A Radical Suggestion - Charge for Next Major PI Update

[Flea77]

Hi Allan,

I would start by watching my videos here:

http://pixinsight.com/videos/NGC1808LRGB-vperis/en.html

Please, watch them carefully, as they have very important lessons. You can download the FITS files to practice with them; another option, for your learning curve, would be to start practicing with your own RGB image files (previously calibrated with DSS, for example).

I have watched those videos and plan on going back to watch them in more detail. Thanks.

After these videos, I would suggest to learn about the preprocessing techniques implemented in PixInsight. I think the preprocessing script is rather self-explicative, but I recommend you to read my article about master calibration frames, in order to better understand PixInsight's approach:

http://pixinsight.com/tutorials/master-frames/en.html

If you dominate these techniques you'll be able to make very good photos of the sky.

Aside from this, I think your comments about the GUI are partially a matter of taste. I personally don-t like the aesthetics of any of the software packages you mentioned. Moreover, their functionality is clearly outdated (specially  Photoshop).


Best regards,
Vicent.

Yep, everyone has their own opinion, and yours obviously is different than mine. While I am not that great an astrophotographer since I have only been doing this nine months and am not wealthy:



My AP hobby is primarily paid for by my second job, which is as a professional commercial photographer. I rely on Photoshop as THE primary tool for that job and I will just have to agree to disagree with your assement of that application. My clients seem happy with it too because they have no problems paying for its results.

Allan

[Juan Conejero]

Hi Jean,

Hi, i would love to see the .ogv videos.
Can someone suggest a converter
preferably free 
so that i can open them on my Win 7 machine please ?

If you have Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome installed, then you can watch .ogv videos directly on these browsers.

If you don't want to use one of these browsers, you can install the DirectShow filters from xiph.org:

http://xiph.org/dshow/downloads/

These filters will allow you to reproduce .ogv videos on Windows Media Player.

Another (probably better) possibility is VLC Media Player:

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html

All of these solutions are free and open source. Hope this helps.

[Juan Conejero]

The wording on the pop up box was not as nice as saying "suboptimal", it left me thinking "complete garbage". If it had come up and simply said that I could do a better job by doing things manually, hey, I have no problem with that at all.

Note for users who haven't followed the whole discussion: this refers to an informative dialog box shown by the BatchPreprocessing script when the option to integrate light frames has been selected. This dialog has a don't show anymore check box so it can be shown only once at the user's option.

This is the text shown on that information dialog box:

You have selected to perform an integration of light frames with this script.

Please keep in mind that the light frames integration functionality of this script is just a convenience feature, which we have included to let you take a quick look at the final image. It will give you an idea of the achievable image, but in general, it will not provide an optimal result. In most cases the integrated result of this script will be rather poor, compared with the image that can be achieved by optimizing image integration parameters.

Image integration is a critical task that requires fine-tuning. Our ImageIntegration tool allows you to find optimal pixel rejection parameters to maximize signal-to-noise ratio with the appropriate rejection of spurious image data. In general, this requires some trial-error work that can't be done automatically from this script.

Can you tell me what the problem is with this message? Actually, the result of a 'blind' image integration is poor (in terms of SNR increment versus rejection of outlier data) almost necessarily. If you want to know why, I suggest you have a read at the reference documentation of our ImageIntegration tool:

http://pixinsight.com/doc/tools/ImageIntegration/ImageIntegration.html

Integrating a set of images without carrying out a detailed analysis of the results achieved by rejection, normalization, weighting and combination parameters---which is what most applications allow you to do when they stack your images---is like shooting in the dark: you can only hit your target by chance. Much worse, even if you hit your target, you'll never know that and why you did it, except because you were lucky.

[Juan Conejero]

OK, I think somehow I have managed to miscommunicate my intent. Never once did I intend to bash PI or its developers.

Perhaps, but saying that our user interface "lacks the spit and polish of commercial applications" (which sends the underlying message that PixInsight is not a commercial application) because it "screams X windows" and because "(no surprise) is developed with an open source SDK", involves the risk to be interpreted differently. For example, it can be understood as lack of respect for the PixInsight project. Taking it a tiny step further, it can also be understood as lack of respect for the Linux operating system, for the X Windows System, and for open source projects. Some people love all of these things (including PI).

