Startools / Pixinsight Comparison - Information sought

[Outcast (Carlton)]

Thanks to all who have contributed...

Particular thanks to Sil for some closer guidance on the importance of flats & bias shots & to Ivo regarding Startools itself.

Ivo, I have sent you a PM

Cheers

[Imme (Jon)]

Disclaimer - I'm a Startools licence holder who has recently purchased a mono camera and filters. Processing my first few LRGB shots in ST I decided maybe it was time to move to PI as I didn't think ST was cutting it for the LRGB (was great for my OSC pics though!). My change to PI came around the same time as Ivo was working on a new version of ST and he offered me a try of it.

Initial impressions are below - in summary though I'll be shelving any further PI work as I think there have been some significant steps forward made on ST that have made an immediate difference to my images (same data processed on the new version of ST as I used for the previous version)

This review is coming from someone who thought he had squeezed all he could out of the program and was looking for something more. To be honest after a couple years using ST I had the impression it was a DSLR/OSC processing program....I'll admit now I was wrong with that impression. (well, at least looking at this new version which appears much more feature rich for LRGB and NB processing)

This is not a paid review, I don't know Ivo and I already have a licence for the program and so I have nothing to gain or lose by giving my thoughts on it. To be honest, if Ivo hadn't made any significant steps forward from my perspective I wouldn't have even bothered typing this post.

First impressions - it's a very similar setup as what I am use to however it seems he has cleaned it up a little....looks a little more 'slick'.

First up you can notice a reorder of module icons that it seems to me now follow a workflow. Previously I jumped from here to there between modules....flows a lot better now in my opinion.....making it even easier to use.

The LRGB module has now been moved to a 'compose' module and offers a significant step forward in functionality for LRGB processing from what was there previously.

I've noted a new preview button. Previously the was a before/after button that allowed you to see changes you made with a module....now there's a pre/post tweak button and well as the before/after. Great feature to maker sure what you are doing is making a positive difference. Great comparison tool.

Colour module now has some tweaks as well that are focused on narrowband processing.....I look forward to trialling the 'Hubble' preset with some data later tonight.

A number of the modules seem to have some enhancements and/or additional features. The small play I've had with these seem to indicate they are not there just for show, they are useful tools that I guess are based on feedback Ivo has received or through thinking through new ideas.

Entropy module - I'll need o have a bit more of a play with this one however initial impressions are good. Pulls out some great detail.

Noise reduction (tracking module) - as always, this is a killer and it always blows me away the amount of unwanted noise it easily sweeps from my pics

All in all it seems Ivo has put some significant work into improving Startools and from what I have seen they are all positive changes. He should be congratulated for giving the community and cost effective and very powerful tool.

Thanks Ivo....this new version has definitely put a stop to me moving over to PI. From what I have seen this new version offers the same simplicity in processing that to me just makes sense! Great work mate.

[irwjager (Ivo)]

Greatly appreciate the review Jon! As stated earlier, if anyone else wishes to have a go at the 1.5 preview. Do let me know.


The Compose module is indeed a big one; besides doing synthetic luminance creation for you, it allows you to process LRGB, LLRGB, LSHO, LLSHO, etc. as if it were simple DSLR/OSC (RGB) data.


It does so by processing 2 datasets in parallel; e.g. separating luminance and color completely, yet processing them simultaneously. No need to process separately and combine later through two separate workflows (as you would in PI). It also allows the Tracking engine to cross-consult the two datasets to enhance fidelity and detail.


The new Entropy module is a direct consequence of now having both datasets available separately, but simultaneously. Color is consulted to gain clues about detail prevalence in the luminance dataset.



Cheers!

[sil (Steve)]

Originally Posted by irwjager

I would love to do a personalised workflow/tutorial with a dataset of your choice! At the very least you would do ST's development a great service, in case there are any areas of improvement.
It's a bit concerning in particular that you say the results you get from APP (which doesn't at the moment even have essential post-processing tools like deconvolution or noise reduction) are "99% as good". This leads me to believe something is going really wrong and I would love to understand what that is!


