M31 core - HDR wavelet transformed +M33+M13

[Tim]

I was surprised to see so much hidden detail in the central core area, especially in these 10 minute subs. Pixinsights HDR wavelet tool at work again.

Also on M33 and M13. I have a Ha Lagoon Nebula image somewhere and that was transformed too, cant find it atm.

For easiness (read: Tim had too much Sloe Gin on holiday to remember where the original tiffs were saved) I just used the tool on the 1024x768 jpeg versions. I would imagine that used on a higher res/bit image the effect would be enhanced further still.

Using Pixinsight still feels a bit like trying to write lefthanded, but with practice it is getting easier. There are some really powerful routines for it that I havent touched yet, looking forward to those, especially the HDR composition script.

Cheers

TJ

[room16]

Have to say it, those are absolutely rammed with detail mate very nice indeed.

[harry page]

Can I claim a new pixinsight disciple

Harry

[beamish]

Jeez !!!

well that worked !!

[Tim]

Can I claim a new pixinsight disciple

Harry

I dont have to wear sandals, do I?

[harry page]

Only if thay are opened toes

Harry

[MartinB]

Very nice Tim but I have to admit that what I'm thinking is... does this PixInsight HDR wavelets thing do anything that other software can't do? ImagesPlus also has some great tools for doing just the same. In fact I would expect any astro-processing software worth it's salt to have tools to pick out detail in dust lanes and the like. PS does it brilliantly using layers, overlay and the high pass filter but obviously costs.

So, as a non PixInsight user am I missing out? Maybe we could put PixInsight head to head with ImagesPlus, PS and other processing software. Are these tools included in the free addition or do you have to pay?

[Tim]

The main thing about PI Martin, is that it is written for astrophotography, by astrophotographers. It brings together into one place the relevant tools, without need to install bolt ons, or pay for actions etc, things like the HDR wavelets, GreyC, Dark Structure enhance, deconvulve, stacking and registering, and of course, the dynamic background extraction tool, which has no serious rival for gradient and vignetting reduction, gradient exterminator is good, but not as good. Also, nearly all tools have multiple settings, so that you can be sure that you are getting the very best result possible, not just the compromise decided upon by other apps. I cant speak for Images Plus, never used or tried it.

Cost wise it is a fraction of PS. It is regularly updated, and as I understand it, all future upgrades are free. Essentially I get the feeling that it is a labour of love and one of these open source programming type things (usually the best apps!)

The real point is, the more people who use it, and the greater the knowledge/skill base, the better PI will become. Eventually I would hope it can become a one stop shop for processing, reducing the time taken to drag the finery out of the hard won data, as most of us seem to use several applications in conjunction, jumping through hoops to do the stacking, deconvulving, noise reduction etc. PI will also work with 32 bit FP files, from start to finish, which can save time mucking about getting the format right for things like CCD Sharp etc.

Hmmm, starting to sound like i'm on commission You can try PI for free for 30 days anyway, but if you do, watch all Harry's video tutorials first, and read a couple of the online tutorials, and start the trial when you have a bit of spare time. My time trial slipped by and I hardly used it, but they were decent enough to extend the trial by another 30 days when I explained.

Im still waiting for the software that you will be able to open, point it at the folder where the pics are, and just click and it does everything, churning out the finest of images with little or no user input

Cheers

Tim

[roundycat]

I'm with the old school, in the dinosaur class. I use Maxim for pre processing and PS for post processing and that's it. I often get the impression that some of this s/w is producing artefacts that look real but may not be. I like Martin's suggestion of a head to head with different software. Would it be possible for you to post or send a cut down 16 bit TIFF (10MB will do just fine) for others to have a go at using their favourite routines?

Dennis

[adamsp123]

Nice results TJ, making me think about getting a copy but I will try the trial version first.

Just hope I can get some decent data to use with it as the last few months have been very frustating for me with virtually no results to show.

[Tim]

I'm with the old school, in the dinosaur class. I use Maxim for pre processing and PS for post processing and that's it. I often get the impression that some of this s/w is producing artefacts that look real but may not be. I like Martin's suggestion of a head to head with different software. Would it be possible for you to post or send a cut down 16 bit TIFF (10MB will do just fine) for others to have a go at using their favourite routines?

Dennis

There are many ways to skin a cat, but I bet there is one way which is easier/better/faster. I'm hoping to get out of dinosaur class, but it is difficult to adjust to a different workflow.

The head to head is a great idea. Would need some thinking about to make the stakes fair, and in fact, if done properly, would make for a great magazine article. I'd want Harry or somebody who knows their way around PI to do the PI process, same for images plus, and photoshop. Be great to see it done in real time side by side at a star party or something. A great test would be on a HDR image with several exposure lengths to combine, M42 being a prime candidate.

I suppose ideally a variety of subjects would be good, I havent tried it, but PI is supposed to be good on lunar photos too.

The critical things are:

a) time involved to do the process - as time is our most precious commodity

end result

c) cost

any more?

The point about the artifacts is very valid, however these are easily checked against HST etc pics. And lets not forget that the Hubble pics are also doctored to suit, I believe that is how the deconvulve tools were born in the first place. Although I am always careful not to add stars or take them away wherever possible, its more about the artistic impression than the scientific accuracy for me.

