Processing Software

[gbeal]

With the majority of users being DSLR, I am keen to see what most are using to stack and process their files.
I have a cooled CCD, but essentially it is a DSLR one shot colour chip, and have until now used CCDStack. I like this program a lot, but if I have any more than about a dozen images it chugs, severely. OK, I don't have a "Bert" quad core either but a while back Mike Unsold of Images Plus mentioned that IP would breeze through any DSLR set of images.
I am leaning towards trying that, but thought I would ask as well.
I have used and found DSS to work OK, but I don't feel it has the sort of "control" I seek, plus the cursed text files it produces drive me crazy.
I have tried a friends copy of Maxim DL as well, and it wasn't too quick either.
What say ye?
Gary

[Tandum]

Gary, DSS is the only one I've found that can use all the processors in a multi core PC, therfore it will be the quickest. However, manually pointing it to all the cal files is a pain. I think you can turn off the text file rubbish. I'm using maxim now with the mono but often had trouble with maxim and OSC files.

[Octane]

IRIS. The price is good, too.

H

[multiweb]

Hi Gary before changing sotware have you tried CCDStack V2.0? It flies on my 5yr old toshiba satellite. Intel Celeron and 1GB RAM on XP pro. Much faster than the first version. Well worth the upgrade.

[gbeal]

Thanks guys. Robin, I'll look again at DSS, but it didn't really look like it was doing as good as the others.
H, you know me, I can turn the PC on, but a command line?? What the heck, I am stuck just thinking about it.
Marc. The V2 upgrade is a definite option, I was contemplating either that or a quad core whatsimcallit puter thing. And in the end the PC upgrade will still probably chug. Back in the good old days when a CCD was 700 x 500 or so, life was simple, but now..........
I'll keep ticking away at it.
Regards,
Gary

[Astrobserver99]

Hi Gary,

I am using both DSS and IP, latest versions...IP is easy to use with automated stacking/calibration...and has more options and better post and pre-processing. Both have similar performance (speed) on 32 bit windows, maybe IP has the edge.

[Phil Hart]

i have been using ImagesPlus for a long time now.. I like it but that's because it is the one I know.

It easily handles large sequences of images.. I routinely calibrate 100's of images (eg 5-20 hours worth of 3 minute subs). My laptop is not so powerful and it can do the same thing.. just takes longer but never stumbles.

I have a QuadCore desktop at home but I think for calibration it only uses one processor. The advantage comes when you want to do something else at the same time.. eg I will have one set of images calibrating while another is being aligned/stacked and I can still play with another image in IP or Photoshop.

IP is a great program but if I was starting from scratch now I would be looking seriously at CCDStack.. a couple of local astro colleagues wax lyrical about it every time I see them ;)

Phil

[gbeal]

Thanks again to all, I appreciate it.
I have had meaningful dialogue with both IP (Mike Unsold) and CCDStack (Stan Moore). Both have been extremely helpful.
I have never really gotten off the ground with IP, and find it "different". As an example, and not a critisism, just when you stack a set of subs, and are presented with the result that you can't see, it is an off-putting feeling. Others seem to give you the ability to see the image, or at least change some parameters to see it. Maybe IP does, but I didn't find it.
I did get a trial version of IP3.8 though, and I was able to calibrate, align, and stack 30 images without any issues, and on the old PC I acquire with.
Additionally I tried Version 2 of CCDStack, and while it is slightly different, it was similar, but didn't like any more than about a dozen images. I tried to replicate what I had done with IP, and it wouldn't.
There are differing thoughts too, from both the aforementioned learned gentlemen. One advocates splitting the OSC files into the respective R, G, and B channels, and processing separately, then recombining at the end. The other reckons OSC is done all the way through without splitting. How is a dipstick like me supposed to know?
More testing yet, but if nothing else I can see IP does what I want, whereas (sorry Marc) CCDStack won't, at least not like IP does anyway.
Gary