|
My 2c:
I have a background in photography so have Photoshop as well as most astrophotography packages such as StarTools and PixInsight.
First up as an advanced photoshop user I assumed it would help me get into astrophotography but i quickly came to the conclusion it has no place in astrophotography except maybe to save a web suitable jpeg file, but not for anything else.
Something that people seem to miss with discussions such as this is they dont define what astrophotography means so the questions cant really be answered. To some it requires equipment capture and control capabilities, to others they mean something to prettify a single long exposure photo, to others it means video processing and others still being able to take hundreds of high resolution photos to align stack and stretch. Some people only expect/want/need some of these capabilities.
So in what context do you want to compare StarTools and Pixinsight???
For me ST is too limited and very niche. Its aim seems to be to produce pretty pictures rather than the most accurate. PI does everything pretty much in processing.
You need to comprehend when someone say "X does y" it typically means X is capable of being used to do Y by the dumb human using it, NOT that X is physic software that just automatically does Y. Try to comprehend (consult a dictionary) before commenting. If you the user don't understand the tools a piece of software provides, why and how and when to use them then the software is useless.
Every piece of imaging software I've seen produce stunning photos in the hands of people who understand them well. You also need to comprehend you are not stuck with using just one piece of software to go from input data to output image. You move data to software where you can best utilise it. The software is irrelevant, its the user putting in the effort.
For lazy people PixInsight will never work because it does require thinking and effort. To them StarTools is a more simplistic approach while people willing to put in the effort can dive deep with both packages .
I would say ST is easier to get started with but its java foundation is unstable and its processing approach tends to be unique so its harder to adapt tutorials and techniques you find for other software since the language is harder to translate (if even possible).
PI on the other hand has pretty much everything in there and often several times in several ways. Comprehending its components is its strngth and weakness. Weakness because it makes it harder to dive into and learn. But strength because as you learn new techniques you find PI already has the capabilities there waiting for you. This makes it software that grows as you grow. The complex terminolgy is often universal to other programs as well meaning its easier to migrate from another package or find a tutorial from something else and put it to use in PI.
I'll reiterate my start, it depends what context of astrophotography you are talking about. The way I work and capture PI is perfect for my widefield but poor for planets (it takes me considerable work in PI to match what AutoStakert produces simply.) Based on your way of working you may feel exactly opposite. And of course AstroArt, Nebulosity, AstroPixelProcessor and DSS etc are all very capable to users whose workflow gels well plus other programs offer other features users need making those programs more suitable in thos situations. For MY situation its PI as gold standard and AstroPixelProcessor a close second .
|