Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

PixInsight - a rant!

ollypenrice

By ollypenrice
in Imaging - Discussion

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply
starstalker

starstalker

Posted
Posted

dont know if u see this in the FAQS: "We don't have a written user manual. Given the complexity and extension of PixInsight, a manual to document all the tools available would be more like a course book on image processing algorithms and techniques. There are many and excellent books on these subjects; all of them much better than anything we could write. More importantly, we believe that such a huge and complex manual would be mostly useless to our users.

Instead of a written manual, we have processing examples and tutorials. Currently our strongest bet is in producing video tutorials as the best learning resources on our software."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
  • Author
Posted
dont know if u see this in the FAQS: "We don't have a written user manual. Given the complexity and extension of PixInsight, a manual to document all the tools available would be more like a course book on image processing algorithms and techniques. There are many and excellent books on these subjects; all of them much better than anything we could write. More importantly, we believe that such a huge and complex manual would be mostly useless to our users.

Instead of a written manual, we have processing examples and tutorials. Currently our strongest bet is in producing video tutorials as the best learning resources on our software."

Hi,

Yes I have indeed read that and consider it a shameless cop-out and arrant nonesense! It would be perfectly possible to have a system where clicking on a button on the PI screen gave at least an explanation of the function. Plus a simple workflow to get you started. We don't need the maths, we don't need the detail, we just need the writers to stand back and put themselves in the position of a first time user.

AstroArt has a manual. Photoshop has a manual. Come on, it just needs doing.

I should have said on my original post that Harry's tutorials are a Godsend, yes, and thanks Harry. But the software writers should accept their responsibilities in my view.

Make no mistake, I think the programme looks great. That is not the issue. This is part of a curious inarticulateness that pervades the world of IT and is 'a bad thing.' (Good old phrase!)

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveL

SteveL

Posted
Posted

The lack of proper documentation is the one thing that prevents me from using PixInsight for everything I do. I have a workflow that works, but would love to see if PI could do some more of it better than the current system, but I just dont have the time to dig around the net or forums to find the info (apart from Harry's stuff), when I really should be able to open a PDF of CHM file to see a basic overveiw of what I need to be doing. Even the "mouse over" tips on various options dont mean much unless you coded the thing in the first place... tips like "larger values makes things smaller" would be great for end users, so we dont have to under stand the inner complexties of the plugins/code... we just want to use it!

Saying that, when I get to use a particular part of PI for long enough, it is very very powerful. The lack ofr documentation is by far the biggest and probably the only failing of PixInsight, and I wish they would see this more clearly. If they want to sell more loicenses, they need to make it easier for the total-PI-Virgin to load it and use it. I doubt it will happen, which is a shame... its a powerful but scary program that could be easily tamed by usable documentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blinky

blinky

Posted
Posted

Yep, have to agree 100% with what has been said here. Photoshop is just about as powerfull as PI in it's own way and they have a manual. I would love to buy and use PI but I have not the time to spend trying to figure out how to work it when I can nip into PS and acomplish most of what PI does in a few mins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Euan

Euan

Posted
Posted

I've started abandoning flats as I've found PixInsight's Auto-Background Extraction actually works better

Watch the video on Star Alignment and Mosaic building, it's seriously good

If you can stick with it and gradually start to learn it, it's well worth it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PortableAstronomer

PortableAstronomer

Posted
Posted

Interesting thread on CN about this:

Telescope Reviews: Would PixInsight compliment or replace Photoshop?

The people there had a similar concensus.

For my ten cents as a PI user, is that PixInsight's menu system definately takes some getting used to. Why they didn't make it look like a Windows application is probably to not offend the Mac & Linux users, but I'm convinced a lot of Windows users would be put off by the layout of the program.

Yes there should be an official guide which explains the basic workflow and context-tips such as "increasing this number does xxxx" etc...

Reasons for myself ditching PS and going for PI were

a) the Dynamic Background Extraction is good enough for me to discard flats, and is an absolute must for the sort of Light Pollution that I have to contend with

:) Built-in stacking, rejection algorithms as found in Maxim, & FITS handling

c) Unlike PS which has a future development pipeline that is geared towards terrestrial photography, PixInsight is continually evolving to trends & techniques that are AP-specific. .

but of course you could argue the other way that PS serves you well for your terrestrial photography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
harry page

harry page

Posted
Posted

Hi

The documentation has been a topic which has been raised and I am not here to defend the lack of it :icon_eek: as there should be some :(

As said there is mr RBA reference guide and I have started a online user guide ( not finished )http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixuser/pixuserhome.html as well as my video's http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixinsighthome.html

Also Juan ( mr pixinsight ) is now working on this and it will be forthcoming shortly , but here is my opinion on this matter even though photoshop has a manual how many people have read it :) I bet 95% have not they have learnt by trial and error, or by advice, books or tutorials.

