Processing Software

[mick pinner]

l would like some recommendations on the best astro imaging software for deep space photos please. thanks.

[Bassnut]

For DSLRs, Images Plus, hands down.
For CCDs, CCD stack, hands down.

Free stuff, I dont know, but you get what you pay for.

[mick pinner]

thanks Fred, does anyone in Aus sell it.

[h0ughy]

mick it depends - I am really warming to pixinsight, i have images plus and astroart 4. there is nebulousity 2 and maxim - depends on what camera you are using and what you want to do.....

[Bassnut]

No, IP is sent via post, but cheaply and fairly quick. CCD stack can be downloaded over the net with a free trial.

[Astrobserver99]

For free stuff, I like EOS Utilities Remote Capture/Live View and Deep Sky Stacker for processing. General image editing software, such as PS or Corel completes the package.

Commercial - I also like Images Plus, AstroArt or MaximDL

[Octane]

IRIS is free and does everything. If you enjoy typing commands, rather than clicking on buttons, IRIS is it.

Regards,
Humayun

[bojan]

That is not true.
Iris, DSS etc are the proof.

[Bassnut]

OK, well, Mike Sidonio uses Iris I think, seems to do the trick, I may well be wrong, I havent tried it.

[h0ughy]

i think he uses astroart

[Terry B]

Thers are processed with iris
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/gallery/index1.htm
Not too bad really.:P

[bojan]

Not at all :-)

The only thing I was missing at the beginning (and I still do as a matter of fact, but less and less as I am using it more often) is a library of most commonly used scripts... with them, Iris would easily eclipse any other software (with button-oriented MMI)
Otherwise, it is an awesome piece of software.

[Octane]

IRIS for life.

I can't believe it's free. For instance, there's no need to pay $200 for Registar.

Regards,
Humayun

[bojan]

Amateurs for amateurs principle :)
At it's best :thumbsup:

[Bassnut]

Registar is whole different kettle of fish apparently. I heard from Marc last night, it can align anything, different FLs, rotation etc, and unlike other apps, can not only move, rotate, and scale, but "warp" subs to fit.

[AlexN]

The warp is the kicker there too Fred.. I have two images that MaximDL can't align despite the fact that they were taken at the same focal length and resolution.. This is because the object was framed fairly differently in the two shots, and as a result, there is a very slight element of field curvature in the OSC data, but not in the Ha data. This does MaximDL's head in...

As for the question at hand...

I use:

MaximDL or CCDSoft (depending on the day) : for Capture, Guiding, Stacking, Calibration and pre-processing (DDP, Deconvolution)

Photoshop CS4 : for post processing (stretching, sharpening, contrast enhancements and the like.. Oh, and for removing those pesky stars from images...)

[Octane]

IRIS does all this. :)

Regards,
Humayun

[AlexN]

Just looked at IRIS, Yeeeaaahh.. Reminds me of my Linux days.... Rather not..

[Octane]

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Everything you can do from the command line can be done from the menus.

Anyway, it produces the results. And, doesn't cost a cent.

Even if Christian decided to charge money for it, I'd buy it. It is simply the most powerful all-in-one application I know of.

Regards,
Humayun

[jase]

There is no one size fits all.

I often find myself pushing data in and out of different processing applications to obtain the desired result. What is important here is that regardless of the chosen application, you need to have a solid understanding of what its doing to your data. Understanding what tool, when to use it and what its doing is half the battle in the processing work flow.

Stick with one or two applications and get to know them inside out.

[mick pinner]

thanks Jase l think you summed it up well.

[bojan]

The problem with us humans is, we almost always make our decisions based on first impressions (and I am the same of course), and choosing the image processing software is not an exception.
Second look (and getting to know the tool) is usually omitted because we get used to the first choice, especially if our expectations are sort of fulfilled. The manufacturers of commercial products know this very well and they are tailoring them accordingly, paying attention to MMI (Man-Machine Interface), which apparently is more important that the job the application is supposed to do. And it is absolutely amazing how many people are actually prepared to pay good money in good fate that they will get an exceptional and exclusive product because it is expensive. What they are getting is just a nice wraps, everything else was already in public domain and therefore, free !
Saying there is no "One size fits all" is very often just an excuse for not taking action and just sticking to known path..
Proper understanding of the application, on the other hand, is essential.

Recently I started to look at ImageJ (it is also freeware and open source, java application) and it looks very promising, definitely an alternative for often too expensive commercial packages. And it does handle 16bits/channel TIFF format, as well as RAW (*.CR2)
http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/

[troypiggo]

I recently downloaded ImageJ too - turned it up searching for deconvolution software. It has heaps of plugins, and it seems the authors are very active based on the traffic on their mailing list. Mostly academic applications I think. Looks like it does focus stacking too, which is handy for macro photography. Yet to get my teeth really stuck into it.

[drjcaron]

Hi All,
This is my first post to this forum, and I am a vendor, so I will try to be careful with my choice of words. Much of my day job involves processing images of different types. I use at least five programs, some that are free, some are not. What I really like about ImageJ is that you can scroll through a lot of images very quickly. It saves me a lot time hunting down problems in image sequences. If it was a paid program, I'd buy it.

What I appreciate about the commercial software, beyond the user interface, is that there is someone is accountable for the content (or at least should be). I can fire off an email asking "why does it do that" or "why doesn't it do that" and expect an answer. For this reason, I expect that commercial will usually be better than free software. It is of course up to the user to decide whether the cost is worth it. It is perfectly understandable for a user to save his money for a bigger telescope.

Best Regards,
Jim C

[Bassnut]

Well, decovolution is by far most usefull filter I had used in processing images, heres one im going to have to try http://www.quarktet.com/ :D.

What do you think of CCDstacks (paid for) algorithm Jim ;).