You can say that PixInsight's interface is a bullshit. I disagree with that idea, but I have no problem to engage in a discussion about our interfaces, on the basis of a well documented analysis. This is the way we can improve, and we do it all the time on this forum. Mutual respect is a precondition for this to happen, though.

Now since you have just ignored my videos because your browser cannot reproduce them, you probably are not interested in anything I've said in this post. So stop wasting precious time and let's return to work. I have to work hard to write a new version of the crappy PI interface.

[Geoff]

Juan,  tienes mas paciencia que un santo.

Geoff

[Flea77]

Please keep in mind that the light frames integration functionality of this script is just a convenience feature, which we have included to let you take a quick look at the final image. It will give you an idea of the achievable image, but in general, it will not provide an optimal result. In most cases the integrated result of this script will be rather poor, compared with the image that can be achieved by optimizing image integration parameters.

Image integration is a critical task that requires fine-tuning. Our ImageIntegration tool allows you to find optimal pixel rejection parameters to maximize signal-to-noise ratio with the appropriate rejection of spurious image data. In general, this requires some trial-error work that can't be done automatically from this script.[/i][/tt]

Can you tell me what the problem is with this message? Actually, the result of a 'blind' image integration is poor (in terms of SNR increment versus rejection of outlier data) almost necessarily. If you want to know why, I suggest you have a read at the reference documentation of our ImageIntegration tool:

The bolded sections are what leads me to believe the image is something like the STF function, built only to give you a glimpse, not something you ever want to use for a final image. In other words, it will create a preview that is pretty much garbage. When I took a quick read of this box, right or wrong, that is the impression I walked away with.

Allan

[Flea77]

Perhaps, but saying that our user interface "lacks the spit and polish of commercial applications" (which sends the underlying message that PixInsight is not a commercial application) because it "screams X windows" and because "(no surprise) is developed with an open source SDK", involves the risk to be interpreted differently. For example, it can be understood as lack of respect for the PixInsight project. Taking it a tiny step further, it can also be understood as lack of respect for the Linux operating system, for the X Windows System, and for open source projects. Some people love all of these things (including PI).

Look, I have been using Windows since 3.1, Linux since I installed Slackware from a bunch of low density floppies, and MacOS since about version 5 or so, and BeOs, and OS/2, etc, all have their good and bad. Linux has some nice features, CTRL-F? to swap consoles instantly and the multi desktop features all built into most window managers are great. But anyone who thinks X has anywhere near the "spit and polish" of Windows 7 is just delusional. Functionality has nothing to do with it. Usablility has nothing to do with it. The Aero interface is just slick regardless of how you feel about the OS.

Here is another example. If you have ever purchase an Apple product, you can not argue that even their packaging is slick. Even if you put junk in the box, the newcommer will get a good initial impression of quality simply from the packaging. That is what I am talking about. If you have dual monitors and open PI on the left one and Photoshop Elements on the right one, the Photoshop one just looks slicker, more refined.

That is what I am trying to say. Many people who are used to "standard" interfaces of commercial apps could see PI as a less evolved program simply due to its interface. It doesnt mean it is, it just can appear that way. And that could be a barrier to people who you want to shell out money for your application.

You can say that PixInsight's interface is a bullshit. I disagree with that idea, but I have no problem to engage in a discussion about our interfaces, on the basis of a well documented analysis. This is the way we can improve, and we do it all the time on this forum. Mutual respect is a precondition for this to happen, though.

Never sait it was bullshit, your words, not mine. You say you can discuss things with mutual respect however when I tried to give you and everyone else here an honest opinion of the barriers you may encounter getting people to pay over $200us for your application, where was the respect for that? What I received was lectures and insults when all I was trying to do was help. If no one ever tells you how a newcommer can see things, how will you ever know? Your opinion, and that of probably everyone who replied to this thread is tainted by being users of the program.

Now since you have just ignored my videos because your browser cannot reproduce them, you probably are not interested in anything I've said in this post. So stop wasting precious time and let's return to work. I have to work hard to write a new version of the crappy PI interface.

Love how you may yet more ASSumptions. Yes, I ignored your videos because my browser which comes standard on all new PC with Windows 7 (which has what, about 80% of the computer market) can not display your videos. I have better things to do than install a bunch of freeware just to play a few videos you made. There are plenty of other videos out there that I *can* watch to I will go watch them instead.

