| How would you rate the attached workflow for OSC imaging in PixInsight? | |
|---|---|
| Don't change a thing. | |
| Mostly okay, but could use a few improvements. | |
| Fair/mediocre. Neither good nor bad but there are some distinct flaws. | |
| Glaring flaws and needs root-and-branch overhaul. | |
| Login to vote and view results. |
2.62
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
I've had PixInsight for about 2-1/2 years and got it shortly after taking up astroimaging. I'm currently using modded Nikon DSLRs (D5300 and D5500) but just recently picked up an ASI 533MC-Pro. Question is on my workflow. As time has gone by, I've gotten better at processing, but there's always room for improvement. Finding the time to sit down to watch all 653,242 PixInsight YouTube tutorials (each spanning a length of geological time) is admittedly a hurdle. I mean, I've picked up at least a few things along the way. Personally, I find VisibleDark's the easiest to follow and understand, but to each their own. Basically, I'm wondering if you were taking OSC images (I have ZERO desire for mono imaging), how would you judge the following workflow? For stacking, I just use Deep Sky Stacker and take the unmodified Autosave.TIF file straight into PixInsight. Why not use PixInsight? Because DSS is just too easy and learning everything in PXI is 10X harder than it needs to be. Once it's in PixInsight, here's what I do. ***NOTE--I haven't posted any photos with this method yet, but I have reprocessed several images using this method. I'll post some of these in the next few days. I've just seen the improvement in the images using the following method, but am wondering if I can still improve upon it.*** LINEAR STAGE: 1. Screen Transfer Function / autostretch. 2. Dynamic crop for stacking artifacts/margins. 3. ABE/DBE, depending on the gradients involved. 4. Photometric color calibration (NOTE--if the image is OSC Narrowband, I'll do photometric color calibration assuming this) 5. NoiseXterminator (80% Denoise / 15% Detail. The 90% / 15% default seems a bit too "polished" or "wax"-looking to my eyes) 6. Starnet++ V2 on Stars-only image (labeled "STARS") 7. Curves transformation to boost star saturation 8. Curves transformation in RGB/K to reduce star size. Literally grab the 50% point and drag it ~10% to 20% towards the lower-right corner. on starless image (labeled "GLOW", for the object) 9. Clone stamp in case there are dust motes flats didn't take care of. 10. Stitch it back together in PixelMath, GLOW+STARS becomes "PS1" for "Pre-Stretch Image 1", saved as TIF. I save this intermediate step in case I need to go back to it at a later time. NON-LINEAR STAGE: 1. Series of histogram stretches, though not mimicking the auto-stretch. Tried GHS, but I'm getting error messages when I tried running it. 2. Stretch until histogram peak is ~20% over from left. 3. Bring shadows back in and stretch more, maintaining 20% peak position without clipping. 4. Run Starnet++ V2 again. On stars-only image: 5. Curves transformation for another color saturation boost. on starless image-- 6. Extract luminance channel. 7. Clip luminance until ~50% of pixels are clipped. Basically at the peak of the histogram. Clip point varies on how cleanly the background/nebula split is. 8. Label the result as luminance mask and invert mask on starless image. 9. Compress / darken starless image a bit. Generally prefer background to be ~0.1, as 0.15 looks too bright and 0.05 looks too dark to my eyes. 10. Keep luminance mask on, but remove inversion. 11. Adjust saturation and/or hue in CurvesTransformation 12. A bit of unsharp masking on just the starless image if appropriate. ALWAYS lower than the 2.00/0.80 defaults. 13. Stitch back together with PixelMath 14. Final adjustment on background with either CurvesTransformation RGB/K or arcsinh stretch. 15. Run EZ Star Reduction, set # morphological transformation iterations to 7 -- NOTE: I do star reduction in linear stage because aggressively hitting a non-linear image with repeated rounds of EZ Star Reduction just doesn't look right. I'm not saying this is the best method. It's just the one I'm using now. I'd be curious to know what the PixInsight veterans out there think could be improved upon. If astrophotography has taught me anything, there's ALWAYS a better way to do things. Thoughts? Clear Skies, Phil |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Here's a recent example. A reprocessed image of the California Nebula shot last year with a 135mm Samyang @ f/2.8 using an L-Enhance filter. Clear Skies, Phil  |
4.67
#...
