OK.... I get it!

[Spad]

Pixinsight....

I have the trial version, and I've been fiddling with it over the past few days.

Wow!

It is just head and shoulders above everything else I have abused! All I need to do now is somehow scrape together 270 odd quid to get it. I wish they did subscription. I am on a low income.... it would help massively.

The attached images are a comparison. First one is done with Siril, Photoshop, and TopazAI. The second with Pixinsight, Photoshop, and TopazAI.

 

 

Edited September 10 by Spad
because I cannot bloody type!

[StevieDvd]

Sorry for the possible hit on your finances but wait till you've tried BlurXTerminator, NoiseXTerminator & StarXTerminator (trial versions available).

Some of these are available for Photoshop so you could try these with images first processed via Siril - which if acceptable could be a cheaper option.

[happy-kat]

Did you try the trial version of StarTools as well

[Spad]

5 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

Did you try the trial version of StarTools as well

Yes....

I couldn't get on with it for some reason.

7 minutes ago, StevieDvd said:

Sorry for the possible hit on your finances but wait till you've tried BlurXTerminator, NoiseXTerminator & StarXTerminator (trial versions available).

Some of these are available for Photoshop so you could try these with images first processed via Siril - which if acceptable could be a cheaper option.

To be honest... the stretched unprocessed images from Pixinsight are far superior to those done by Siril. So working from that baseline.... Pixinsight is the path for me.

[DaveS]

I was about to post that the RC-Astro tools alone make PI worth the money, They are what pushed me into buying a licence, I had been a long time PI refusenik.

[Spad]

18 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I was about to post

Errrrr.... you DID post!!! 🤣

[vlaiv]

1 hour ago, Spad said:

First one is done with Siril, Photoshop, and TopazAI. The second with Pixinsight, Photoshop, and TopazAI.

I'm not sure I get it?

Only difference in your workflow that I see is Siril vs Pixinsight, and presumably you used both just for stacking, but images are processed very differently?

[Spad]

33 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I'm not sure I get it?

Only difference in your workflow that I see is Siril vs Pixinsight, and presumably you used both just for stacking, but images are processed very differently?

This is why....

1 hour ago, Spad said:

To be honest... the stretched unprocessed images from Pixinsight are far superior to those done by Siril. So working from that baseline.... Pixinsight is the path for me.

 

Edited September 10 by Spad

[vlaiv]

5 minutes ago, Spad said:

This is why....

In my experience, different stacking algorithms produce only very slight differences in quality of the output data.

That is why I asked.

[Spad]

Righto 😀

[vlaiv]

Just now, Spad said:

Righto 😀

If you really want to be certain that it is not just different processing - there is something that you can do to actually test how much better PI data really is.

It does involve a bit of "fiddling" with the data - but nothing that can't be done relatively easily with software in short amount of time.

Take two stacks - one in PI and one in Siril - with important bit being that you stack both stacks against the same reference frame and you use methods that will produce same output range. Then you simply take one half from PI and another from Siril and from "split screen" with linear data. Then you have only one image to process - so whatever you do to that one image will be done to both stacks the same. No chance of processing slightly differently and any difference between stacks will be obvious.

If you wish to rerun experiment like that but can't be bothered to create split screen - just post linear data from both Siril and PI (just make sure you register stack against the same sub so they have the same size and position of stars) and I'd be happy to do that for you.

[Elp]

They're only tools, its how you use them that counts (the RC tools however are something else).

Using the same software twice to post process the same data, you'll likely get different results if you process them separately without referencing the first.

[Clarkey]

16 minutes ago, Elp said:

Using the same software twice to post process the same data, you'll likely get different results if you process them separately without referencing the first.

Very true. I couldn't get the same result twice if I tried!

Having said this, I used Astro Pixel Processor and Affinity for a long time then eventually moved to PI as I found my results were much better. However, I feel this is probably more to do with operator incompetence than software🤣

[Elp]

Also as daft as it sounds processing in the dark helps a lot. A good tech panel screen also makes a massive difference, as well as the colour calibration of it.

 

[Adreneline]

The outlay on PI represents just over 5% of my outlay on Astro gear over the past eight years. There is no ongoing cost, no charge for updates/version changes, etc.

The learning curve is steep/different but the learning curve for AP in general is steep if you are going to do it properly.

The devil is in the detail and the detail requires commitment to the hobby, not necessarily spending more money, and that is the same for every hobby.

For me the return on that 5% investment in PI has helped to justify the other 95% spent in terms of extracting maximum value from my hard earned data.

Whether you chose to use AI plugins is entirely your choice; with or without them PI will still deliver on your data.

