Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerg
Oh, a thread about PI usability (or lack there of), how could I not chip in my 2c worth!  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  |
+1 This is exactly how I feel about it too. In the industry they'd say it's been designed by a programmer.