Oh .... my gawd!! ... Noooooo!! ...

[marc4darkskies]

.... I bought Pixinsight in a moment of weakness. I started it up, looked at the interface and my left eye started twitching and mouse hand started shaking. I may even have had a few palpitations!! What ARE all these strange buttons, processes, options and three letter acronyms??!!! Aaaaargh!!! I'm going to need therapy I think.:help:

So why did a hard core PS / CCDStack man buy it? For its star registration which seems to be best in class (and includes ability to deform - better than Registar), and it's "DBE"-ing (gradient removal) capability - also best in class. I tried both of these at a rudimentary level (there are 1,000 options to choose from) and they worked well. I may also try it's calibration capabilities after my first therapy session. No, it won't be supplanting my beloved (and easy to use) PS for post processing - that's a bridge too far!

:)

Cheers, Marcus

[PeterEde]

Yep downloaded the demo and took one look.:help3::help2::doh::rolleyes:: eyepop:

[Octane]

Mate, if I could spit out a mosaic after one day of using it, you can do anything. :)

H

[pluto]

Just watch Harry's vids and you'll be fine:
http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixinsight/pixinsight%20video%20html/Pixinsighthome.html
:D

[multiweb]

Anyone seen that movie 'Ender's game'? That's what using PixInsight the first time feels like. The pain subsides after the first week though :P

[Geoff45]

Photoshop is completely unintuitive for astrophotography. Who would think that a key process in star selection is to use the dust and scratches filter? On the other hand, PI uses "StarMask" which makes much more sense. Spend an intensive week seriously exploring PI and you'll love it!

[lazjen]

"One of us. One of us..." :)

Yeah, PixInsight I think is going to be one of those tools that will continue to surprise you and give you much to learn over a long time.

[Geoff45]

I think part of the problem people have with PI is that most people are comfortable with their current processing package, so there is always a fallback. It's easier to say "this is just too hard" and go back to the comfort of what you know. In the old days you HAD to learn PS if you were serious about AP, so you just knuckled down and learned it. The pain of learning PS has long been forgotten, but think back and recall the first time you opened Photoshop. PI is no more difficult than any other comparably powerful software package.
Geoff

[h0ughy]

a tool, is a tool, is a tool:rolleyes:, but Pixinsight is is more than a tool:thumbsup:, its tradesman made for tools to use:P, er um it a tool for the trade i meant to say:D.

welcome to the fold Marcus:):)

[Geoff45]

I wouldn't bet on it if I were you Marcus. PI can become seriously addictive!
Geoff

[marc4darkskies]

Nah - PS is easy peasy!! Been using it for years and I've never had to pick up an unintuitively labelled icon from a popup and drop into into an image frame ... and then wonder what it actually did :lol:


Oh nooooo ... does that mean ... resistance is futile??!! :abduct:



Well said Dave :lol: It certainly will just be another tool in my kit bag ... no more, no less - it will compliment my PS processing ... All hail Photoshop!!!:prey2:



I can always quit! :P

[Paul Haese]

Mate this is my very reason for not buying it either. I took a look at it and wondered where the hell everything was. If you ever get it sorted out for registration and stacking let us know. I would be interested.

[jjjnettie]

got to admit, I gave PI my very best shot. I watched and processed alongside the tutorials for hours and got no joy from it at all.
The work flow for me is not intuitive, what takes me a couple of minutes to achieve in PS took 15 minutes in PI.
Maybe down the track I'll give it another go, but for now I prefer PS.

:scared3: Is it just me or can you tell when an image has been processed in PI? It has that HDR look to it.

[strongmanmike]

Hmmm?...well if you've bought it...maybe I should too :question: I've only used Astroart and PS for years now too....Doh! :lol: I watched Houghy use it at IISAC a couple of years ago and thought the same as you Marcus..ie..huh? That just seemed wrong :help:... will it fix my professionally diagnosed fobia of dark frames and leaving noise in an image :question: :lol:

Mike

[marc4darkskies]

I've noticed that too. The trick with using any tool is not to overuse it as I fear some people do with DBE. My plan initially is to add bits of PI (including DBE) to my workflow to do things I can't currently do (well).



Ooohhhh - for that you'll need the MRLLDSPIM tool (Morphological Random Low Level Digital Signal Psycho Insensitivity Mitigation) tool. Beware though - it has 278 options! :lol:

[jjjnettie]

PMSL yeah, it's like that.

[RobF]

The trouble is what it spits out is damned good. You'll gradually get brainwashed further into finding it intuitive.

