Lately I’ve been in an astro imaging slump. I haven’t taken an image in maybe 6 months. I had a think about why and it all comes down to how long and complicated post processing is. I can’t face how long it takes to process my images.
I use Pixinsight which is good but it all just takes so long and is so complicated it can all get a bit overwhelming.
So I was wondering if there is anyway or if there any software out there that can automate the post processing part of astrophotography. I realise some people enjoy this part of it but for me it’s just tedious.
We’ve been able to pretty much automate the data acquisition part of it, so why can’t we do the same with post-processing?
Rene, I don't know any auto processing but I recommend giving "Startools" a shot. It is quite quick to process by using default settings which usually still give a very good result. It also give lots of adjustment/options if you desire. Quite a few members here use it . It's free to download without option to save your image as a trial. Pretty cheap anyway at about $60 i think.
Cheers Richard
Rene, I don't know any auto processing but I recommend giving "Startools" a shot. It is quite quick to process by using default settings which usually still give a very good result. It also give lots of adjustment/options if you desire. Quite a few members here use it . It's free to download without option to save your image as a trial. Pretty cheap anyway at about $60 i think.
Cheers Richard
I bought StarTools a while back and didn’t really like it. The workflow didn’t make any sense and it was hard to understand what each of the settings did.
Maybe I’ll give it another try. But I’m still looking for an automated solution.
StarTools is definitely "easier" in terms of how many clicks you need before you get an image. Much less confusing windows. But the output... I'll keep waiting
You're absolutely right through, Rene. I'm using this time under clouds to try and master PI a bit more, but ye gods it's a long and laborious process.
Maybe as we get AI into more software, this will become easier and we can edit with just a few clicks.
Topaz Denoise gets a lot of hate from some people but to be honest, I'd willingly trade data integrity/honesty for quicker and easier processing with little input.
I bought StarTools a while back and didn’t really like it. The workflow didn’t make any sense and it was hard to understand what each of the settings did.
Maybe I’ll give it another try. But I’m still looking for an automated solution.
Rene
No worries Rene. I believe Martin (Startrek) may have done a workflow demo or 2 on here. He gets fantastic results using Startools and swears by it. He also mentioned being disillusioned by the complexity of some processing programs.
Cheers,Richard.
I don't think you could every really automate processing as so much of it at the pointy end is subjective and up to the tastes of whoever is pushing the buttons. But Astro Pixel Processor I find to be quite simple to use.
Load your lights.
Load your flats
Load your calibration files (Master bias, master darks, bad pixel map etc)
Make a few intelligent selections to fairly basic settings if it makes sense with your data.
Click "Integrate"
The subjective stuff comes when the basic integrations are done.
I don't think you could every really automate processing as so much of it at the pointy end is subjective and up to the tastes of whoever is pushing the buttons. But Astro Pixel Processor I find to be quite simple to use.
Load your lights.
Load your flats
Load your calibration files (Master bias, master darks, bad pixel map etc)
Make a few intelligent selections to fairly basic settings if it makes sense with your data.
Click "Integrate"
The subjective stuff comes when the basic integrations are done.
Yeah appreciate that at some point post processing goes from being a science to and art. I was hoping we could automate 80% of the process and then the final touches could be manual tinkering by the user.
StarTools is definitely "easier" in terms of how many clicks you need before you get an image. Much less confusing windows. But the output... I'll keep waiting
You're absolutely right through, Rene. I'm using this time under clouds to try and master PI a bit more, but ye gods it's a long and laborious process.
Maybe as we get AI into more software, this will become easier and we can edit with just a few clicks.
Topaz Denoise gets a lot of hate from some people but to be honest, I'd willingly trade data integrity/honesty for quicker and easier processing with little input.
Yeah I can see what they’re trying to do with PI but I think they need to ask themselves, do we really need 6 different ways to stretch an image? Surely 1 or 2 are enough.
PI is such a huge, complicated program it’s actually turning me off imaging as I can’t face the hours need to get an image.
Lately I’ve been in an astro imaging slump. I haven’t taken an image in maybe 6 months. I had a think about why and it all comes down to how long and complicated post processing is. I can’t face how long it takes to process my images.
I use Pixinsight which is good but it all just takes so long and is so complicated it can all get a bit overwhelming.
So I was wondering if there is anyway or if there any software out there that can automate the post processing part of astrophotography. I realise some people enjoy this part of it but for me it’s just tedious.
We’ve been able to pretty much automate the data acquisition part of it, so why can’t we do the same with post-processing?
Cheers
Rene
Hi Rene,
We all have our preferences but I really do like Affinity Photo for all my Astro stacking and processing. It is FUN and ENJOYABLE does a good job and there are many Macros to help automate the setup and development process. Available Macros make the set up of HSO, HOO, Bi-Colour, RGBL etc really easy. See the tutorial at:
I have tried Pixinsight. I have a Masters Degree in IT with a GPA of 6.4 but I still find Pixinsight a headbanger. I am sure Pixnsight is great if I only could discover how to easily use the sophisticated processes inherent the software.
Startools is about as close as you can get to “automatic post processing”
It has a step by step process through the 8 or 10 modules and most preset default parameters yields good results.
