I've been experimenting with BlurX and have been pretty impressed with the results.
Today on an image I noticed that the smallest stars were being reduced to a pixel size where the stars have a square appearance even with quite modest settings. It isn't noticeable at 1:1 viewing but becomes quite noticeable at higher magnifications. Larger stars look great and detail pops in the image. I imagine I could try to mast the smallest stars but I've yet to run into anyone using a mask with BlurX to do this.
I should add, this is from my TEC180 with a .9 FRC and a KAF-8300 CCD camera giving 1 Arc-sec resolution. I wouldn't say the data is under sampled.
Peter,
Great to see folk experimenting with new processing concepts ( however BlurX is not my cup of tea )
Not sure if image sampling affects BlurX in relation to stars , however I use Startools Spatially Variant PSF Deconvolution to reverse atmospheric blurring in my images and sampling plays a significant factor when it comes to keeping all stars but in particular those smaller stars “roundish” rather than “blocky” when zooming in or pixel peeping.
My sampling depending on which scope I use is between 0.62 and 0.88 arc sec per pixel ( oversampled) which allows me to software Bin my data to a specific image size which best suits SV PSF Deconvolution.
Binning in Startools is scalable doing I can choose what level as a percentage works best. It’s not a set bin like 2x2 or 3x3 or 4x4 etc.
If SV Decon is applied with the most suitable image size ( Binned as required) then generally I can zoom in to 300% or more and small stars still retain circular / centroid shape. If I Bin to aggressively to trade some resolution for noise reduction and the image size is too small then SV Decon will result in the smaller stars being a bit blocky looking.
Here’s an image from last year M16 which shows before and after SV Decon is applied for atmospheric de blurring
Unfortunately IIS reduces image to 200KB size so resolution is greatly reduced but you can compare before and after images
Thanks for your detailed reply, Martin. I don't know StarTools but perhaps I will investigate!
According to Russ Croman he considers my setup to be borderline under sampled in 2 arc-sec seeing and the blocky looking small stars to be expected. He suggested enlarging the halo. This helps a bit but seems to defeat the purpose on larger stars where the tool seems to operate perfectly.
I may try making a mask only for the very tiny stars and see what happens.
Just how I make that mask may be the challenge as I'm pretty new to Pixinsight.
That's assuming one uses startools Martin.
I am no fan of pixinsight however because of Blurxterminator I bit the bullet.
Blurx will always work at its best if you have decent data. I experimented with some older data and if there wasnt enough acquisition time it wasnt the best but data with decent signal actually was incredible with blurx then noisex the images are pristine.
I experimented with startools and just didnt like it but each to their own, every program has its good and bad.
Cheers
Thanks for your detailed reply, Martin. I don't know StarTools but perhaps I will investigate!
According to Russ Croman he considers my setup to be borderline under sampled in 2 arc-sec seeing and the blocky looking small stars to be expected. He suggested enlarging the halo. This helps a bit but seems to defeat the purpose on larger stars where the tool seems to operate perfectly.
I may try making a mask only for the very tiny stars and see what happens.
Just how I make that mask may be the challenge as I'm pretty new to Pixinsight.
Peter
Peter if you get blocky stars you are undersampled, a workaround is to drizzle x2 your original stacking then you use resample tool in pixinsight, this eliminates the blockiness but does add time to your processing.
Is it worth it? I'm here only speaking of the very tiny tiny stars. If you look at the first image I posted starting this thread does that image look under-sampled? I see the blocky core but a rather round halo.
I did make a mask that will protect those very small stars, but using it and taking full advantage of the tool gets complicated, meaning star removal in order to process the background, etc.
That's assuming one uses startools Martin.
I am no fan of pixinsight however because of Blurxterminator I bit the bullet.
Blurx will always work at its best if you have decent data. I experimented with some older data and if there wasnt enough acquisition time it wasnt the best but data with decent signal actually was incredible with blurx then noisex the images are pristine.
I experimented with startools and just didnt like it but each to their own, every program has its good and bad.
Cheers
I might get it if it ever works directly with Photoshop as a plugin.
I couldn't bothered learning PixInsight even though I should.
Imagine having to buy PixInsight and tear your hair out for months
trying to use it just to be able to use BlurXTerminator?
I've found using AI version 1 works well so would recommend trying that. Huge fan of BlurXterminator myself. There's a YouTube video of Russell Crowman talking with Adam Block on every detail, worth a watch.
I run StarXterminator on the stacked, linear data then BlurXterminator on that file. Thus, it does not impact the stars, and you can then add the stars back in easily later.
I might get it if it ever works directly with Photoshop as a plugin.
I couldn't bothered learning PixInsight even though I should.
Imagine having to buy PixInsight and tear your hair out for months
trying to use it just to be able to use BlurXTerminator?
cheers
Allan
You don't really need to know how to use PI to use BlurX.
Bring your linear data in from another program and run BlurX, then save it as linear data and send back to your program of choice. Running the BlurX script itself is very easy and does not require a working knowledge of PixInsight.
You don't really need to know how to use PI to use BlurX.