This leads me to believe you may have been using StarTools without Tracking (e.g. just for one or two modules)? Because this describes exactly what StarTools Tracking does; you can be confident that a screen full of noise coalesces into a clean image at the end when you turn Tracking off and final noise reduction is applied. Always.

Thanks for the comments...something going very wrong would likely be me. Deconv and noise reduction are parts of my workflow but not highly essential (or at least I'm not using them properly). If you are familiar with the PI workflow suggestion tutorials on Light Vortex Astronomy thats a little simpler than what I use. I incoprporate steps to remove stars temporarily to stretch nebulosity. No I may have not used your tracking feature or possibly its not in the version I have (sorry, it could be ancient)

Just to put into perspective, I mostly do DSLR capture with a lens on a regular tripod. So I have for a session/target about 500-600 Lights, Maybe 50+ Darks, Flats, Bias (in any combination, depends how my body is feeling at the end of my session I may take some, all or none knowing I have the Lights and can work well from those alone if needed). I also periodically take fulls sets of Darks, Flats and Bias frames as my camera is permanently set up because I cant use it as a camera anymore so the lens stays on always so sensor dust is rare for me. Using so many subs (and I rarely have ones to throw away) noise is lowered well upon integration.

My workflow uses registration (aligning) of frames, calibration/debayering of frames etc, processing with bias/flats/darks, and then integration of everything into a single 64bit FITS file. This is my starting point for processing (what people call post-processing?) to take this file which is still in linear state and stretch the signal to get to my pretty picture to show etc. This gives me the option at any time to reprocess from my starting point Integration frame. Ah one last thing I try to do first to this file is plate solve and save it with metadata and render an annotated jpeg to refer to easily when I want to work with combining multiple sessions integration frames to enhance a target or create a mosaic.

This is all one shot colour untracked and a huge amount of data for software to chug through. Something I like about APP is I can throw a ton of data at it with any permutation of darks, flats, bias and it will make use where it can of all that data. So for me its flexible in that I dont have to make sure i take certain calibration frames. Plus it can mosaic all the lights without, so on nights where I chase a comet for example, its rare that I am ever able to see the comet by any means and pointing my camera at the correct bit of sky is hit and miss, so a mosaic straight off of subs throught my capture session gives me a result I can plate solve and find out if my target is even in the data or in every sub or maybe just at an edge so I can decide how to proceed with processing just the frames I want.

Longer term goal for me is to try to do a whole sky image with all these tiny patches.

Lunar and solar are sometimes with same dslr setup. But planets and moon I do with a 6in sct with dodgy tracking and a zwo cam. So that data is captured as SER video, debayered/centered/cropped in PIPP and exported to BMPs to run through AS!3. Again this is a lot of frames and noise is ironed out and autostakerts wavelets sharpen the images well enough, anything further in other programs really introduces sharpening artifacts which I dont like. I also prefer the colours as they are: natural and muted.

I dont recall if ST I can just throw all my data (such as I have) at it and go from there. APP does take it all in and saves a linear FITS file plus it does and automatic stretch/post process for screen display which you can save. Its this stretched version thats very close to what I can do with PI just without the time and effort. Plus it has things to tweak I havent tried yet. I never got into DSS which could take my data to a master integration frame easily but stretching was difficult to control for me. Having good knowledge of PI by the time APP came out it was clear to me it would sit well for DSS users wanting the next step up but not able to afford PI etc. Though APP only supports some manufacturers RAW formats it doen't yet cover all common ones, its slowly being improved as the developer has time etc.