·
|
|---|
|
The image you posted looks fine, the star on the right side is a bit funky... Do you use anything else except Pixinsight besides stacking? Pixinsight does a lot of things well and some things no one else does but as a stand alone post processing software, it lacks a lot in my opinion. Capture One and Photoshop ACR are both very good RAW stack processors, Affinity photo is a very inexpensive software that has very good Denoise and a nice Astrophotography tool.. Topaz plugins for denoise and sharpening are first rate. There are some very inexpensive Astro plugins for Photoshop that are great. You used some nice Pixinsight tools, the Starnet is excellent and cropping and Curves are very useful. Pixinsight's Channel swapping is like no one else, I can't imagine not having it. Linear fit, Localhistogram, a lot of very useful tools. Pixelmath is an Amazing must have. However, software is cheap and there are a lot of other programs out there that are extremely useful and do things better than Pixinsight to improve your Astrophotography. One of the best features of Pixinsight is it is so friendly with the other software packages, you can go back and forth very easy. Just my 2 cents. |
11.09
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I wouldn't say that your workflow is flawed, but that it is too complicated. What images a simpler workflow produce for you? Is the L-Enhance absolutely necessary given your skies? Is it also necessary to follow the current trend on working on starless images and performing extreme star reduction? I think you must invest some time learning how to calibrate and integrate using PI. DSS is a fine software but has its limitations (e.g., it cannot align (register) properly wide-field images). Trust me, manual calibration and integration in PI is not difficult at all. |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
|
I needed the L-Enhance because I'm shooting from a Bortle 6 sky. I don't have access even to a Bortle 4 unless I drive an hour away. Clear Skies, Phil |
7.75
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Die Launische Diva: Adam Block just started to publish a series of videos to explain the latest version of WBPP: The Definitive Guide to WBPP in PixInsight - YouTube There is no better way to get started in my humble opinion. Clear skies Wolfgang |
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed: Interesting approach with 2x star removal... My understanding is that starnet++ stretches the image (if in linear state), removes the stars and makes it linear again. But this approach seems to be working for you well. I cannot comment on DSS, however, the advantage of PI WBPP is the control, weighting, etc. PI WBPP has nicely developed and shows all steps (or potential problems) even graphically. I agree with Wolfgang, Adam Blocks tutorials are great and makes PI WBPP easy to understand and to work with. Cheers, Rob |
|
23.24
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed: Hi Phil - could you please let me know the error messages you are getting when you run GHS? I would be happy for you to send me a PM to avoid clogging/diverting this thread. Thanks Mike |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
Die Launische Diva: I'll take your word for it, but Good God, that's **6 FREAKING HOURS** worth of videos on WBPP!! Deep Sky Stacker will run my stuff and generate an autostack.TIF file with ~50 lights and 20 darks in 10 minutes if I'm using a prior master flat or bias, and 20 minutes tops if I'm using new flats and biases. If I tell it to keep 90% of my light frames (~70% back when I shot unguided), it usually does the trick. I mean, how much of an improvement is there really over DSS in this realm? DSS will automatically generate a master dark, bias and flat, too. And DSS was at least, I dunno, invented by earthlings? Pixinsight was made by aliens. Benevolent aliens that want us earthlings to improve our astrophotos, yes, but aliens nevertheless. Yeah, I'm kidding, but I'm only half-joking. The software is powerful but so unintuitive it takes a lot of trial-and-error to get things honed in. Clear Skies, Phil |
|
2.62
#...
·
|
|---|
Mike Cranfield:Phil Creed: Mike, I'll make sure I post it. I'd like to run this to see what the hoopla is about. Clear Skies, Phil |
|
7.75
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed:Die Launische Diva: I started with DSS myself and indeed it's nice and easy - and very fast too. I switched when I couldn't convince DSS to stack my images taken with a wobbly alt-az mount. PI stacked the images without problems. But you are right: if it works for you, why fix it. Have fun and clear skies Wolfgang |
|
2.62
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I'd admittedly be more keen on doing WBPP in PixInsight if PixInsight wasn't just...so...unintuitive. Processes with a lot of input parameters are processes that are powerful, yes, but also ones that are easy to screw up, too. DSS is just easy to use, easy to understand, does what it's told, doesn't complain, and I was up and running on it the first time I tried it. Clear Skies, Phil |
|
2.62
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Here's the error message I get with GHS:*** Error: Parsing code signature file: Parsing Signature element (line=8 offset=3): Missing code checksum data: C:/Program Files/PixInsight/src/scripts/GeneralisedHyperbolicStretch/GeneralisedHyperbolicStretch.xsgn Whatever the hell that means. I'd have paid double for PixInsight if it just had a "work, dammit" mode built in. Clear Skies, Phil |
|
23.24
#...
·
|
|---|
Phil Creed: This error probably means you have the code signature file but are not running the latest version of Pixinsight (1.8.9-1). The new code signing in Pixinsight is not compatible with earlier versions of Pixinsight. If you download GHS by adding the repository address (https://www.ghsastro.co.uk/updates/) to your Resources>Updates>Manage Repositories list, then this error should not occur as the update will automatically detect what version of PixInsight you are running. I suspect, therefore, that you manually added GHS from the Github repository using the Feature scripts facility in Pixinsight. The easiest way for you to overcome this issue is to navigate to the directory where you installed the GHS script - probably Pixinsight/src/scripts/GeneralisedHyperbolicStretch, and simply delete the GeneralisedHyperbolicStretch.xsgn file you will see there. This is the code signature file that is causing you the issue. I hope this works - let me know how you get on. CS Mike |
4.44
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Hi Phil, I suggest DarkStructureEnhance and AdvSharpening as necessary. Also find StarXterminator is better for me for some images. One aspect to consider is that dark nebulae might have different processing needs and a modified workflow, compared to galaxies and emission/reflection nebulae. I also selectively mask and work on regions that need extra processing, eg saturation or sharpening and protect other regions while doing so using GAME in Pixinsight. Photoshop has a great layer and mask feature that makes this easier. Hope this helps and Clear Skies! Gowri |