Bring your linear data in from another program and run BlurX, then save it as linear data and send back to your program of choice. Running the BlurX script itself is very easy and does not require a working knowledge of PixInsight.
Thats what I was assuming, people are claiming "oh its not that easy, I do lots of clever things blah blah blah" I kinda recon its more about forking out the dosh $ for PI aaand BEx plugin and bingo, all our images look awesome aaand the same..a playing field leveller if I have ever seen one....as Ive said, like steroids
I might get it if it ever works directly with Photoshop as a plugin.
I couldn't bothered learning PixInsight even though I should.
Imagine having to buy PixInsight and tear your hair out for months
trying to use it just to be able to use BlurXTerminator?
cheers
Allan
Horses for courses. I found that learning PixIsight was one of the most fun things I ever did in image processing.
You don't really need to know how to use PI to use BlurX.
Bring your linear data in from another program and run BlurX, then save it as linear data and send back to your program of choice. Running the BlurX script itself is very easy and does not require a working knowledge of PixInsight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff45
Horses for courses. I found that learning PixIsight was one of the most fun things I ever did in image processing.
Sorry Guys - I wouldn't know,
I have only heard stories of PixInsight having a steep learning curve
requiring months of work to use properly.
There are 10 pages on it here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/6...ocessing-flow/
Sorry Guys - I wouldn't know,
I have only heard stories of PixInsight having a steep learning curve
requiring months of work to use properly.
There are 10 pages on it here: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/6...ocessing-flow/
cheers
Allan
You can get the free 30 day trial for both PI and BlurX.
It's literally this easy (if you have a stacked file from other software):
1) Open linear stack
2) Process (top menu) > All processes > StarXterminator
3) Press Square (Apply) on the StarX process window
4) Wait
5) Once done, Process > All processes > BlurXterminator
6) Adjust settings to taste, some are irrelevant having removed the stars, all I change now is the sharpen non-stellar field I run at around 0.60 or so, which works well on linear, starless data.
7) Press square (apply) on BlurX window
8) Wait
9) File > Save as
10) Open in whatever other tool you prefer to stretch and process, and add the stars back in from the original linear data stack
To be fair my steps above don't include the installation of either plugin but this is also quite easy and instructions are provided. BX is well worth learning.
You can get the free 30 day trial for both PI and BlurX.
It's literally this easy (if you have a stacked file from other software):
1) Open linear stack
2) Process (top menu) > All processes > StarXterminator
3) Press Square (Apply) on the StarX process window
4) Wait
5) Once done, Process > All processes > BlurXterminator
6) Adjust settings to taste, some are irrelevant having removed the stars, all I change now is the sharpen non-stellar field I run at around 0.60 or so, which works well on linear, starless data.
7) Press square (apply) on BlurX window
8) Wait
9) File > Save as
10) Open in whatever other tool you prefer to stretch and process, and add the stars back in from the original linear data stack
To be fair my steps above don't include the installation of either plugin but this is also quite easy and instructions are provided. BX is well worth learning.
What if you wanted Blurxterminator to fix up bloated stars?
What if you wanted Blurxterminator to fix up bloated stars?
I haven't used it for that, but if you wanted to use it on the stars just skip my StarXterminator steps and play with the BX settings.
Depending on the nature of your star bloat you may have more luck with other methods though.
Create a starless layer, then put the original (with stars) layer on top of it (in Photoshop, or your program of choice), set the blend mode of this star layer to screen, then create a curves adjustment layer and pull down hard on the curve. Convert this to a clipping mask. Then create a brightness/contrast layer, reduce brightness significantly (how much will vary by image), and convert to clipping mask.
You should now have significantly smaller stars. Play with the intensity of the two clipping masks to taste. This technique also works well for blending in RGB stars to narrowband images.
I haven't used it for that, but if you wanted to use it on the stars just skip my StarXterminator steps and play with the BX settings.
Depending on the nature of your star bloat you may have more luck with other methods though.
Create a starless layer, then put the original (with stars) layer on top of it (in Photoshop, or your program of choice), set the blend mode of this star layer to screen, then create a curves adjustment layer and pull down hard on the curve. Convert this to a clipping mask. Then create a brightness/contrast layer, reduce brightness significantly (how much will vary by image), and convert to clipping mask.
You should now have significantly smaller stars. Play with the intensity of the two clipping masks to taste. This technique also works well for blending in RGB stars to narrowband images.
Hi guys, I shared these pics on the local FB astro group. What started as an afternoon of determined deconvolution research ended up in amazement when gave the BXT trial a spin (in PixInsight).
Should also add the although not alway intuitive for some people, PI was a breath of fresh air for me over 10 years ago - and still gives a lot of satisfaction for hard won data.
This FOV is a tight crop. System used was FSQ106ED@F5,
QHY247C (1.52 arcsec/px) - Approx 100mins of 1, 3, 5min subs.
Definitely not oversampled - so definitely pleasantly surprised to see some benefit. $100US not cheap, but not hard to blow that much money on a USB hub in this hobby......
I kinda recon its more about forking out the dosh $ for PI aaand BEx plugin and bingo, all our images look awesome aaand the same..a playing field leveller if I have ever seen one....as Ive said, like steroids 
