0.00
#... |
|---|
| What is the best astrophotography processing software? |
7.22
#...
·
4
likes
|
|---|
| PixInsight |
11.57
#...
·
3
likes
|
|---|
| Define "best" first. |
 #...
·
10
likes
|
|---|
| I agree with Wei-Hao - best value, best math, ease of use, power, least 'fixes' etc? I use Startools, which meets all these criteria - ridiculously easy to use, yet packed with power and 'mathematically' derived features; it is also exceptional value for money, and has excellent forums and support, especially from its creator Ivo Jaeger. |
2.11
#...
·
7
likes
|
|---|
Best for who, best for what ? As a beginner I find myself very comfortable with AstropPixelProcessor (just released the 1.083 beta2) and final refinement with Photoshop and Astrotools I am planning to integrate also Pixinsight in my workflow for some very useful mechanics that could speed up some part of the processing . |
10.16
#...
·
10
likes
|
|---|
|
The best software is the software you are familiar and comfortable to work with. My advise:
|
15.48
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Olaf Fritsche: Agreed 100% I would love to use the big boy stuff, but my brain is too stupid to understand how to do the complicated stuff. I’m just not a very techy kinda guy I guess. Takes me a long time to learn from doing. I know there is a lot of free stuff on the web which is great. I use Gimp and many plugin’s, along with Siril. Just got introduced to it on this thread. https://www.astrobin.com/forum/c/astrophotography/other/gimp-astrophotograpy-plugins/ Maybe once I get more comfortable with more processing techniques I’ll consider PS or PI. |
5.70
#...
·
6
likes
|
|---|
|
For me, PixnSight. Lots of tutorials on YouTube from beginner processing to advanced. Also, Warren Keller's book, "Inside Pixnsight" is a very in depth, easy to understand tool which takes you step by step in the imaging process. Don't forget, the PixnSight website has forums and tutorials as well, along with great tech support. They have always responded to my inquiries promptly and with tolerance and patience. In any case, Olaf said it best but I'll add: Be patient and don't be afraid to experiment. Good luck and clear skies Patrick G. |
|
0.00
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Thanks for all the comments and sorry for not saying what preferences I had. I'm still a beginner, I started 14 days ago and saw that you need software to process your images, but I'm just researching. I don't have the necessary materials to take a good picture and I don't have a "good" telescope. Another question: it's better to make your own telescope, right? |
7.53
#...
·
3
likes
|
|---|
| For me Pixinsight, but that is the only software I've used so far. I've branched out into Lightroom for finishing touches and am starting to see how I can take advantage of Photoshop Layers and some of their masking routines. |
|
15.48
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
. Another question: it's better to make your own telescope, right? Ummm well if you want to go that route you certainly can. I’d say in most cases ATM’ers are mainly doing reflector/dobsonian type scopes which are mainly used for visual use, although there are faster newts that are made specifically for imaging. Like the Sky Watcher Quattro’s as well as Orion and Astro Tech has similar OTA’s as well as mounts. Really depends on what your looking for and what your pockets can afford. You can get into a nice small 80ed scope on the used market for around $400 then add a mount for that on the used market if you watch you can get something like an AVX that would handle an 80mm easily and it will give you a really good start for learning the ropes then upgrade as you see the need. I have an AVX, and a CGEM and they perform quite nicely when setup properly. Wish you the best! Dale |
#...
·
4
likes
|
|---|
| Keep it simple Lorenzo - as Dale says for most astrophotography you need a good mount, or at least one that can track reasonably accurately. Modern ‘go to’ mounts are straightforward but you may need to adapt older mounts for autoguiding. Building a telescope is a challenge and I would follow Dale’s advice and go for a small ED refractor to start with - good field of view, fairly fast optics and therefore more tolerant of guiding inaccuracies. Take your pick in terms of software. |
3.32
#...
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Tom Gray: I also use Startools for most of my images and agree for a novice it will give reasonable results in a short amount of time even with keeping most settings default. However, it is much more powerful than most give it credit for... especially for more advanced imagers that know the theory and calculations behind the settings and tweak each process to their individual images. Also, documentation in Startools 1.7 is much better now than a few years ago and worth the read if you go that route. I also strongly recommend PixInsight if you have the time and desire to learn “all” of the details (with limited documentation). Why each step is done a particular way and to understand the decisions that matter behind every processing step. I’ve used APP, PI, Startools and Photoshop and honestly could recommend any of them for the heavy lifting. |
 #...
