Pixinsight "scrum/team" forming on "CCD Astro group "...?

[rwodaski]

When it comes to compare the results achieved with two or more software applications, the following theorem applies:

Given two sufficiently sophisticated software applications A and B, for any image I_A processed with A, there exists a finite, ordered sequence of operations applicable with B that achieve an image I_B that is virtually identical to I_A.

So good luck, but the above theorem states that software preferences are actually a matter of feelings! 

I wouldn't disagree with your theorem or your conclusion. However, they don't have anything to do with what I proposed over in the ccd-newastro Yahoo group, so please allow me to clarify. We've somehow wandered very far from what I proposed...

"they can compare notes with respect to features they used, how those features do or don't exist, or exist in different forms, and so on."

So I never proposed comparing output images; I was talking about process. I think comparing how someone experienced with a given piece of software goes about getting the image they desire is a very interesting idea - but I don't see how to accomplish that if it were tainted with partisan aspects.

What I was looking for were some volunteers who were experienced with a given piece of software, who would be willing to compare notes with users of other software in a factual, dispassionate way.

With respect to Jack's ideas, my proposal was formulated in the way it was to avoid some of those pitfalls, but of course it would never be a perfect comparision due to difference in skill levels and familiarity with the software.

I really have nothing whatsoever _against_ PI. I'm simply trying to get at the facts, and I'm finding that that is a very difficult thing to accomplish. Ideas on how to get past that - past things like throwdowns, for example (Sorry, Dave, you did give me such a good example...) - are welcome.

I do plan to look into PI when time permits, but for now I'm swamped with work related to the Tzec Maun Foundation and don't have the ability to devote the time I think it would take just now. Hence my desire to rely on others.

The invitation to document the different ways that different software programs can be used to process the same image remains open, if we can get some folks who can live within the conditions I've set for the process.

Ron Wodaski

[rwodaski]

Except for calibration, registration and integration results can not be quatified.

Max

See my reply to Juan - I am wanting to document process, not compare results.

Otherwise, I agree with (most) of what you said.

[mmirot]

Welcome Ron,

I think you find everyone here is eager to answer any question that you have.
Thanks for the clarification it is helpful. 
BTW, I did not think it was a contest you were suggesting.

Max

[Juan Conejero]

Hello Ron, and welcome to PixInsight Forum.

So I never proposed comparing output images; I was talking about process.

Then we owe you an apology for any misinterpretation.

I think comparing how someone experienced with a given piece of software goes about getting the image they desire is a very interesting idea - but I don't see how to accomplish that if it were tainted with partisan aspects.

Stated in such terms, I agree and I think we can support your idea. No partisanism here; just passionate people because PixInsight is all about passion for astrophotography and image processing.

What I was looking for were some volunteers who were experienced with a given piece of software, who would be willing to compare notes with users of other software in a factual, dispassionate way.

While I understand your goals and why and how you have stated them, I don't think that passion is necessarily a bad companion per se. Image processing is not seen as "a set of problems to be solved" by us, but as a fun and exciting task. Image processing is our fuel, and that makes us feel passion for what we do and what we achieve. The fact that we feel and show our passion for PixInsight does not mean that we can't be objective in our analysis; it just means that we can suffer during the analysis (which is a well-known side effect of passion), but that's part of the game.

With respect to Jack's ideas, my proposal was formulated in the way it was to avoid some of those pitfalls, but of course it would never be a perfect comparision due to difference in skill levels and familiarity with the software.

As I've said, any comparison based on output images is superficial IMO. Comparing methodologies, processing paradigms, software architectures, tools and implementations is interesting and can be extremely useful. Comparing achieved results as a sort of contest is uninteresting and a waste of time.

I really have nothing whatsoever _against_ PI. I'm simply trying to get at the facts, and I'm finding that that is a very difficult thing to accomplish.

I don't think so. As I've said before, please don't identify personal opinions from PixInsight users --this forum is not moderated in any way by design-- with the PixInsight project. I think that getting at the facts about PixInsight is actually an easy task. We are always happy to hear and discuss about ways to improve our platform and our implementations. In this sense, we want to be transparent; just look up this forum and you'll find that we are very open. If you detect any opacity, please let us know and we'll try to clarify it quickly.

I do plan to look into PI when time permits, but for now I'm swamped with work related to the Tzec Maun Foundation and don't have the ability to devote the time I think it would take just now. Hence my desire to rely on others.

Feel like at home here. We'll be glad to inform you about anything you need when you decide to try out PixInsight.

The invitation to document the different ways that different software programs can be used to process the same image remains open, if we can get some folks who can live within the conditions I've set for the process.

If the conditions are as you have stated above --no comparison based on resulting images, but a field work to document different processing methodologies and the associated tools and platforms--, then we can support it.

[Harry page]

Hi Ron

welcome

Please stay a while as we are not a bad bunch , just interested people with a passion 

Thanks for your comments and I think juan has given you a pretty good reply and we are all here to help ( well most of us )

Keep well

Harry

[rwodaski]

As I've said before, please don't identify personal opinions from PixInsight users --this forum is not moderated in any way by design-- with the PixInsight project. I think that getting at the facts about PixInsight is actually an easy task. We are always happy to hear and discuss about ways to improve our platform and our implementations. In this sense, we want to be transparent; just look up this forum and you'll find that we are very open. If you detect any opacity, please let us know and we'll try to clarify it quickly.