Please show me the page in the photoshop manual showing you how to process a astrophoto :p.

A lot of people have invested a lot of time in photoshop and perhaps forget that it is not a simple package to use , so please do not think you can master PI in a hour , but with a little effort ( and perhaps my video,s :D) you can be using pi productively very quickly banishing those gradients forever.

As always I am not slating photoshop is this is for you great , but for me it does not cut the mustard:headbang:

Pi is a fast moving packge with new tools being added every few weeks ( no extra charge ) and Juan does fail in with keeping up with himself.

I have had the same charge made against PI many times in the old USA , but many of them are now pi users :(

If I can be of help please ask :)

Regards Harry

BTW I have no interest in PI other than being someone who likes to help

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blinky

blinky

Posted
Posted

Well I just had a (very) quick look at the documentation........ Here is the primary reason why I will be sticking with Photoshop for the time being. I have no doubt that PI is better but it's simply too complex for my tiny brain, an example........

Automatic Background (remember the word AUTOMATIC)

As its name says, ABE does its work in a completely automatic fashion: you provide a source image, a number of parameters controlling ABE's behavior, and you get another image with the generated background model.

Now, how many options do you think the AUTOMATIC background extraction has? 1, maybe 2, 3 or 4..... Nope 22! 22 options for an automatic tool??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Euan

Euan

Posted
Posted
Now, how many options do you think the AUTOMATIC background extraction has? 1, maybe 2, 3 or 4..... Nope 22! 22 options for an automatic tool??????

I would much rather have a tool like that than the Gradient Xterminator "High, Medium, Low" sort of thing which is only useful if it works on that particular image, it is an unfortunate name for that tool though I suppose

One of the reasons I like PI is you can pick a small preview area and it becomes really quick to go back and forward between different parameters to get a feel for what they do over a smaller area. Even though there are loads of parameters, the default settings are usually quite apt and you can take it from there.

As for as the complexity of the workspace, it becomes much much clearer when you start to use it. You really start to see where they are coming from when you can drag different processes to different images on different workspaces, start using Pixel Math to do an infinite amount of things, using Star Alignment which is the best registration tool I've ever seen, the list goes on....

I reckon the videos are better than any manual, I hate reading manuals as I have the attention span of a Goldfish

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beyond_Vision

Beyond_Vision

Posted
Posted

Just for the Dynamic Background Tool and the HDR Wavelets tool it is worth it. Although I do agree with Olly as the myriad of options can give you a real headache.

A manual + videos is a must :). I have been using Pix-Insight LE for several years now and bearly touched on many of it's features. I decided to get the full version just before Kelling and it is packed with even more stuff. It's going to take some time to learn but I'm sure it will be worth it :)

Regards

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim

Tim

Posted
Posted

It's true Olly, have you actually read the Photoshop manual? :)

Pixinsight, when you get used to it, (30 days trial isnt long enough imho) will change the way you approach your processing, it will teach you about colour spaces, provide you with star and structure masks, HDR wavelet transformations (see to believe) and much much more.

The interface, with separate pages you can switch between, easy drag and drop image cloning, mask application make processing very smooth indeed.

But yes, it IS very unwieldy at first (like PS), and some of the terms and phrases used are complicated. Some of the existing manuals and tutorials, are now out of date, due to the fact that PI is regularly updated and improved.

What I would like to see included to make it a real one stop shop are:

Updated tutorials for Lunar/solar - DSO - Planetary processing, with suggested workflows.

Layers, and layer blending, including fade and layer masking ability.

Buck for buck, Pixinsight has been one of my favourite software purchases ever, Nebulosity 2, and Registar are also up there.

Cheers

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tim

Tim

Posted
Posted
I decided to get the full version just before Kelling and it is packed with even more stuff. It's going to take some time to learn but I'm sure it will be worth it :)

Oh yep, thats like going from souped up Vauxhall Astra to a Ferrari! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
harry page

harry page

Posted
Posted

Hi

BTW the trial for pixinsight is 45 days now :)

If we require tools to be flexible I am afraid a lot of options is the price we pay:evil6:

But saying this a lot of tools work very well with the default settings :icon_eek:

All I can say is try the trial and if you find the lack of docs causes you grief you have the option of not buying :)

But be careful PI is addictive

regards Harry

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sam

Sam

Posted
Posted

I guess people get used to a work flow and if it's based on PS and it works well then there's probably not much point in changing. I understand Steve's point about not having time to figure PI out.

Personnally I found it was pretty easy to learn and after Harry's videos I was up and running in under a couple of hours. Having not used PS I can't really compare the two but the price difference certainly convinced me which way to go and the fact that PI was designed for processing astro images.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dph1nm

dph1nm

Posted
Posted
Why they didn't make it look like a Windows application is probably to not offend the Mac & Linux users, but I'm convinced a lot of Windows users would be put off by the layout of the program.
I can assure you it is just as baffling to linux users!

NigelM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.