·
4
likes
|
|---|
| I have tried and used Pixinsight, Photoshop, Startools, APP. If I were to only use one program, I would spend the time learning Pixinsight. It can be daunting because documentation may not always be available for a process. You can start with a simple workflow and then expand your processing as you feel comfortable. |
|
10.16
#...
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Since you are just starting, take it easy. You have plenty of time and it's a vast field! I would recommend watching some Videos of Peter Zelinka. Especially about the possibility to make very nice astro pics with an ordinary DSLR and a tracker like SkyGuider Pro or StarAdventurer. In summer the Milky Way is a fantastic object for wide field with a DSLR. So, you do not need a telescope at all. And you do not need a telescope of your own, if you are more in processing images. You can rent a remote telescope. Regarding the software: Better start with something cheap and easy. E.g. Affinity Photo (AP) costs 50 Bucks and can read fits files. It works pretty much like PS, but there are a lot of tutorials for AP, too. PixInsight (PI) is the champ in the field but not very user friendly. I admit, I tried it for 3 weeks and was not able to master it (and I am a biophysicist and holding a PhD, and I read Keller's book and watched a lot of tutorials. No, PI is neither user friendly nor suited for beginners). Maybe I will give it a try later. |
12.53
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| PixInsight, Astro Pixel Processor, PS..........different flavors to mix and match for different projects |
|
7.22
#...
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Lorenzo Jesien: Nowadays, the short answer is a big fat NO. Even more so if you're starting out. Experienced astrophotographers may want to tweak mounts, adaptors and cameras but it is not certainly for the faint of heart. And then there are the ATMers, which enjoy just that part of the hobby. But anything beyond the simplest newtonian requires wagonloads of optical prowess, guile and hard work. |
|
0.90
#...
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Tom Gray: I never heard of this. Looks great and I'm going to try out the free trial now. Thanks for posting! |
2.61
#...
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
I agree with the above comments, for ease of use and value for money, Startools is the best processing software to start with while you are learning all the acquisition stuff. However Pixinsight is the most comprehensive and powerful, but it's pricey and as others have said it takes some time to learn. By starting with Startools you will have a good foundation in the core processes for moving on to other packages. However most imagers find that even with Pixinsight a quick pass through Lightroom of Photoshop can add a lot. |
|
15.48
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
I have downloaded the free version of Startools as well and am looking forward to trying it out. Read some of the tutorials and watched the YouTube video as well and it certainly looks more streamline for someone like me (nob in software) to start out with. I’ve been using Gimp with several plugin’s and have been quite happy with what little I’ve been able to learn, but being able to create and apply masks and do all the other little stuff that in the end adds up to major improvements in the end I’ve I don’t have the skill set so can’t wait to give ST’s a try! Thanks for sharing that with us! Dale |
|
6.89
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| You cannot create and use a mask in Gimp? |
|
15.48
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
You cannot create and use a mask in Gimp? Yes but its not real easy to use and activate etc... Again I’m not that great working with software. I know many use it with great success but my brain don’t work all that well with software. Thats why I’m looking for something thats more intuitive, easier to work with. Dale |
1.43
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Hi, I use PixInsight. I don’t know if it,s the best but it,s wide used and very powerful. On the other hand, it has a slow and hard learning curve. So ste by step. I recommend to read a lot about it (books, forums, youtube…) and if you can it is strong recommended to do any kind of courses (I think that Adam Block have published some in his web, payment needed). Kind regards, |
|
11.01
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I would say Pixinsight, however it is hellishly expensive for most amateurs. I used to use Deepskystacker (because it was free) and Startools (because I thought it was easy and relatively cheap). I initially used GIMP (again because it was free) and then spent money on photoshop/lightroom and Topaz AI denoise also. At the end of the day, Pixinsight got rid of all the headaches I had with all those products and, although it took a little while to learn, ended up being far more intuitive in the end and covers all my needs for astro in one tool. In some ways, it is the best investment I have made in astrophotography so far. |
7.75
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
My lifelong experience in buying stuff tells me that in most cases you are well advised to go for "the standard", i.e. buy what the majority of power users buy. PixInsight is the most powerful software for AP and while there is some learning curve it's not too difficult to learn - in particular if you first focus on the most crucial steps. Clear skies Wolfgang |