Resistance is futile!
You will be assimilated!

(err, getting a bit carried away with Star Trek Borg quotes....ahem)

[Andy01]

Simon Walters from the ASV did an introductory video to processing in Pixinsight, you can see it here...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rGp6UdC09us

Chees
Andy

[SkyViking]

Welcome to the light side Marcus! Once you get used to PI you'll never look back. Registration and stacking routines are superior to anything else I've tried, including Maxim. On top of that it is loaded with cool operations that allow you to do things that are just impossible in Photoshop. Yes you do need to play with all the options etc but you'll soon get a feel for what settings to use in which circumstances.

[RickS]

I think that's generally the result of applying HDRMultiscaleTransform too strongly.

Cheers,
Rick.

[LewisM]

I trialled PI twice. Was really "Aw, I dunno" about it, but then one day, sold something (VERY unusual for me :)) and I had a spare $250 or whatever it was, so hit the button.

I regret every single second of it.

I will learn it - maybe. I find PS a breeze, and MaxIM, and CCDStack does all my stacking and pre-processing just fine (can't say much about the images though :D)

[Octane]

Stick with it, Lewis. Once you get comfortable with it, it will be a replacement for everything (except, Photoshop). :)

H

[Bart]

Go for it Marcus! It cans PS!

Stick with it, watch/read as many tutorials as you can. With the PS skills you already have and a bit of fiddling, your practiced eye will soon have you zinging along and producing images way better than all the other stuff together can spit out.

PI! PI! PI! :cool:

[uwahl]

I think that Bart's technological distinctiveness has been added to the Borg PI collective.:P

[Geoff45]

+1

[marc4darkskies]

Well put H! :D





You guys crack me up! :lol: I've only discovered 2 things about PI that I want to use - gradient removal and star registration via image deformation. Neither of those things are native to PS. Will there be more? :question: I'm skeptical, but time will tell!

As I mentioned earlier, my plan is NOT to supplant PS at this time. And why should I? I know how to use it well and it comes easy to me, especially using Actions.

[Octane]

PixInsight is not a replacement for Photoshop. It never will be. :)

H

[DJT]

Try Masked stretch out (no more blown stars) and Deconvolution via dynamic PSF (tutorial below)

http://mike-wiles.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/pixinsight-deconvolution.html

welcome to the dark side..

[Geoff45]

Quite agree. They were designed with completely different objectives in mind and they each fit their terms of reference admirably.
Geoff

[Rod771]

Absolutely! Pixinsight for deep space , DPP/Photoshop for nightscapes. Thats what I do.

I started off not knowing either and found the learning curve for both to be quite the same, one wasn't harder than the other, it's just how you apply yourself to the task at hand.

I think you'll enjoy PI, Marcus :welcome:;)

[Octane]

I use them in conjunction with each other. For me, they each have a place in the workflow.

H

[marc4darkskies]

Nah ... in PS:


Mask stars - 30 seconds of work (incl. feathering and any size adjustment) - an Action I created ages ago
Non linear stretch (Curve to taste) - 30 seconds of work

... maximum! :)




I agree and I would argue (in all seriousness) that one is not better than the other.



Cheers Rod. In some respects I agree but I wouldn't think about it that way. It's just that PS is a much more "generic" application. I'm looking upon PI as an ancillary tool box. I don't need to replace PS for Deep Space work.

[rustigsmed]

i am close to buying it too Marcus, but solely for the gradient removal!

[Geoff45]

Well I guess it helps to keep the company in business so they can keep churning out new stuff (almost on a weekly basis) for the rest of us to use.
Geoff

[LewisM]

Maximum indeed. Probably 30 seconds work COMBINED, especially if you use Annie's Astro Actions or Astronomy Tools action plugins. Makes star selection about 5 seconds.

I still can't find a single thing besides DBE in PI I like. CCDStack does a MUCH better background neutralisation though.

TO each their own. It's far from the Catch-all software many claim it is.

I also agree with Nettie about "Panda Eye" effect

[marc4darkskies]

Correct, but I didn't want to boast! :D

[RobF]

Rogelio spoke well at the first AAIC - saying PI is "different", not necessarily better.

It will be interesting to revisit opinions here, in say 2 years.
I'll set my alarm.... :)

[RickS]

I predict that things will be much the same, Rob :lol: Let me know if I was right.

I have tried a number of software packages and would probably produce much the same dodgy images in all of them. It's a matter of using something that fits the way you work and can implement your vision. Whether that is PS or PI or Maxim or CCDStack or ... doesn't really matter.

