BlurXTerminator - Wow!

[ollypenrice]

1 hour ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

A couple of related questions for those who use only Pixinsight for processing their images (or mostly PI anyway).

Regarding sharpening, do you think BlurXTerminator is all that is needed ? 
OR, might you still need further sharpening maybe at later, non-linear, stages that will still require one of the older processes previously used for this ?

Regarding noise reduction, do you think NoiseXTerminator is enough for this process?
OR, again do you think some of the other processes traditionally used for noise reduction offers something you cannot achieve with NoiseXT ?

I am not so experienced in AP, I also do not like to do too much in the way of noise reduction, I also have a pretty well behaved camera and to me I would answer yes to both of these questions but just wonder if I am missing something due to lack of experience. 
So, for me, NoiseXT seems to suffice and at least for the RGB side BlurXT seems all I need, maybe for a Luminance further processing to enhance the contrast is needed before adding to the RGB, that requires other processes ? 

For me I just would like to simplify my processing without missing an obvious step and some PI processes can get very tedious and complicated so using just these processes would be a Godsend for me.

Steve

I find that there is often room for further sharpening after BlurX, notably on galaxy cores. However, these details need far less sharpening and this is good because other methods increase noise and produce other side effects. They are also very fiddly if done carefully since different details need different scales and parameters in traditional packages. (I don't actually do my extra sharpening in PI but that doesn't alter my answer in any way.)

There is often room for further local contrast enhancement, too. This is, in effect, like a very large-scale sharpening process since normal sharpening also increases local contrasts but on a tiny scale. I find PI's Local Histogram Equalization excellent for this. I, ahem, sneak an LHE modded image into Photoshop to use it as a layer. Tell nobody! )

Noise Xt is now the only NR I use. It is also the only NR routine I have ever applied globally to an image because, frequently, it does no damage whatever to the brighter and more detailed parts. If I'm going to run a second iteration of it, as I sometimes do later in the processing, I'll do it as a Ps top layer and erase the bright parts to leave them unaffected. There will be an equivalent way in PI.

Olly

[teoria_del_big_bang]

20 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I find that there is often room for further sharpening after BlurX, notably on galaxy cores. However, these details need far less sharpening and this is good because other methods increase noise and produce other side effects. They are also very fiddly if done carefully since different details need different scales and parameters in traditional packages. (I don't actually do my extra sharpening in PI but that doesn't alter my answer in any way.)

Very good point.
Unfortunately, at moment I do very ittle in the way of galaxies due to not really having the correct setup for smallerr galaxies and also not having too much in the way of clear skies when less influence from the moonlight to use RGB but I can see that further tools will be necessary for this.

Steve

Edited December 28, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[geeklee]

2 hours ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Regarding sharpening, do you think BlurXTerminator is all that is needed ? 
OR, might you still need further sharpening maybe at later, non-linear, stages that will still require one of the older processes previously used for this ?

Regarding noise reduction, do you think NoiseXTerminator is enough for this process?
OR, again do you think some of the other processes traditionally used for noise reduction offers something you cannot achieve with NoiseXT ?

I agree with @ollypenrice's approach.

At the end of the day it'll depend on the data, but there can be scope for further, careful sharpening but you'll find quite quickly that the same amount you might have used previously is now too much.

It's likely just the data, but I have found some chrominance NR useful in one instance - this could be because I don't run NoiseX at its defaults.  It's still hard to accept NoiseXT can be run globally and it doesn't impact high signal areas...  I still triple check this is the case when running it.  Occasionally I'll still use a mask if run later.

LHE is a great tool and again still very much in play.

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by geeklee
More info added to chrominance NR bit.

[Magnum]

On 15/12/2022 at 18:42, ollypenrice said:

Has to be worth looking into. I do have Pixinsight but consider it a barbaric environment of tyrants fresh from the Spanish Inquisition. If you do something of which they disapprove (which I do all the time in Photoshop) there is a roar from the heavens of 'Die, heretic!'

lly

Brilliant 😛 spot on there Olly. 

[Magnum]

On 19/12/2022 at 13:01, ollypenrice said:

I would struggle to do without PI's ABE, DBE, SCNR green and now BlurXT. I also use LHE but as a layer in Photoshop!   That's all I use but I rate them as 100% essential.