The forum is almost...too transparent. <g>

What I meant was that I find it hard to learn about the software. That's why I've decided to postpone any serious attempt to get familiar with it until I know I have enough time to do it properly. I also have the good fortune to have a friend who, in a month or so, will be available to me get familiar with PI. I think I will take him up on his offer, especially since he is extremely positive about PI.

As to passion, well, we will have to agree to disagree about that. My big thing is dispassionate consideration of the facts. But we are in different roles here - your enthusiasm surely serves you well on the project. Passion, of whatever kind, is no big deal to me outside of ccd-newastro, where I definitely seek to apply my philosophy to the group's process. I figure that people who do not want to use that particular kind of process can find something more suitable somewhere else; people who do want that kind of process will enjoy the boundaries that keep it working that way.

There's never one perfect answer for anything, is there? <g>

So I look forward to a time when I can get more familiar with PI myself. In the meantime, I'm going to let the situation relax a bit, and when I have some time to set things up, we'll take a look at how one would use different software programs to accomplish some processing tasks.

All the best,

Ron Wodaski

[dhalliday]

Listen;
I just wanted to say that I am sorry for any negative vibes I have evidently given off here...

Someone was discussing PI on Ron's group,someone else was asking about it...and here we are.I regret getting in any way involved,all around.(By starting this darn thread...)

My (most unfortunate) use of the expression "throwdown" was simply stolen from my favorite cooking show (!!)
(Throwdown with Bobby Flay-Food TV.ca)
Two experts cook the same meal and the audience votes...
He (Flay) is a heck of a cook by the way-great show,and it demonstrates there are more than a few ways to "skin a cat"...as I am sure in this business too)

ANYWAYS...
Just wanted to reaffirm that it was not some ignorant wish for a "contest" or "winner" that I was inquiring after...
As someone who is a novice at imaging/processing in general,I am just interested in "A versus B"...and the twain never seem to meet.
I think that my interest is only natural..Sorry if it gave offence.
My MAIN interest is to produce better astrophotography...


Dave

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Ron,

And 'welcome' to our merry band.

I, for one, am glad that you have dropped by, and I truly look forward to your insight should you ever find the time to familiarise yourself with PI.

One thing that I am sure I have mentioned in the past, but would like to mention again here, is that I would NEVER have really succeeded in 'getting into' PI had it not been for your excellent books. The 'challenge' for me has been two-fold; first to understand the methods that you have so graciously described in your books and, second, to then 'adapt' those methods into the world of PI.

Hopefully, if your busy schedule permits, you will get the opportunity to see how your 'PS' processes do have their counterparts in PI - and then you, too, will be able to decide if a given PS approach can be implemented in PI, and whether one approach has benefits or disadvantages compared to the other.

Our challenge (from the point of view of PI 'passion') will be to learn about the 'disadvantages' and 'shortfalls' of PI (including the topic of documentation) - so that PixInsight can adapt and change in a way that the disadvantages can be overcome, and the shortfalls can be eliminated.

I still like your idea of a more 'direct' comparison of work-flows and methodologies between various speciality processing environments. I have already spent a pleasant three hours on-line with Neil Fleming - trying to give him the benefit of my (limited) processing skills, specifically to do with PI. I observed his methodology and saw most stages as already being available in PI, perhaps by different names, and often with totally different user interfaces (perhaps even 'bizzare' interfaces, to those who had not spent time with PI ).

Personally, my offer will remain open, globally, to ANYBODY that would like to 'connect desktops' with me (given my own personal time constraints). I feel that this approach - for me - is one of the truly useful methods of seeing how 'someone else' uses their software (PI or otherwise) to achieve their goals. Whilst yes, thanks to Harry (et al), we have some excellent videos to get folks up and running, I believe that a one-to-one session can REALLY help solve a specific problem - usually with knowledge being transferred BOTH ways.

So, once again, welcome to the madhouse - where this is our strongest form of moderation 

Cheers,

[mmirot]

Good work,

I attended Neil's Photoshop lecture at the the Midwest Imaging conference two years. He is great guy.

I noted that he likes to use masks extracted from images.
I am sure he will like PI once he gets up to speed.

[chris.baron]

I think this might be my first post here though I've owned and used PixInsight for over a year use it regularly in my image processing. First, I'm glad that Ron has joined here. I own copies of both his books and found them truly instrumental in my coming up to speed in not only image capture but image processing as well. A tonne of extremely useful information to be had there.

I am a computer geek by trade(DBA) and though I'm not a developer I do some relatively complex work at times and as a result am able to get a decent grasp on countless software packes with limited exposure. When it comes to computers, I'm a bit of an idiot savant. I only mention this to give you an idea of how I as an advanced software administrator and user perceive various packages.