[Geoff45]

This is getting ridiculous--how quickly can I do something? Maybe we should look at the end result--is it slower/quicker but does it/does it not end up with something better? As for quicker, certainly if you've recorded an action in PS you can do things quickly. But PI can also record actions and then you can also do things quickly. Big whoop!
I really get annoyed when people take a 5 minute look at PI then start knocking it when they have no idea of how to use it or no idea of its ability to improve their processing.
Geoff

[DavidTrap]

Ha!

DT

[marc4darkskies]

I don't think considering speed of workflow is ridiculous at all Geoff! David's point was that PI can avoid blown out stars using masks and my point was I already do that effectively and quickly in PS. Fair enough?

I'm not precious about PS and I'm not an evangelist - it's just that I've used it for 18 years and 7 of that for deep space processing. I dare say my imaging results are reasonably good and a testament to the effectiveness of PS. However, I'm now exploring PI for what it can do better than PS (and I've already identified 2 things). Fast workflow will be part of the "better" equation if there's not much in it from an effectiveness / quality standpoint - does that make sense?.

I'm interested in knowing how you record macros / actions in PI and what the limitations are (if any) - any advice? Can you distrubute / share PI "Actions"?

[RickS]

You can create process icons (which remember all the parameter settings for an instance of a process) and you can group a sequence of processes in a process container. These can be saved to a file and restored or shared. Unfortunately, I'm not terribly familiar with PS actions so I can't comment on how they compare.

To do anything more sophisticated in PI you need to write a script. These are currently written in Javascript (some work has been done on Python but it's not ready for prime time.) Scripts are very powerful but would be a challenge for the non-programmer.

Cheers,
Rick.

[Geoff45]

A bit dated, but this link gives the general idea
http://pixinsight.com/doc/legacy/LE/11_process_icons/working_with_process_icons.html

[Geoff45]

Yep. Fair enough.

[rogerg]

Oh, a thread about PI usability (or lack there of), how could I not chip in my 2c worth! :lol: sorry for all those who have heard my rants before!

PI is not well designed with respect to UI/usability. Flat out. That's it. No two ways about it. The icons (circles, triangles, squares !??!), the buttons, the tool names, the lack of any direction.

Sure, people persevere and learn how to use it, you can do that for just about anything, but that does not make it user friendly or intuitive.

If "Dust & Speckles" is not considered intuitive in PS then how is a name like "Linear Fit" intuitive? or even "Dynamic Background Extraction" - shouldn't that be "Flatten Image Background" if it was meant to be more intuitive than "Dust & Speckles" ?

Speed - CCDStack wins every time. Easy to preview sigma clipping, less clicks, more obvious process, preview quick and easy.

I have come to use PI for more and more as I slowly chisel away at understanding how it works, and now usually use it for the following on DSLR RAW files:
- DBE
- Calibration
- Registration
- Combining/stacking
... it's now my choice for these when dealing with DSLR images.
Eventually I will likely come to use it more, as it is obviously very powerful.

Wouldn't step near it with a .FIT from my ST8 though, I've got better things to do with the time I save by using CCDStack + PS. :)

We're lucky to have the variety and luxury of choice so we can all choose what works best for us :thumbsup:

[multiweb]

+1 This is exactly how I feel about it too. In the industry they'd say it's been designed by a programmer. :lol:

[RickS]

Worse than that... it was designed by programmers who are also astronomers ;)

The UI is weird largely because they made the design choice to support multiple platforms and hence chose an OS independent GUI toolkit. I think that was a smart choice. It scares off a subset of users but it also widens the potential user base substantially.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and for some people PI is elegant and not at all difficult to understand. The process names make perfect and logical sense (and typically link to published algorithms in the astronomical literature.) I took to it like a duck to water. However, I realize that not everybody is like me or has a comp sci/maths/imaging background (probably just as well.) I can also understand why some people dislike the unusual GUI, the plethora of parameters, the lack of an obvious workflow, etc. and that's OK with me.

Cheers,
Rick.

[lazjen]

I can only compare to DSS+PS for processing, but I find PI quite good for my current level of experience. It's easy to see how you're progressing on an image at any point and with the history it's easy to back track for another workflow attempt or branch off for something completely different.

I also found the gui quite acceptable (much better than PS), but I'm also more Linux focused than most people.