I would be happy to share a set of subs with you Ivo, message me if it'll help you out, I'll just have to put together an external hard drive to copy files onto. I think I still have my comparison of PI and APP somewhere but I had drive crashes in the past year and had to delete a ton of astro data I was working with or finished (my originals are safe but only organised by date) I dont recall if I posted to this forum (I may have) a part comparison. I did it purely for my own interest after buying APP. Its ease made it seem quicker (which i think it is but not vastly slow, never timed it) and now Its a simple way for me to get a result as I tend to just shoot whatever when I have a chance, rarely after a target and m31 the only target i want more of is never visible from my home. As I said its easy to mosaic my subs which move since im on tripod i rarely recompose the frame so i can see if i even got a particular target and then put the time in PI to process carefully. So I don't know if ST has a place for me currently. Also to add perspective I suffered a stroke 5yr ago which paralysed the left half of my body and i've faught to regain some leg use to be able to stand and walk again my arm is unresposive and body twisted so how I used to do astronomy 5 yrs ago has evolved differently with chances in my interests and physical/mental capabilities. I think I bought ST early on and really liked it as a package and your philosophy for it and I wanted to support it. And yes it has yet to grab me in a big way, some of its capabilities I have really liked but they couldn't be used in conjection with PI to get what I needed done at a step. So I couldn't take my working fits into ST for one single tool to make a particular adjustment and save back to same fits format and load back into PI. As its not an "everyday" tool for me I tend to forget to retry it, update it and find current tutorials etc. My life has so little free time to experiment and learn but it also changes with more restrictions as my body declines.

So my methods in astrophotography are not ideal for anybody only to my own limitations, time for learning is itself a hinderance in my life and a personal failing thats hard to overcome. I will try to give it another chance soon,I wrote it on my hand, APP is at home still chugging on 500 frames i took on friday. its the only working computer i currently have so i wont muck about until it finishes or crashes.

Steve

[irwjager (Ivo)]

Thank you Steve. It indeed sounds like pre-processing is the killer app for you (which ST obviously doesn't do). ST only takes pre-processed stacks. ST will be a lot less relevant if you have tons of signal, do very wide fields (let alone mosaics!), and are happy with a simple stretch for the post-processing part of things.

ST is more for those who can't wait for the calibration, aligning and stacking to be over and "get to work" on a faint object (e.g. me! ). Give me the challenges; light pollution, detail recovery, low surface brightness. Going beyond diffraction, atmospheric or personal circumstantial limits (with regards to the latter, let me just say I have nothing but respect for how you are successfully dealing with yours!).

Personally I get my kicks chasing the stuff the Hubble Space Telescope has showed us over the years to the best of our "mere mortal" abilities and gear, accurately documenting and bringing out the features that show the past, present and future of these fascinating, far away objects.

At any rate, if there is a use case for StarTools in your workflow, do let me know, now or in the future.

Clear skies!

[xelasnave]

Any chance of getting in on that link?
Alex

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

1.5... Oh! Goody!

[DuaneDibbley (Phil)]

I'm a beginner who went straight to PI when I bought my telescope.


It's a supremely capable pig of an application that's horrifically poorly documented for how much it costs. Nearly $400AU and maybe 6 processes are documented? Extremely disappointing.


No doubting the output though once you've managed to trawl the internet and torn out all your hair looking for tutorials all based on different versions of processes. But like others have said in here after a year (or more) of using it you'll still be a beginner.


That said - I simply couldn't bring myself to use DSS and Photoshop and MUCH prefer PI. I just hate it while I'm using it.


I'd never heard of StarTools before. I'll definitely be having a look now though!


All that said though - I adore firing up PI and seeing is strangle my Ryzen 2700x to within an inch of its life. No other app I own happily eats up all 8 cores and 16 threads on offer

[Startrek (Martin)]

I initially started with Startools in AP and can’t see myself using anything else in the near future
After 12months on version 1.4 I’m still discovering different processing methods to improve my final images
I always end up with a reasonable result irrespective of the quality and quantity of the data , and I use a 10 year old DSLR with my 6” f6 and 8” f5 newts
Ivo Jager thanks again !!!

