite - simplifies some of the more complex things like deconvolution and noise reduction while you're learning https://darkarchon.internet-box.ch:8443/

GHS script for stretching https://ghsastro.co.uk/

Starnet v2 (much better than v1 which comes with PI) https://www.starnetastro.com/

GAME script to assist in mask creation http://www.skypixels.at/pixinsight_scripts.html

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Budgie1 said:

Have a look at the tutorials by Mitch, I found them useful when I started with PI.

Others have recommended Adam Brock's tutorials.

I watched and worked through the mitch videos a while ago with my trials, wasn't sure if they were still valid with recent updates.

Adams videos are good

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Lazy Astronomer said:

Here's a few recommendations:

EZ processing suite - simplifies some of the more complex things like deconvolution and noise reduction while you're learning https://darkarchon.internet-box.ch:8443/

GHS script for stretching https://ghsastro.co.uk/

Starnet v2 (much better than v1 which comes with PI) https://www.starnetastro.com/

GAME script to assist in mask creation http://www.skypixels.at/pixinsight_scripts.html

I got the EZ suite, where does it appear in PI?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anthonyexmouth said:

I watched and worked through the mitch videos a while ago with my trials, wasn't sure if they were still valid with recent updates.

Adams videos are good

Some of the stuff in Mitch's videos has been updated since they were made, but the basics are there.

Just now, Anthonyexmouth said:

I got the EZ suite, where does it appear in PI?

It should be in the Script menu. ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that you'd find Pixinsight easier than...well...anything. However, those who become very expert in its use can match the results from Photoshop. :D

Olly

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now, I had the trial version, even bought Warren Keller's much lauded book, but after being driven Dagenham (ie, two stops beyond Barking), I went back to AstroArt, now at V8, and breathed a huge sigh of relief.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm amazed that you'd find Pixinsight easier than...well...anything. However, those who become very expert in its use can match the results from Photoshop. :D

Olly

I not saying it's easier or intuitive but APP was driving me nuts. What I like about pi is it's very modular and the processes are easier to compartmentalise in my head. I can pull out a few and work through them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I found/find APP fine for stacking especially mosaics but beyond that I struggle to get my head round it far more than I do stuff in PI. The right hand side panel in APP drives me bonkers.

The other thing is that 9 times out of 10 you'll find a tutorial or video for something in PI just like you will in PS. Try that for APP.

Edited by scotty38
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anthonyexmouth said:

I not saying it's easier or intuitive but APP was driving me nuts. What I like about pi is it's very modular and the processes are easier to compartmentalise in my head. I can pull out a few and work through them. 

Yes, I can understand not wanting automated multi-intervention routines designed which take several steps at once. However intelligently they guess at what you need, they still guess and I never want that. Then again, I like processing and am never in a hurry with it. One step at a time, for me.

Olly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a side irritation, Why are  "how to" guides not spiral bound? When you're bashing your head against recalcitrant software you don't want to be using both hands to hold the manual when it could be laying flat on your desk.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Yes, I can understand not wanting automated multi-intervention routines designed which take several steps at once. However intelligently they guess at what you need, they still guess and I never want that. Then again, I like processing and am never in a hurry with it. One step at a time, for me.

Olly

Oh I hate processing, much prefer the technical side of image capture. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm amazed that you'd find Pixinsight easier than...well...anything. However, those who become very expert in its use can match the results from Photoshop. :D

Olly

I suspect you must have been proficient  at Photoshop before you started AP processing (?) I started with zero knowledge of either Photoshop or PixInsight. From my perspective Photoshop had a next to impossible learning curve. PixInsight, while not easy, was at least possible for a beginner to learn, Photoshop was not. 

I am (very sloooowly) getting the hang of Affinity Photo though, which is similar to PS I guess.

As for matching Photoshop results - I do agree that some of the filters you can apply in PS/Affinity works magic, and is hard to do in PI.

Edited by Viktiste
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Budgie1 said:

Have a look at the tutorials by Mitch, I found them useful when I started with PI.