Hence it’s uses signal evolution tracking
The fun part of Startools comes outside the defaults where you can really make your data come to life at the same time keeping a track on signal and noise
Cheers
Avid Startools User
I find APP to be quite automated, I reckon it would be near 80% at least conceptually. The manual input is sometimes in adjusting settings if something like a satellite trail is not integrating out nicely (The real answer is usually to get more subs if you can) colour calibration of OSC or combined RGB images and how hard to stretch the output.
I like the approach of manually processing in PI. Gives me time to think about what each step is doing, and I can undo or vary parameters.
I don't know if you do this but I have a number of saved projects, it makes the thinking/remembering about workflows easier. I have quite a few for making calibration files, integrating, processing (linear and non-linear stages). There are separate ones for OSC and narrowband. Attached are 2 of the 4 projects I use for standard OSC processing.
Within each project I name each process/script used for that workflow. Each process has settings for that workflow and has comments to remind what to do and what parameters to alter to changes things.
It all means that I don't have to struggle remembering things when I haven't used it for a while. I just run down the page and do each process. Makes it quicker
I've just been looking at the same issue. I eventually want to measure variable stars with a DSLR but to begin with I'll take a few 'happy snaps' to get used to the gear and processes. So my comments are not based on experience, just investigation. I use Linux on my desktop and I found a program called Siril which stands for 'Iris for Linux' Iris itself is Windows freeware which has a very extensive set of features, however I'm not sure how much development is going on. Meanwhile Siril is certainly being developed and it is now available for Win and iOS.
What looks hopeful to me is that Siril can use scripts to automate processes and it comes with some built in scripts (Linux users have to download manually) which can be modified or new ones written from scratch. You can do more advanced automation via DOS or bash scripts or with pySiril but that's all above my level. They have some tutorials and a youtube channel but I sort of like some of the third-party videos. A good intro is here.
As I say, I'm a newbie myself and don't really know if this is any better than other software but it looks good to me. I am interested in any feedback from more experienced imagers.
Maxim DL has automatic processing and batch/scripting features.
From an add:
Intelligent Calibration (tm) automatically selects the best bias, dark, and flat-field frames for each individual image. Powerful new image stacking tool automatically identifies and groups image by target object and filter, automatically rejects poor quality images, and includes multiple automatic and manual alignment modes. Automatically stack and LRGB combine multiple images at once!
Also:
Easy-to-use Batch processing and advanced scripting capability. Color tools include stacking, balance, saturation adjustment, pseudo color, color filter, remove background, realign planes. Complete photometry and astrometry capabilties.
I don't think you could every really automate processing as so much of it at the pointy end is subjective and up to the tastes of whoever is pushing the buttons. But Astro Pixel Processor I find to be quite simple to use.
Load your lights.
Load your flats
Load your calibration files (Master bias, master darks, bad pixel map etc)
Make a few intelligent selections to fairly basic settings if it makes sense with your data.
Click "Integrate"
The subjective stuff comes when the basic integrations are done.
This make APP sound complicated, you only need lights, its interface is tabs based and numbered in order of usage but you can just go straight to the last one to integrate and it’ll try to run all the earlier steps itself without any input from you and eventually give you a nice pretty stretched image, Fairly idiotproof program really, but it has power and features to add control but its defaults will get you a 99% perfect image with the files you give it and you dont HAVE to give ita bunch of certain types of frames, jpg light only work fine, but if you happen to grab some darks or flats it will make use of those if you add them, it doesnt force you to collect a set number of darks, bias etc. When I bought it I gave it a bunch a set I had spent months in Pixinsght to produce what I think is the best possible image for the data I took and APP spat out an indistinguishable result overnight. I still enjoy PI and as it keeps growing new feature I keep improving my workflow to make full use of signal to my skills (not perfect). But processing is a time consuming process, same with APP but it isn’t too bad to run through each tab over a few hours then the final integration I try to run before going out or going to bed and when I return the result is there in its glory. There are some niggles I want to see fixed or implemented andits not the powerhouse PI is capable of but it does an awesome job for little effort and fairly quickly too. I never was able to get the hang of stretching the Integrated output of DSS very well, APP seems to do a spot on job of stretching on its own and it has a great mosaic feature so instead of registering against one target frame it can register mosaic style all your frames (take a lot longer of course and produces a much larger resolution image as a result but its damn good and none of the complicated stuff in PI to deal with making mosaics, creating artificial starfield to match against etc.
Another vote for APP. AstroPixelProcessor gives you “one click” integrations with I think really great results. If you want to drop the final integrations into PI or PS Topaz then that option is always there, but it really is the best way for me to be able to enjoy the output of my data collection in a stress free way. YMMV
WBPP - Weighted Batch Pre-Processing script in PI does a pretty good job of getting an integrated image. You just load up your frames and let it go at it.
My approach to processing is more simplistic, amounting to Photometric Colour Calibration (automated) followed by Histogram Transformation until it looks about right. Then just a splash of saturation.
It doesn’t need to be eye-popping in fruit burst colours to be a realistic and attractive image IMO. Sometimes less is more.