[mynameiscd (Andy)]

Hi Ivo,
A registered user of ST here but still learning.
I'm progressing slowly but still restricted by my XP machine I do processing on. I've yet to use PI so can't comment on that but have seen dramatic improvement from changing from PS to ST for processing.
Definitely need a Win 10 machine as my 20 year old laptop doesnt cope with the high demands of processing but ST works without too many crashes after binning my images early on.
I had a play with the android vs of ST and although not finished and problems with screen size i can see a future in this direction but for a simpler processing chain for the phone photographers.
You can never duplicate the the raw power of a pc compared to a phone or tablet but us humans are going down this path whether we like it or not and esp the younger generation just want something to work but dont do any work to make it happen!
I know this is a whole new debate but clip a phone onto a dob and press one button to start a series of lights, darks, and flats in one then a second button to process and the result is a reasonable image that would have taken 10 hours of hard work to do 20 years ago.
Looking at a lot of the names here who have contributed to this post i can see many who have helped me get over the hurdles of processing and without encouragement i may have given up with mediocre images.
The main thing i have learnt is that the better data you get, the less processing you need. I used to do a lot of recording bands in my home studio and a few other studios and it all goes down to recording the best sounds and performance you can get rather than the "fix it up with editing" type of recording with shifting individual drum hits and autotune on everything.
We are all so lucky with the imaging tools we have got now and what is coming in the future but they are still tools and the old saying " you cant' polish a turd" is still valid, (yet saying that I've polished a few with processing and they're not too bad).
Thanks again Ivo for developing this sothware and the time involved with coding, testing, and bug fixing.
Also thanks again to all here who have helped so much.
Cheers
Andy

[JimsShed (Jim)]

My opinion of PI is that you can only get some sort of proficiency if you also buy an aftermarket text book on the product. The usability of the program itself does not always conform to the norms of what we expect a desktop program to do, and it has enough counter intuitive behaviours to be annoying to use. Eg; window resizing and magic drag/drop points. You eventually realise the overall product is an eclectic mix of dozens of individual processes, most of which you will never use or you simply avoid. Also for the most part, the help system is non-existent and you find yourself referring back to a text book.

[Outcast (Carlton)]

Gentlemen,

As the OP I wish to say thankyou for the mix of very frank & honest relation of experiences with each of these products.

Ivo has kindly offered to assist me with gaining proficiency with Startools, an offer I am defintely going to accept....

The information contained in this thread has helped me enormously to understand the differences in the two programs & consider the pro's & cons of both...

I'm hopeful it has helped a few others out too..

Cheers

[sil (Steve)]

Originally Posted by irwjager

Thank you Steve. It indeed sounds like pre-processing is the killer app for you (which ST obviously doesn't do). ST only takes pre-processed stacks. ST will be a lot less relevant if you have tons of signal, do very wide fields (let alone mosaics!), and are happy with a simple stretch for the post-processing part of things.

ST is more for those who can't wait for the calibration, aligning and stacking to be over and "get to work" on a faint object (e.g. me! ). Give me the challenges; light pollution, detail recovery, low surface brightness. Going beyond diffraction, atmospheric or personal circumstantial limits (with regards to the latter, let me just say I have nothing but respect for how you are successfully dealing with yours!).

Personally I get my kicks chasing the stuff the Hubble Space Telescope has showed us over the years to the best of our "mere mortal" abilities and gear, accurately documenting and bringing out the features that show the past, present and future of these fascinating, far away objects.

At any rate, if there is a use case for StarTools in your workflow, do let me know, now or in the future.

Clear skies!

Ivo, I had a play with ST on the weekend briefly. Yes the reason ST never became a part of my AP is it doesn't take my raw captures and gets me through to a finished image. To me its essential like one of the hundreds of "photo filter" programs to beautify an image so you get likes on facebook or wherever. I lost interest in that superfical garbage in the '90s with photoshop filters etc which are now back it seems with mobile apps and social media... none of which interest me. I have deleted where possible the few social media accounts I ever had.

My goal with my AP is to push my capabilities and that of my equipment as best I can to get clear "true" images. If there's noise then there's noise. I dont give a damn about Image of the Day recognition or stuff like that. I already know my images are not the best around, nor can they be with my limitations, and I dont need trolls to point out the bleeding obvious to me. I'm satisfied my images are the best I was able to do at the time. It also gives me benchmarks to beat with newer processing tools and knowledge using the same data sets.