[multiweb]

You fit in the ultra geek group then. We're common mortals and simply talking about usability here. Just very basic 'high level' interaction. If cars worked like PI only mechanics would be driving them. Maybe they should make a library of prebuilt groups of processes and name then in plain English, hell I'd even settle for Spanish. This way it would get a foot in the door for a lot of people, not in the mouth ;)

[RickS]

We have a wide spectrum of opinions which is cool. No point in getting bent out of shape because someone else doesn't like our favourite processing tool, brand of PC or smartphone, or choice of imaginary friend :thumbsup:

Can we go back to arguing the relative merits of refractors, newtonians and catadioptrics now?

[Geoff45]

Or perhaps freds atroshis speling :D
Geoff

[Rod771]

Hey,hey, hey!!! :mad2: My imaginary friends chose me, alright! ;):D

[RickS]

You had better listen to that one, Rod! Sounds like a keeper :)

[andyc]

Just took the plunge myself last week! I used the trial for a while, and Harry's videos (see link below) are brilliant, at least while you're not accidentally imagining Harry's dulcet tones are out of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naGOZoHxA-I) :eyepop:. But maybe then you just concentrate more on what he's teaching you...

So far, some good, some bad, some ugly with PI, it's quite a learning process even for someone quite familiar with image processing and programming!

[jjjnettie]

I'd love to have a shoot out with the two programs (PI and PS) using the same data set. Just to see what everyone can pull out of it. :)

[Geoff45]

I feel much the same way. When I got the trial version a few years back I was so fascinated by PI that I spent every available moment exploring it--just couldn't leave it alone. Maybe having a strong maths background had something to do with it. I got the commercial version long before the trial period was up.
Geoff

[marc4darkskies]

Agree it's mostly about useability ... and I would NOT want to own that car! :lol: But I don't want to ignore what PI does well - in my case gradient removal and star registration (to start with)

PI vs PS is like a political discussion - 5 parts dogma, 4 parts emotion and 1 part logic & common sense!

I've decided to explore and use elements of PI to augment my mostly PS based processing. No dogma, no emotion, just common sense :D I'll continue to joke about PI's UI and UX though! :P

[RickS]

It's not just about usability. It's also about power and expressiveness. Some people want a simple and easy workflow. Some people want control over all the parameters, the ability to generate masks programmatically, etc. The same UI is never going to satisfy both groups.

Incidentally, I'd put PS in the category of software designed for geeks. It's just that people have learned to live with it (or moved to Lightroom.)

Cheers,
Rick.

[multiweb]

Agreed you can really push the envelope with PI and that's important. Having said that a software needs various levels of control. A good visual interface and a powerful underlying scripting engine. But I still like to have a visual approach to what I'm doing with near realtime feedback.

Let's take a concrete example.

Adobe Lighroom has a terrific way of balancing colors. The temperature slider in combination with the tint slider will give you an immediate feedback both in the viewport and histogram. This is a visual feedback and it's very intuitive. I don't even care about what it does under the hood. I can move those two until I see the colors I like. Period.

On the other end if you take CCD Stack, it does a very good job at sampling a dark area in your channels and with a bit of INT mode and pixelmath you can pretty much nail your colors.

Both have different approach. Both effective. One is visual, the other goes by the numbers.

In PI there is a lot of choices of parameters but not much feedback in the interface. Photoshop is more visual. A visual interface suits me better. I like to see things in real time by interacting with basic settings. Keeping it simple. Too much choice is a little confusing and overwhelming.

I totally understand that the math inclined people will appreciate the elegance in the naming and functionality of all the underlying PI processes but I like pretty colors better than numbers. Same way I do astro photos. I like shapes and colors. I like listening to others explaining sometimes what we see but to me imaging is like painting. Pretty colors and relaxing.

[RickS]

Many processes support a real-time preview which does exactly what you're talking about. For those that don't you can create a preview, apply a process and then blink compare the result. You can even make multiple copies of the preview to test different parameters. It's a bit more effort but it's very powerful.



You're obviously not a member of the PI target audience, Marc. If they hear you talking about painting they'll revoke your license :lol:

I do completely get your point. I just don't think it's a problem. Some people grok PI and some don't. For those that don't there are plenty of other options. Many of them, unlike PI, even have written documentation!

Cheers,
Rick.

[multiweb]

I know... Isn't that terrible? I'd be burnt at the stake on the altar of stellar painting. Even Marcus would sprinkle some more gasoline for good measure. :P
Seriously I bought PI when it came out. I use it occasionally :scared3:
Maybe one day I'll come around it when I have some time to put into it.
If they ever come up with a repository of pre-made macros/group of processes like the Photoshop components library then I'll be the first in line. With my broom stick. :thumbsup: