I bought PI, primarily because having tried it, I particularly liked the DBE, HDWRT, and to a degree ACDNR. I say to a degree for ACDNR because I find Noise Ninja just as effective.
I do all of my image capture, calibration and alignment, in other software, and currently have no reason to change this approach. Final 'tweaking' and star reduction is done using yet another piece of software.
Perhaps this is because I am entirely familiar with the other software, which when I was learning to use it, I had full documentation to refer to.
Apart from Harry's videos and questions 'posted' here on the forum, everything that I have learned about using PI, has been by experimentation.
Interesting yes, but very time consuming, and sometimes frustrating.
I can fully appreciate what Juan is saying, in that the development of 'tools' included in other image processing software, is important if PI is to compete.
However, this is a ‘two edged sword’, in that while adding more ‘tools’ to PI increases it’s capability, it also adds further processes for which there is no documentation. A bit of a ‘catch 22’ situation.
The fact that PI didn’t have these additional ‘tools’ did not prevent me from buying PI, because I have access to them elsewhere. However, the lack of documentation to refer to when I tried the product brought me close to not buying it.
The lack of documentation for PI is well known in astro imaging circles, and without doubt has put off many potential customers from buying it.
No licences = No PI, to quote Juan, but what would result in more people buying the product, documentation (user manual) or additional ‘tools’ ?. From what I hear and read among the imaging community, the lack of documentation is the main reason for not buying.
Dave