PI and APP don't do everything I would want so for me there is no perfect program available. ST does some very nice things and maybe it has a place for some images where I want to really try to make them pop but for now I'm satisfied with what I'm getting, though I would like to astromod my camera if i get a tax return this year

[sil (Steve)]

Originally Posted by JimsShed

My opinion of PI is that you can only get some sort of proficiency if you also buy an aftermarket text book on the product. The usability of the program itself does not always conform to the norms of what we expect a desktop program to do, and it has enough counter intuitive behaviours to be annoying to use. Eg; window resizing and magic drag/drop points. You eventually realise the overall product is an eclectic mix of dozens of individual processes, most of which you will never use or you simply avoid. Also for the most part, the help system is non-existent and you find yourself referring back to a text book.

I disagree, if you READ what the product is about and its documentation it clearly tells you what it is and what its not. You should never "eventually realise" because its always there in black and white, just you didnt bother to read. Besides there is there "unofficial" missing PI manual website to help with expanded documentation (yes the supplied docs are poor to non-existent for various tools). The forums though thoroughly explain new tools and scripts in superb detail, if you read them. And the Light Vortex Astronomy Tutorials site is itself very detailed and thorough.

PixInsights steep learning curve is because its NOT a dumbed down program to hand hold people unwilling to learn. Astrophotography is all about photon energy and mathematics, a LOT of complex mathematics so you need some skill to use it. Its the program for people willing and able to build a car from a box of bits instead of just drive one already built. Its not a program for everyone.

[Imme (Jon)]

Guess we all have opinions Steve.

Seems you are pretty insistent your view is correct with all the SHOUTING you do with those capital letters.

I like ST, you like PI.....others like other programs......but there's no need to SHOUT!

Originally Posted by sil

I disagree, if you READ what the product is about and its documentation it clearly tells you what it is and what its not. You should never "eventually realise" because its always there in black and white, just you didnt bother to read. Besides there is there "unofficial" missing PI manual website to help with expanded documentation (yes the supplied docs are poor to non-existent for various tools). The forums though thoroughly explain new tools and scripts in superb detail, if you read them. And the Light Vortex Astronomy Tutorials site is itself very detailed and thorough.

PixInsights steep learning curve is because its NOT a dumbed down program to hand hold people unwilling to learn. Astrophotography is all about photon energy and mathematics, a LOT of complex mathematics so you need some skill to use it. Its the program for people willing and able to build a car from a box of bits instead of just drive one already built. Its not a program for everyone.

[RussellH]

Throwing my 2c worth in here. I’ve just purchased StarTools after spending the day with it yesterday processing my first image, so take my opinion for what it is.

First off, StarTools is from an Australian developer. Being a former software developer myself, I know how hard that is, so deserves support just for that alone.

Secondly, when PixInsight is 6x the price of StarTools, I have to ask the question if it’ll give me 6x better results. StarTools while being different to other image processing software seems to be fairly competent at being able to process images with a fair degree of flexibility and power. I can’t see why it won’t be able to meet my needs for a long time, and ai doubt very much that PixInsight will give me a 6x improvement in result any time soon.

So for now, StarTools is it for me, even with the option of PixInsight on the table. Even if PI was closer in price, I think I’d still choose StarTools for now, as it seems to offer a unique approach to image processing which brings something new to the table than just a supercharged Photoshop workflow. Time will tell if I’ve made the right choice.

Russell.

[Startrek (Martin)]

Russell
As a fellow Newt / DSLR astrophotographer and avid user of Startools, you have made the right choice to kick start your Astro processing
Learn and enjoy it’s features

[multiweb (Marc)]

I use them both equally. PI is great for drizzle integration and OSC processing. ST is very useful for the long FL stuff, sharpening, deconvolution and noise management in oversampled data.

[xelasnave]

Imagine a fully automatic astrophoto imaging set up...all you do is say "computer photos of M16" and it opens the dome moves the scope to the object, determines the exposure, number of subs, filters etc, downloads stacks and processes the photo and posts them for you... Nah.
Alex