Olly

its funny ive tried the pix insight trials about 10 times now but still cant make myself purchase it due to the hideous user interface and crazy workflows ( im sure it was designed by monkeys. 😛 ). or maybe im the Monkey 😛 

I still do all my stacking and pre processing in Maxim DL including Gradient removal, DBE and ABE in Maxim DL, though they are called flatten Background and auto flatten background & remove gradient. and in direct comparison still give as good of a result but are much simpler to use in my opinion. Then do all the final processing in Photoshop + Noels & Annies actions plus Starnet++V2.

I wouldnt mind trying this new BlurX but shame it's only available as a Pix insight plugin. 250 for pix insight plus 80 for the plugin sounds a huge amount to me just to sharpen. 

I will look through this whole thread and decide if I want to lay out that much as a late Christmas present to myself, but will probably decide id rather buy a new Scope or camera, as I always have trouble spending money on new software compared to new hardware 😛 

Lee

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Magnum

[scotty38]

Each to their own whether they like PI or not but I've never quite understood the resistance to its cost. Given processing could be argued to be 50% of the game it's not a lot compared with the acquisition side 🙂

Yes I know you can get cheaper/free but you get my point

[geeklee]

8 minutes ago, Magnum said:

its funny ive tried the pix insight trials about 10 times now but still cant make myself purchase it due to the hideous user interface and crazy workflows ( im sure it was designed by monkeys. 😛 ).

It's funny I find PixInsight intuitive, it's user interface clean and clear.  I also find the workflows normal and not in anyway crazy.    

There are maybe a few elements at play (1) prior knowledge and experience of existing software and (2) linked to 1, but how your brain approaches image processing (3) adaption to new software. A fourth too, for some - confirmation bias  

When people talk about PixInsight they usually never include a backhanded (or otherwise!) comment about other software, not so true the other way round I find...

[teoria_del_big_bang]

21 minutes ago, Magnum said:

its funny ive tried the pix insight trials about 10 times now but still cant make myself purchase it due to the hideous user interface and crazy workflows ( im sure it was designed by monkeys. 😛 ).

I don't want this great thread to end up a PI V PS thread, and I really do understand why some people struggle addapting to PI, especially when so used to other software such as Photoshop, the two are very much chalk and cheese, but certainly for myself who never came from a PS background the PI way of thinking actually just felt very natural and the right way to do things.
I have an older copy of PS and trued man times to get to grips with that and for me I just cannot get into PS, that to me just feels really alien, but to say something has been designed by monkeys I do feel is really unfair and hints that the many that do use PI as their main procesing software are also monkeys.

However, Ollys comments about the creators of PI does strike a chord with me as somewhile back they made it very difficult to use some 3rd party software, one which I used religiously called NSG script. After an update of PI this script dissappeared and it was a long workaround to get it working again. That incident caused a lot of upset and despite loving PI I made attempts to get back into PS as I hated that pholospophy, thankfully they seemed eventually to relent and now all the old scripts are still easily incorporated into PI.

So I think PI will always be the Marmite of processing software but I am sure we can all live side by side without these kinds of insults, thats not really what this great forun is about.

Steve

Edited December 28, 2022 by teoria_del_big_bang

[ollypenrice]

16 minutes ago, Magnum said:

its funny ive tried the pix insight trials about 10 times now but still cant make myself purchase it due to the hideous user interface and crazy workflows ( im sure it was designed by monkeys. 😛 ).

I still do all my stacking and pre processing in Maxim DL including Gradient removal, DBE and ABE in Maxim DL, though they are called flatten Background and auto flatten background remove gradient. and in direct comparison still give as good of a result but are much simpler to use in my opinion. Then do all the final processing in Photoshop + Noels & Annies actions plus Starnet++V2.

I wouldnt mind trying this new BlurX but shame it's only available as a Pix insight plugin. 250 for pix insight plus 80 for the plugin sounds a huge amount to me just to sharpen. 

I will look through this whole thread and decide if I want to lay out that much as a late Christmas present to myself, but will probably decide id rather buy a new Scope or camera, as I always have trouble spending money on new software compared to new hardware 😛 

Lee

 

Since you won't be able to try BlurXT without PI, feel free to Dropbox me a linear stack and I'll run it through my copy and send you the results back.

Olly

[Magnum]

11 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Since you won't be able to try BlurXT without PI, feel free to Dropbox me a linear stack and I'll run it through my copy and send you the results back.