Cheers

Tim

[roundycat]

Tim, the issues I was thinking of relate solely to the enhancement of dust lanes as this will also map onto nebula shock wave enhancement as well. Your M31 above showed some very fine dust detail, I would like to see a PS result of that to compare.

For a proper comparison a level playing field is essential but for a quick look-see a single crop of, say, M31 would suffice.

I'm not sure that time is critical. I can process one of my pics in PS in minutes as I know my routine. The thing that takes a long time is constantly assessing what you have done and maybe going back to redo it if an improvement is on the cards. Neat Image takes me about 20 seconds unless I am being super critical about every corner of the image when it can take much longer. Not because of the process complexity but because I can't make up my mind.

As regards cost, PS is outrageous but if you use it professionally or semi professionally, use it a lot and have been using it for years it is not so bad. For astro I have doubts that anything later than PS CS is needed, people upgrade just because someone else did and then moan about the cost. I heard of someone getting PS from e Bay and paying about £100 for a fully authentic version.

I hear of people using one app to capture data from the camera, another to guide, another to control the mount, one for stacking and so on. Maxim is expensive but it does all of that and if running by itself there is nothing else for it to clash with, something that seems quite common with the freebie software.

That's why I use just the two but I try to keep an open mind and if something really blows me away then I might invest. I would want to see a lot better quality of proof than is generally the case on the UK forums but a side-by-side working of a picture taken under muddy UK skies would be a good start.

Dennis

[peter shah]

all great shots but i really like 31:cool:

[MartinB]

The trial sounds good with the help of video tutorials. The problem for me is that I have spent the last 4 years on a steep processing learing curve. I've worked through countless aritcles and video tutorials on PS, Maxim, CCDstack and ImagesPlus.

ImagesPlus is astro specific and includes DSLR capture, combining and stacking along with very powerful and advanced processing tools - very good point spread functions, deconvolution colour combine and avi tools. The mask tools are very good but the fact is I rarely use ImagesPlus now since the killer feature of PS for me is the powerful layers facility. Layers and masks give so much control over global processing stages that I just caren't bare to be without them!

If PI can do the same but at a lower cost then that sounds great. Given that I already have PS cost doesn't come into it but I would be interested in the tiral. The trouble is 4 weeks isn't a long time compared with the 4 years I've had to get to grips with PS.

The thing that amazes me with all these programmes is their creativity in coming up with mumbo jumbo terms for their processes. The all seem to like their own unique set of terms just to confuse us.

[harry page]

Hi

Tim seems to putting up a good defense of Pixinsight ( saves me a job )

I will start of by saying , i am sure that most things that pixinsight can do can be done by in photoshop , but for me who did not learn photoshop I find pixinsight easier to use.

I personally do not find all the tricks in photoshop easy and take a lot of learning and I do think because people have got used to photoshop , forget that it is very complicated ( and probably therefore powerful )

Things that I would find very difficult to do in photoshop are things like hdr wavelets and do not think there is anything else like it

If you look at this image of M42 I did last year

http://www.harrysastroshed.com/Image%20html/m422009.html

It is a stack of 5 min subs only and I could not have personally done this in photoshop .

As for cost I use AA4 and Pixinsight , a cost of 330 Euros which does 99 % of what I want Bargain

Photoshop does cost a lot more but this tends to get forgot about as I live in the real world and wonder how many legit copies are being used plus add in cost of all the plug ins and in theory A huge amount of money

I am more than willing to do a video / review of say processing a image , but as we all have our favorite package I think the only way you get a feel for things is to try for your self

regards Harry

[Herakles]

Great imagery there Tim .

Sounds a real neat idea . Can I be a pain and throw into the mix . Astro Art4 ( or 3 ) I have it but as yet , due to the ''quirkyness'' of the QHY system , not used it in anger. I know at least one other member on SGL has it and uses it .

[Tim]

When I get time I will start an appropriate thread, make the data available, and then as many as feel inclined can run their favourite work flo on it, and post the result under the same thread. Of course, a lot will come down to individual knowledge of the app being used. Like you Martin, I use PS layers for everything, literally hundreds of times per image, hence the discussion with Harry elsewhere on the forum!

Dennis, I should probably point out that the images above were all processed to the "normal" limit in PS anyway, I then ran the jpeg(!) through PI to see if it had anything else to offer.

The core of M31 and perhaps M42 would seem a reasonable place for the comparison, i'll sort out some data that should give reasonable SNR and range.

Tim

[Stephen Green]

Incredible detail Tim great images

Stephen

[harry page]

Hi

have been using AA4 for a couple of years now with my sx cameras and like it for the fairley easy to use interface and reliability:hello2:

Is it that you have a problem with the QHY / AA4 package or just not quite sure what to do?

Harry

[assouptro]

Great images Tim!!

I wouldn't recommend the open toe option at the moment.

I would love for there to be a "show down" but as has been mentioned before it often comes down to the person using the tools, not the tools themselves.

I am trying to get to grips with pixinsight myself and although I can see its potential as a processing all rounder, The 30 days probably wont be enough for me to truly realize its value.

I have to thank Harry for his help with pixinsight and hope to endorse the product by producing something that PS cannot.

Bryan.

[harry page]

We aim to please

Harry

[lulu57]

Mmmmmm....love your M13 (the imaginary motorway...)