PixInsight is far more than a making pretty pictures package. It is not an integrated imaging and processing package like MaxIm, or a initial calibration, registration and some manipulation package like CCDStack. That doesn't do CCDStack justice btw, I happen to think it's quite good. PixInsight from my perspective is a hardcore astronomy/image processing package that can very much be used as well to produce pretty pictures too if that's what you're after. With the upcoming image calibration features (Juan, pretty please can I beta test that for you?) it will effectly provide a package that I personally feel will remove the need for a CCDStack/MaxIm/Photoshop type combination.  That isn't to say that MaxIM won't still be required for capture, but there are other options out there. I also happen to run Linux for the most part and Windows only when I must so the fact that PixInsight is truly 64bit and runs on OSX, Windows, and Linux is a killer feature. I now have native support rather than having to run various packages within virtual machines.

MaxIm has a distinct advantage going for it when it comes to adoption for processing; people are already using it for image capture. I will say this though, there isn't a supplied manual that I see for it that explains what each of the functions it's capable of truly do and what a good set of values to use for various manipulators are. Its documentation is quite basic as well. There may be a basic image processing workflow that is supplied with it that I'm unaware of, but two things come to mind; the functions that are in there are paltry in comparison to those available within PixInsight, and the level of granularity on said functions is also far less than that of PixInsight. I gained whatever knowledge I have of it through books like Ron's. There are also user generated tutorials and texts out there that provide information based on experience.

Which brings me to PixInsight; it too has a rather sparse manual and relies upon tutorials to explain what various steps were used to arrive at a final image. Harry Page's tutorials are what convinced me that I could use PixInsight and were ultimately what tipped the scales and caused me to purchase a license. Harry, outstanding work. Sandar, you too have provided useful tutorials that have proven invaluable. I'll apologise if I if missed someone else's hard work. Please send me any links because I'm quite open to using them to learn more.

In my opinion, what PixInsight could benefit from is an amalgamation of information/tutorials/whatever akin to what Ron has done for MaxIm and Photoshop because in reality those packages would be just as complex and daunting for a first time user as PixInsight can be. Eveyone and their brother has heard of Photoshop, there are countless mainstream references to it. It's used as a verb. That's about the pinacle of software adoption if you ask me. MaxIm might be the equivalent within the astrophotography world but again only because of what it offers as a total package not specifically for its image processing capabilities. PixInsight is gaining some noteriety within the same circles as more and more people are turned on to it, and mostly due to someone having referred to it as being used in their processing steps when posting a pretty picture.

I can tell you that if I as a new astrophotographer was given a choice of having to buy and learn 3 software packages rather than just 1 that costs less than a third of the first option it would be quite obvious which I'd choose. I don't think its interface is any more difficult to use than any other. It is however what you're used to that can make it seem overly complex. When I fooled around with the trial I didn't have much luck just jumping in and arriving at a finished image. Again it was through Harry's video tutorials that I was able to get a basic workflow going. Now if anything I find PixInsight's object oriented design far more powerful than anything else within the marketspace. The only thing holding me back from using it exclusively is the lack of image calibration. Juan, did I mention that I'd love to beta test that for you?

If I could perhaps make one suggestion to improve PixInsight's adoption it would be to include a basic image processing wizard. Lead the user through a 10 step (or however many) workflow with extra information about what each step is doing and how users might tweak certain controls and they'll be able to see just what can be accomplished and how it's done. Go through that a few times and that 171 Euro conversion will seem a steal for the value you get for it.

Sorry for the long winded, rambling post.

Cheers,
Chris

[Harry page]

Hi Chris

Thanks for the Thanks as thay say  8)

I am putting something together on basic workflow , with a bit more on top later as its something that gets asked for a lot .

Perhapes I / We forget what it was like to first use PI 

I like people asking / commenting on things as how will the powers know what is required 


Harry

[RobF2]

Another newbie speaking up here - I consider myself a bit of a "computer nerd", and was more than a bit miffed at my first feeble "fiddles" with the trail software.  After a few hours of watching Harry's video tutorials I had to pick up my jaw and get into it. 

I'm now finding myself making copious notes on a basic workflow in Excel - something I had to do to get me started in other packages.  Once you can work to a recipe and understand what each step does, then you have the confidence to go "free range" and really use the power of the software - I fully expect this with PixInsight. 
Harry, you've effectively done this with many of your existing tuts, but a summary document would be wonderful....!   


One other comment - the magnificent lunar deconv examples on the PixInsight website are what convinced me to try the trial software originally, and I'm already finding the capability of the edge/contrast enhancing tools alone incredible.  The addition of full calibration routines in 1.6.0 is going to make PI a real force to reckon with. 

[Harry page]

Hi Mr robf2

I have started to do some work along this lines http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixuser/pixuserhome.html , but like most things it will take me a month or two to get it somewhere near finished 


Harry

[RobF2]

Hi Mr robf2

I have started to do some work along this lines http://www.harrysastroshed.com/pixuser/pixuserhome.html , but like most things it will take me a month or two to get it somewhere near finished 


Harry

Harry - I don't know where you found the time to do such fantastic work as it is.
I'll happily await any future installments!  It would seem the PixInsight team owes you quite a debt of gratitude so far.

Regards,
Rob