Olly

Thanks Olly but I will probably download another trial as need to see it in action, have to keep making dummy email addresses and postcodes 😛 I know im naughty but I never seem to get the time to make use of the 30 day trials, probably only used it 1 day out of each 30 day trial, so now after 10 trials ive used it 10 days, so in my logic im still entitled to 20 more out of the 30. I must admit my logic probably doesnt agree with the Pixinsight terms and conditions but hay ho. 😛 

Lee

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Magnum

[Magnum]

9 minutes ago, scotty38 said:

Each to their own whether they like PI or not but I've never quite understood the resistance to its cost. Given processing could be argued to be 50% of the game it's not a lot compared with the acquisition side 🙂

Yes I know you can get cheaper/free but you get my point

the resistance to cost is, im cheap 😛 

[Adreneline]

I'm really not sure @ollypenrice and @Magnum that that all these insinuations and name calling are helpful, and I speak as someone who has been banned from the PI forum for comparing one script within PI with APP. I am disappointed, but not surprised, a Moderator has not stepped in and made comment. You may be employing the use of emojis to imply jokes but the jokes are in poor taste.

As for cost comparisons in my case PI represents less that 5% of my total outlay and in my opinion that small cost has been recouped many times over.

This is a hobby and as such to be enjoyed because it enriches our lives. If you cannot rise above the differences and use PI, PS or whatever you care for to your own benefit and hence the benefit of all without resorting to name calling and insults then perhaps you should find another hobby.

Keep this thread on the subject of BlurX and not a debate about PI vs. PS.

Adrian

[Magnum]

50 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

I'm really not sure @ollypenrice and @Magnum that that all these insinuations and name calling are helpful, and I speak as someone who has been banned from the PI forum for comparing one script within PI with APP. I am disappointed, but not surprised, a Moderator has not stepped in and made comment. You may be employing the use of emojis to imply jokes but the jokes are in poor taste.

As for cost comparisons in my case PI represents less that 5% of my total outlay and in my opinion that small cost has been recouped many times over.

This is a hobby and as such to be enjoyed because it enriches our lives. If you cannot rise above the differences and use PI, PS or whatever you care for to your own benefit and hence the benefit of all without resorting to name calling and insults then perhaps you should find another hobby.

Keep this thread on the subject of BlurX and not a debate about PI vs. PS.

Adrian

woooh bit surprised  by this comment, as I haven't name called anyone, and have resisted getting into a Pix Insight vs PS debate. Only  reasons I mentioned Pix insight is BlurX can only be used within Pix insight so it's not possible to not mention one without the other. I have no hate for a piece of software, I just find it unintuitive to use compared to any other software. Also several other people in this thread had already said they cant get on with it so not sure why you have only singled out Myself and Olly ?

I use emojis to make it clear im party jesting and to avoid offending anyone, and they didn't seem in poor taste to me as I was only making fun of myself being cheap? so am baffled why me making fun of myself would offend you ?

Im currently reading through the thread with interest. no need to moderate as I cant see anything bad has been said, and all threads go off topic to some degree with all best intentions, thats why I didn't go into any detail or explanation of why I dont use Pix, as I didn't want to  hijack the thread, now Ive had to slightly to defend myself LOL. 

Back to Blur X the results do look impressive, I will try and have a play with it and post comparisons if I can get myself a new trial of Pix 🙂 

Friendly regards

Lee

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Magnum

[teoria_del_big_bang]

7 minutes ago, Magnum said:

Back to Blur X

Agree 🙂 

[Adreneline]

22 minutes ago, Magnum said:

woooh bit surprised  by this comment, as I haven't name called anyone

I'm afraid that "designed by monkeys" and "... PixInsight ... a barbaric environment of tyrants fresh from the Spanish Inquisition" don't amount to compliments in my book.

18 minutes ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

Agree 🙂 

I have now used BlurX on a number of my images and have been impressed by the early results, all the more so since using PSFImage (a PI script) to obtain a value for the PSF.

As with all these processes and scripts it is taking care to ensure you are not taking more from the data/hardware combination than it has to give.

Adrian

[geeklee]

5 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

As with all these processes and scripts it is taking care to ensure you are not taking more from the data/hardware combination than it has to give.

Yep, the "squiggly wigglies" are turning up in plenty of images since the release of BlurXT 🤣

[Stuart1971]

1 hour ago, Magnum said:

its funny ive tried the pix insight trials about 10 times now but still cant make myself purchase it due to the hideous user interface and crazy workflows ( im sure it was designed by monkeys. 😛 ). or maybe im the Monkey 😛 

I still do all my stacking and pre processing in Maxim DL including Gradient removal, DBE and ABE in Maxim DL, though they are called flatten Background and auto flatten background & remove gradient. and in direct comparison still give as good of a result but are much simpler to use in my opinion. Then do all the final processing in Photoshop + Noels & Annies actions plus Starnet++V2.