PI is your lifeline to AP on cloudy nights. 😊

Edited September 10 by Adreneline
typo

[TiffsAndAstro]

7 minutes ago, Elp said:

Also as daft as it sounds processing in the dark helps a lot. A good tech panel screen also makes a massive difference, as well as the colour calibration of it.

 

most people just turn up brightness on their display and don't realise how it (might) affect the colour it displays. some pre calibrated monitors are getting reasonably priced these days though.

[Elp]

5 minutes ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

most people just turn up brightness on their display and don't realise how it (might) affect the colour it displays. some pre calibrated monitors are getting reasonably priced these days though.

Doing so is a sure fire way to skew your contrast levels and isn't wise, for work which is mostly black in the background. Technology has come on leaps and bounds in the past two decades, I'd still steer away from LCD panels though IPS are good, OLED can provide excellent colour depth and contrast with the right type of monitors (next to none are properly calibrated in a shop when on display especially TVs).

[ANTARES1_1]

Good image👍👍👍

Edited September 10 by ANTARES1_1

[TiffsAndAstro]

6 minutes ago, Elp said:

Doing so is a sure fire way to skew your contrast levels and isn't wise, for work which is mostly black in the background. Technology has come on leaps and bounds in the past two decades, I'd still steer away from LCD panels though IPS are good, OLED can provide excellent colour depth and contrast with the right type of monitors (next to none are properly calibrated in a shop when on display especially TVs).

most decent oled monitors on sale i think are factory calibrated. i don't have one of those   but as you say most flat panels are a lot better than they used to be.

i remember (at work mid 1990s) having 20" sony crt monitors delivered with a wooden pallet in the base of their delivery box lol

[StevieDvd]

1 hour ago, Spad said:

This is why....

 

Up front, I use PixInsight and the RC Plugins so perhaps I have a slight bias but:

You say "To be honest... the stretched unprocessed images from PixInsight are far superior to those done by Siril."  which might be a bit mis-leading.  The stretching would be part of the processing, and in both Siril & PixInsight there are several ways/tools to do this - from auto to curves/histograms with different settings. 

So as @vlaiv mentions just the stacking is unlikely to yield such different images.

I used to stack in Siril and finish in PixInsight after trialling the RC Tools and buying them. Only later did I find the way to use the stretching tools in Siril to achieve a better result than I had ever managed to achieve in Siril earlier.

It would be interesting to see the images straight out of Siril/PixInsight before they are post-processed and how they were stretched.

 

[TiffsAndAstro]

4 minutes ago, StevieDvd said:

Up front, I use PixInsight and the RC Plugins so perhaps I have a slight bias but:

You say "To be honest... the stretched unprocessed images from PixInsight are far superior to those done by Siril."  which might be a bit mis-leading.  The stretching would be part of the processing, and in both Siril & PixInsight there are several ways/tools to do this - from auto to curves/histograms with different settings. 

So as @vlaiv mentions just the stacking is unlikely to yield such different images.

I used to stack in Siril and finish in PixInsight after trialling the RC Tools and buying them. Only later did I find the way to use the stretching tools in Siril to achieve a better result than I had ever managed to achieve in Siril earlier.

It would be interesting to see the images straight out of Siril/PixInsight before they are post-processed and how they were stretched.

 

i think biggest difference would be what stacking settings used by default, whfm, no. stars, background etc.

i did a test a while back and (at least at my skill level) couldn't tell much if any difference

[StevieDvd]

23 minutes ago, TiffsAndAstro said:

i think biggest difference would be what stacking settings used by default, whfm, no. stars, background etc.

i did a test a while back and (at least at my skill level) couldn't tell much if any difference

I think both Siril and PixInsight on defaults produce a similar post stacked result so would not be the cause of 'the biggest difference'.

 

[TiffsAndAstro]

25 minutes ago, StevieDvd said:

I think both Siril and PixInsight on defaults produce a similar post stacked result so would not be the cause of 'the biggest difference'.

 

I'd be shocked if siril script stacking settings were same as pi but never used pi....

[happy-kat]

Free donation based doesn't mean poor, can be just different. Try the different software and go with what works for you and you enjoy using it and the images you produce

[Spad]

Oooooh Think I need to clarify this.... my choice of words is lacking...

I meant the over all stacked, stretched, colour calibrated... etc etc etc... before I move to Photoshop to post process the image.

For me personally,I just prefer the interface, as well as the outcome over Siril.

Once I have Pixinsight, i will look at all the add ons.

My profession was photography, and as a result of that all my monitors are calibrated. This is due to me working with a large amount prints. Before that the prints could come out in all kinds of weird hues! 🤣

Jumping to astrophotography is a big learning curve. Some of it transfers.... but not all. I'm still learning new stuff and terminology!
😀

 

Edited September 10 by Spad
Can't type on a damn phone!