What is the difference between Pixinsight and DSS?

phobos27 (Nick) · #1 23-08-2014, 05:42 PM

I was just wondering what the difference was and if one would be better than the other? Also does the cost of Pixinight make up for the extra features? Also, if there are other programs i would love to know what they are!

cometcatcher (Kevin) · #2 23-08-2014, 11:42 PM

One costs a lot of money and one is free?

I don't have PI but from what I've seen it's a very impressive astro processing program, with a very steep learning curve. That's one reason I don't want to try it, I'm getting too old and stupid now to learn how to use yet another program. But then maybe I should, to exercise those sleepy brain cells...

Rex · #3 24-08-2014, 02:01 PM

Hey Nick, to answer your question is not really all that straight forward. DSS is predominately a stacking program and although it does have basic processing abilities, it was never meant to be used for proper processing. PI however is a processing program that also does stacking. PI is a closer comparison to photoshop than DSS, as they are both processing software. Hope that helps.

phobos27 (Nick) · #4 24-08-2014, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

One costs a lot of money and one is free?

I don't have PI but from what I've seen it's a very impressive astro processing program, with a very steep learning curve. That's one reason I don't want to try it, I'm getting too old and stupid now to learn how to use yet another program. But then maybe I should, to exercise those sleepy brain cells...

Thanks for that. Might be best if I can figure out how to use DSS first. Might make it easier to use the program in the future if i choose to get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex

Hey Nick, to answer your question is not really all that straight forward. DSS is predominately a stacking program and although it does have basic processing abilities, it was never meant to be used for proper processing. PI however is a processing program that also does stacking. PI is a closer comparison to photoshop than DSS, as they are both processing software. Hope that helps.

Interesting. Makes sense. I do have Photoshop all ready so I might just try to use that first.

Thanks for clearing up the question!

RickS (Rick) · #5 24-08-2014, 05:06 PM

In addition to what Rex said, PixInsight is specifically designed for processing astro images while Photoshop is a general purpose image processing package.

Photoshop is very powerful and learning it has value for all sorts of image processing. It's OK at astro images. In the right hands it can do a fantastic job. It's not incredibly easy to use but there are lots of books and other resources that will help you with the basics.

PixInsight has a lot of very powerful tools for processing astro images. Some of these are unavailable in Photoshop or are additional packages that you need to buy (e.g. gradient removal). It's challenging to learn if you're not a computer/image processing geek but not impossible. There are no books but there are some free videos (Harry's Astroshed) and some you can purchase (IP4AP.) It's of limited use for non astro images. It's not free but it's cheaper than Photoshop.

Hope that gives you some idea of the trade offs. I'm a keen PixInsight user but I've tried not to be biased

Cheers,
Rick.

Amaranthus (Barry) · #6 24-08-2014, 05:43 PM

Or you could try StarTools, which is relatively inexpensive, has a shallow learning curve (but great depth), and is developed by an Aussie. Fantastic bit of software, made for astrophotographers, by astrophotographers.

You can't do pre-processing in StarTools however - for that you need DSS or something else. I've found Nebulosity 3 to be brilliant for pre-processing, and quite good as a simple-to-use camera control (SGP is more complex, but also has more functions, and I'm gradually moving over to that for CC).

raymo · #7 24-08-2014, 05:53 PM

In danger of hijacking here. Can somebody tell me what are pre and post
processing? Pre and post what? If pre processing is the basic adjustments
I make in DSS, it seems that I don't do any post processing.
raymo

Amaranthus (Barry) · #8 24-08-2014, 06:10 PM

Pre-processing involves calibration (bias and dark/BPM subtraction, flat division), normalizing, debayering (if using a OSC camera), checking sub quality (and rejecting bad ones), and finally, aligning and combining.

Post-processing is everything else - colour combining (if relevant), stretching, gradient removal, colour correction, HDR, contrasting, sharpening, etc.

raymo · #9 24-08-2014, 07:35 PM

Thanks for the comprehensive information Barry.
raymo

RickS (Rick) · #10 24-08-2014, 08:21 PM

By all means try Startools and other processing options. Ivo (the Startools author) seems to offer great support. Find something that you feel comfortable with. PixInsight probably suits hardcore geeks best. The development team mainly consists of professional astrophotographers. It's not for the fainthearted

Cheers,
Rick.

phobos27 (Nick) · #11 24-08-2014, 08:44 PM

Thanks everyone for all the advice. I will look into Startools to see what the advantages of that program are. I should probably also focus on upgrading my imaging equipment before I start using tools like PI (I don't even have a guide scope!). It's good to get all this basic knowledge down though. I would not want to buy something I will never use!

My basic question has been answered so if anyone "hijacks" this post from here on out I don't mind (not that I minded in the first place) as it is an interesting topic to talk about. I have achieved some very nice results out of DSS and Lightroom so far so I might stick with those. I do own Photoshop CS6 but I really have no idea how to use it to process Deep Sky Images. If anyone knows of any good tutorials that would be great. Also, is Photoshop better than Lightroom for processing these DSO's. Does anyone have any experience using these two programs?

Thanks
Nick

cfranks (Charles) · #12 24-08-2014, 08:56 PM

An additional comment re. the cost of PixInsight. I bought it ~ 4 years ago and, although it has gone through major updates and significant additional routines to the workflow since then, the initial cost was all that I paid, no annual fee, no upgrade fee, nothing.
Highly recommended.

Charles

RickS (Rick) · #13 24-08-2014, 08:57 PM

I use Lightroom and it is great for ordinary photos but not in the same league as Photoshop for astro work.

Cheers,
Rick.

phobos27 (Nick) · #14 24-08-2014, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickS

I use Lightroom and it is great for ordinary photos but not in the same league as Photoshop for astro work.

Cheers,
Rick.

Thanks Rick. Might try and use it on my next astrophoto (hopefully Friday if the weather is good) and then I can compare the results myself. Although i would imagine Photoshop would be better, light room is so easy!