I wouldnt mind trying this new BlurX but shame it's only available as a Pix insight plugin. 250 for pix insight plus 80 for the plugin sounds a huge amount to me just to sharpen. 

I will look through this whole thread and decide if I want to lay out that much as a late Christmas present to myself, but will probably decide id rather buy a new Scope or camera, as I always have trouble spending money on new software compared to new hardware 😛 

Lee

 

You are probably correct, you may well be the monkey….😉

[teoria_del_big_bang]

1 minute ago, geeklee said:

Yep, the "squiggly wigglies" are turning up in plenty of images since the release of BlurXT 🤣

I think Olly commented on this early in the thread and yes like any sort of deconvolution, or sharpening, you have to be careful how far to take it, like any process when artefacts appear then pull it back a bit and do not be tempted to push it.
But it also has been commented that this process seems to get at least the same results with far less effort and in many instances better results before causing any artefacts.
I find that the fact far less effor is required makes it so easy to have several attempts so you can see its gone too far and get a good result without adding stuff.

Steve

[Magnum]

2 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

I'm afraid that "designed by monkeys" and "... PixInsight ... a barbaric environment of tyrants fresh from the Spanish Inquisition" don't amount to compliments in my book.

Adrian

I dont think software has feelings yet, maybe in the 24th century when they invent Data's emotion chip 😛 , but seriously when you said name calling I thought you meant id made fun of a specific person which I wouldn't do, didn't occur anyone would be upset by making a joke about some code or its creators whoever they may be.

Back to BlurX im watching Adams video and its very interesting.

Lee

[Magnum]

21 minutes ago, Stuart1971 said:

You are probably correct, you may well be the monkey….😉

Thats ok I like Monkeys 🙉

Edited December 28, 2022 by Magnum

[geeklee]

2 minutes ago, teoria_del_big_bang said:

But it also has been commented that this process seems to get at least the same results with far less effort and in many instances better results before causing any artefacts.
I find that the fact far less effor is required makes it so easy to have several attempts so you can see its gone too far and get a good result without adding stuff

Absolutely Steve and hopefully I didn't come off as knocking the tool - I've been impressed myself so far (and used it in an image published in the Deep Sky section here).

As you and Adrian both say, like all processes care is needed. That level of care varies for everyone I think!

Edited December 28, 2022 by geeklee

[Magnum]

Watching Adams very interesting video and noticed something

In the pillars of creation example im a little worried the the Bok Globules appear to actually grow from very little original data rather than just sharpen, though in a kind of cool way.

Ive dabbled with Topaz DenoiseAI and that can really create false details, I find I have to run it several times in each mode then apply them selectively in layers and avoid anything that looks additive. BlurX seems much better in this regard but I would still have to keep comparing to other images to satisfy myself that nothing has been added.

Lee

[Stuart1971]

1 minute ago, Magnum said:

Thats ok I like Monkeys

Anybody that can’t get there head around PI should get another hobby, as the rest is much harder….IMHO…

[teoria_del_big_bang]

1 minute ago, Magnum said:

Watching Adams very interesting video and noticed something

In the pillars of creation example im a little worried the the Bok Globules appear to actually grow from very little original data rather than just sharpen, though in a kind of cool way.

Ive dabbled with Topaz DenoiseAI and that can really create false details, I find I have to run it several times in each mode then apply them selectively in layers and avoid anything that looks additive. BlurX seems much better in this regard but I would still have to keep comparing to other images to satisfy myself that nothing has been added.

Lee

I too never really liked Topaz Denoise for the same reason and agree that with this software you can create things that are not there as my post a few above, I think that whatever software we use for sharpening it has to be used with care and be true to your images and back it off a bit when things like this happen.
Of course they are your own images and you can create what you want but despite our contretemps above most of us agree to be true to our collected data 🙂 

And please may the debate continue

Steve

[Magnum]

1 minute ago, Stuart1971 said:

Anybody that can’t get there head around PI should get another hobby, as the rest is much harder….IMHO…

wow! I wont bite that one except to say its a bit late to find another hobby as ive only been doing Astrophotography for 30 years LOL.