PIXINSIGHT IS EASY

[Harry page]

Hi

I thought you might like this of the uk SGL forum

Hi, I'm sure this has been answered many times before but I am struggling to decide which image processing software to go with.

I currently have photoshop CS and elements I also have the photoshop astronomy book. I was all set to use these, however, they seem a bit ungainly to use. I then downloaded pixinsight, which I am finding much easier to follow, especially as their are loads of good tutorials to follow online. I am finding that pixinsight seems to be easier to use because it is dedicated astronomy software where as photoshop has to be worked at more as its general image processing software.

Who would have thought a thing

Harry

[Niall Saunders]

Hi Harry - yes, I must use that quote whenever I am 'campaigning' for prospective users to really think before they spend ridiculous sums of money on a software suite which they are only ever going to use for Levels, Curves and Masks !!

BTW - what is the 'SGL' forum?

Cheers,

[Harry page]

Hi

The SGL  is the star gazers forum  http://stargazerslounge.com/  I thought this was quite well known in the UK and its where I

Beat people into submission about Pixinsight  

I quite like it as its a friendly place  and they think I am a pixinsight expert    So don't tell them the truth


Harry

[Niall Saunders]

Sorry Harry - I had read 'SG   I', not "SG   L'

I might have figured out Stargazer's Lounge

Now, I'm off to tell them the truth   . . . .   

[caliu]

The world of the reverse   , we had it discussion in Spain some years ago, today there is no discussion  , everybody said that PI was very difficult and complicated, little friendly, very little intuitive and bla bla bla, and it sees that today in Spain 90% of astrophotographers use PI.
I have left the knowledge pride that I was in the fight from the beginning , And that fight it has benefitted  and continues benefitting much people
Those that but fear they give, are those that uses PI mixed with PS hahahahaha (I'm baaaaaaaad) 
Best
Ferran.

[sleshin]

Hi,

Just purchased PI and joined the PI Forum. While I'm not quite ready to say PI is easy, I feel I am making steady progress on the learning curve because of the excellent tutorials by Harry, Craig, and Juan. The articles in AstroInsight by Sander were also very well done and I look forward the the next installment. I also want to acknowledge the very helpful people and posts that populate the forum. I look forward to participating in the forums, I'm sure I'll have many questions. Hopefully, I'll have an image to post soon.

Steve

[Nocturnal]

Glad you liked my articles Steve! For some reason #3 was postponed to this year because the last API was hardware centric. Except for those articles that weren't

[Niall Saunders]

Sander,

I think they were too busy putting together the 'complete' database of cameras, ensuring that it was full of incompatible information, rendering it all but useless for half-decent 'side-by-side' comparisons 

I have been trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and will be sending 'my' version back to Al, in the hope that he can see the improvements 

Cheers,

[mmirot]

I wish we could say it is number one in US too.
However, I think we are making great progress if you consider it is 100% marketed by word of mouth.

There are a few tools that PS CS offers that are not yet in PI but there many tools that PI offers not in PS.
Some you pay extra for plug ins that are only half is good.

I can wait to see Juan has up his sleeve in the next release.

Max

[Nocturnal]

As much as I wish PI lots of success I think by the time it surpasses PS for astronomy the 'glamour' will wear of PI. Right now we're the 'chosen few' or some such dramatic expression

[Niall Saunders]

C'mon Sander,

Are we the 'chosen few', or are we 'trailblazing pioneers' ?

I agree with you that we need more documentation, but Juan's true skill lies in getting new processes up and running, and debugging those already in place, or tweaking the stable ones to help everyone do things more effectively.

I know we all go on about the lack of documentation, but what happened to all the effort everyone was going to put in to the Wiki and the Website? Personally, I gave up on the Wiki, because I hadn't a clue where to start, or how to start. I have (or I 'believe' I have) useful information to offer, and heaven knows I try hard enough here on the Forum to help, but the Wiki is just one extra stage of learning that I haven't found time for.

I am desperately trying to finish my second video tutorial, on Dynamic Alignment - which will hopefully compliment the one I have already completed on the Star Generator process - but that alone has taken me every spare minute of the three weeks holiday I took this festive season - FAR more time off work that I should have taken, of which I spent far more on PI than I had intended.

So I know - as you do being a programmer yourself - how difficult it is to allocate time to get 'everything' finished. And, remember, Juan is an excellent program 'coder', not a program 'documenter'.

Which makes me think - who wrote the 'documentation' for PhotoShop - certainly not that HUGE bloody list of 'hangers on' who have their names splash-screened in glory whilst we all wait yet another sixty seconds for some bloated under-efficient version of PhotoShop to load. No, it was a bunch of dedicated 'users' of PS - like Ron Wodaski, who finally took the plunge, and put pen to paper. And we are doing the same here.

'Trailblazers' are not in it for the 'glamour'. We are not in it to 'follow the pack'. And the roads we make will be crude but highly efficient - not bloated useless 8-lane highways full of traffic crawling along, or - more commonly - at a standstill.

Me, I'd rather follow a bunch of notches hacked into tree-trunks than be stuck alongside a whole load of other commuters, blindly trusting my life to my SatNav.

One of the 'chosen few' 

[Nocturnal]

I like the fact that PI is seen as a bit exotic, rightfully so or not. The fact that I use it makes me seem smarter by proxy

[Niall Saunders]

Sander, you are using the wrong emoticon,

The fact that we, the 'few' can use PI at all, entitles us to use the  emoticon.

Of course, for as long as vital information is not forthcoming from Juan, we have the option of  and  - more often we resort to  ,  and 

But we have to all stay  or  , and hopefully those who learn something new  will share it with the rest of us - what we dont want is 

Cheers,

[Harry page]

Hi

I remember the days when PC's came out and were run on ms dos ( Should still be in my opinion  ) and people thought I was some kind of computer
genius because I could type in some commands and fiddle around with expanded or extended memory of course in fact it was not that hard just no one knew about it,  this is where we are with Pixinsight  most of the processes are not that difficult its just that they do not know how and over time this will change and I will loose my genius status yet again 

Look forward Niall to seeing you finished video's and as I have said before they take longer to do than you think and I am sure they will add gretley to  Pixinsight
and you to will a Pixinsight genius 

Harry