I got going with those videos too, highly recommended. However they are a bit outdated, particularly when it comes to Image Integration. I took notes/screenshots, it is so much quicker to refer to later instead of re-playing videos. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Viktiste said:

I suspect you must have been proficient  at Photoshop before you started AP processing (?) I started with zero knowledge of either Photoshop or PixInsight. From my perspective Photoshop had a next to impossible learning curve. PixInsight, while not easy, was at least possible for a beginner to learn, Photoshop was not. 

I am (very sloooowly) getting the hang of Affinity Photo though, which is similar to PS I guess.

As for matching Photoshop results - I do agree that some of the filters you can apply in PS/Affinity works magic, and is hard to do in PI.

I'm always intrigued by these comparisons between the relative complexity of Photoshop and Pixinsight and there is no right or wrong answer since, if you find one easier than the other, then that's it, you just do.

I knew nothing whatever about image processing or any kind of digital photography when I started taking astrophotos but, back then, post processing really was an almost universally 'Photoshop activity.' Nearly all the available tutorials were for Ps, as were the bought-in actions.  I think the reason for the irresistible rise of Photoshop (which is now a commonly used verb in anglophone countries) derives from its user interface which is largely based on metaphors drawn from film photography and printing.  Unsharp masking, dodge and burn were darkroom techniques, layers come from printing, the eraser from draughtsmanship and so on. These metaphors clicked with me, intellectually, and made me feel at home - though a little overwhelmed at first. However, the consistency of the underlying logic was reassuring. Compare that with this randomly chosen bit of Pixinsight menu:

PI.JPG.7af498377b155e9a5c62c4558f41f5a9.JPG

What does this mean?  Continuity order of 2?  If you understand the mathematics behind image manipulation then fine, this will speak to you. But how many imagers are in this position? So to whom do the authors of this menu think they are talking? If they are well entrenched on the Asperger's continuum they won't care...

However, terms like opacity, feather, erase, select, minimize, maximize, etc etc, though used metaphorically to describe mathematical manipulations, make intuitive sense to me and create an analogue processing experience.

Olly

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scotty38 said:

@ollypenrice I'm a fully paid up member of the PI clan and will continue to be so just declaring which side I'm on but I reckon I could find a better example than that 🤣🤣🤣

🤣 We could make a film called Carry on Processing. Barbara Windsor minces in and Kenneth Williams says, Oooo, my spline's interpolating now and my continuity order's popped right off the scale. And don't mention my smoothing parameter!

Olly

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there's a "one size fits all" when it comes to astro processing software. They are all capable of producing good final images, otherwise they wouldn't last very long or have the following they do. I feel, it's down to the individual to find the software they are comfortable using, they understand what it's doing and allows them to produce results they are happy with. 

Like with most things in life, the more experience you gain, the better the results.

I started off using PS CS3, because I already had it and use it for normal photo processing, making website banners and, years ago, I messed around making things like these two with it:

1381615728_fireplanet2.jpg.3ce06a9ac1d7498f75979460eb367b5d.jpg   TWO.jpg.1e19be17d3ef3d6fd460c69b3e5a828b.jpg

When it came to astrophotography, my skills with PS didn't quite give me the results I was looking for, so I looked around for software designed for the job. Updating PS wasn't an option because I like to buy my software, not rent it, and that was the only option with PS.

I tried the free trial of PI and found the software worked for me, sure there's a lot too it, I'm still learning and won't ever use some of the facilities it has, but my final images are much better than I could get with PS. Once I'd figured out a basic workflow then I kept adding bits too it, and still continue to add things as I find out more.

I've tried other astro software, and still have some of them, but for one reason or another they just didn't "click" for me. Some didn't produce the results I could get with PS or PI and others felt too automated and didn't allow the manipulation I wanted. So I've stuck with what I know and what I'm happy using. :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I’ve tried nearly all of the favourites for AP processing. All are frustrating in some way but the one I’ve used most & pretty much on everything for last 10 years I guess now is PI. I really got off the ground with Harry Pages excellent tutorials. It did seem daunting but I think coming from a tech/computing background once I realised its “just a bunch of scripts” 🤣 things started to click. I probably still only use 10-20% of its capabilities & still get frustrated with processing.  I seem to get more enjoyment out of building the imaging platforms & the capture than inevitably overcooking the processing before I find a reasonable result I’m not embarrassed to post 😕

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.