BlurXterminator

[Spookyer (Brett)]

Hi Rob, very nice results there.

Brett

[ChrisV (Chris)]

That's really nice Rob. I've often skipped deconvolution as I couldn't get much sharpening without weirdo stars. Tried piles of parameters and masks ... Grrrr. Resorted to a light sharpening instrad.

Might give the blurX trial a go. I could do with a bit of artificial intelligence

[RobF (Rob)]

Thanks Brett and Chris. I should have also said I went a bit psycho - from memory there were a couple of runs of BXT, some curves and possibly some PI Dark Structure Enhance script.
Understand what you say about deconv Chris - I've agonised over masks etc and found it so hard to get anything decent - and even then its often so harsh has to be toned down.
I don't think its inventing data - seems plausible what it ended up with, but gather that's one of the concerns/arguments with AI driven tools.

[joshman (Josh)]

BXT is a fantastic bit of software. And i've found some good settings that work for me:

Sharpen Stars (+0.5)
Adjust Star Halos (+0.2)

Sharpen non-stellar (0.6)


I find these to work pretty good if i'm blending RGB stars into a Narrowband image.

I've also foudn that you need to be a bit careful with BXT, as it can sometimes squash any subtle details in very dark areas.

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

I agree wholeheartedly, BlurX is a great tool. Thankfully, one doesn't have to delve too deeply into the the acronym maze that is Pixinsight to use it! I basically do a histogram stretch before applying BlurX and then export the result into PS where I can blend the result to taste.

As with all sharpening though, great care must be taken to ensure that the image doesn't look overcooked. With respect to your example image, and notwithstanding it's essentially a test, I'll be brutally honest and say it IS somewhat overdone. By that I mean it's obviously been sharpened - a lot. If this happens to me, I dial it back either by changing parameters or by blending it with the unsharpened layers below (my preferred method)

Anyway, a good, informative post Rob with an decent result.

Cheers,
Marcus

[RobF (Rob)]

Thanks for that extra info Josh and Marcus. Totally agree this extreme crop and 2 test applications was overdone, but glad to hear many are finding these RC algorithms of use. Also found this write up interesting, including the frank break down of arguments against such tools:

https://cosgrovescosmos.com/tips-n-t...CDOJ4OcmYjehNA

[RobF (Rob)]

Disclaimer: Robo astrosystems gets no financial kickbacks from RC Astro!

V4 of BXT now allows it to be run on stars only and significantly improve coma, star shapes etc with variable correction across FOV. Luminance only mode also makes it easier to run on non-stellar nebs etc without affecting star colour.

In PixInsight, my workflow has changed substantially:

WBPP (has improved out of sight in recent years)
BXT for star correction only
ABE/DBE if required for gradients
SPCC for color calibration/correction
NoiseXTerminator (if you gone all in for RC tools)
BXT (deconv)
Then stretch, or do a star/starless workflow, etc etc

In cloudy times have had immense fun with modern PC firepower and just revisiting the astroimage archives re-working old images - particularly those where there was lots of data and could never get it to play nicely.

What a great time to be an astrophotographer.
Wait, when there's no clouds, what a great time to be an AP'er....

[ChrisV (Chris)]

Thanks for the info. I've just started using it and have been doing bXt after DBE. Do you think it's important to do it before DBE?

[RobF (Rob)]

Hi Chris

From playing on my data and trawling threads don't think anything is set in stone. Russ Croman seems to recommend BXT best on linear data (particularly if being used for deconvolution versus working on stars alone). There's a big argument on PI forums about if BXT for star shape correction before SPCC is worthwhile. Likewise some say ABE/DBE before SPCC, others prefer doing on stretched data.

The one universal seems to be more time spent in the field getting lots of well tracked and calibrated data makes everything later in processing easier.

Doesn't cost anything to save your masters and working images as you progress in a folder, and later try doing things differntly to see if any better or worse.

Sorry if that doesn't answer the question

Would be interested in any insights others have or if you've adjusted your (PI) workflow over last year or so? With apologies to anyone preferring Startools, Photoshop etc......