Of course, if you were really trying to help your potential customers one has to ask why you would use OGV anyway. Fortunately, I already have an idea.

Allan

[JGMoreau]

"Another (probably better) possibility is VLC Media Player:

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-windows.html

All of these solutions are free and open source. Hope this helps."

Thanks Juan, problem solved.

JG

[IanL]

New pupil jumping in here, (puts tin hat on  ):

A couple examples of PI's GUI in action where you can see icons, tool windows, workspace compositing effects and animations, among other things (note: these are Theora/OGV videos that can be seen on Firefox, Chrome and Opera among other applications):

The direct links to the OGV's provided by Juan won't play by default on Windows 7 in Chrome 'out of the box', since the OGV file type is not associated with an application in Windows 7 by default (and therefore I assume earlier versions of Windows are the same).  Instead the video it will appear as a downloaded file in the downloads bar at the bottom of the Chrome Window.

You can either click on the little dropdown on the file and choose the Chrome exectuable as the program to open the OGV file, or alternatively go in to the Windows Control Panel and choose the 'Default Programs' icon to set the association up there instead.  Depending on how you installed Chrome, you may not find chrome.exe in 'Program Files' or 'Program Files (X86)', instead try looking in "C:\Users\<your username>\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\Application".  Clearly substitute <your username> for your user name, and note that AppData is a hidden folder so you may need to turn on the option to show hidden folders to see it.

OGV files that are embedded in web pages do work without any of that malarkey, but direct links to OGV files need you to set up the association the first time.  Not sure if you would have the same problem in Firefox or Opera as I don't use either of them any more; but if not I'd assume a similar process would work.  Hope this helps.

True. The wiki was discontinued some time ago, and I forgot to remove this menu item in the latest PI Core update. Again, you could have reported this issue on the Bug Reports board.

Being lazy/too busy (you decide!) to search the forums, I would be interested to know why the Wiki was discontinued?  As a new PI user, the lack of a single source of definitive documentation is a significant barrier to learning the product, and to learning generally.

To qualify my remarks, I have dipped my toes in to AP off and on over about ten years, and got seriously interested in the past year or so.  I haven't come at PI cold or with no clue as to the concepts of an AP capture and processing workflow, but I put myself in the category of 'not quite a beginner'.

The videos, tutorials on this site and others plus the contents of these forums make the power of PI obvious, but taken together they do not provide a comprehensive reference guide.  The quality of the processes that are covered in the official documentation shows what is possible, and if everything was documented to the same standard that would be a huge crutch for those of us still in the foothills.  Even better would be one or more worked examples of using each process to illustrate its use in a given workflow and how the various parameters affect the results.

Please don't take this as a criticism; I bought PI knowing full well that the official documentation was limited.  I do know the pain small teams of developers face when it comes to documentation.  I run two small teams of developers for far less interesting types of software.  I can just about convince them to write up sufficient technical documentation to enable them to support their work, but I have to buy in time from the training team to get the reference documentation and end-user training materials written.  (Even if resources and time were not an issue, no developer wants to waste their time writing user documentation when there are bugs to squash and cool new features to design and build, especially as the long-standing "power-users" will be pushing loudly for both!  You'd be more likely to see them reading a manual than writing one, and we all know reading the manual is the last resort of the coward and the cheat  )

Surely a user moderated wiki is the answer to the problem?  It is clear that there are plenty of willing PI experts who already chip in a lot on the forums, and harnessing and organising that knowledge and helpfulness would be no bad thing.  Clearly an open wiki would be an invitation to spammers, but if established and trustworthy PI contributers were the only ones with edit access, that would not be an issue, nor would quality of information.

It may be that the reasons for discontinuing the previous wiki make this a bad idea, but would be interested in hearing why.

Then I have to agree that PI is certainly expensive. PI LE will probably continue working on Windows for many years to come, and it can do quite a bunch of nice things.

Price was definitely not a barrier for me.  Compared to a new copy of Photoshop, PI is a bargain, and it is broadly comparable in price with the other specialist AP packages out there, most of which do not hang together in a consistent manner anyway.

As for the PI interface, I like it very much - it is clearly a cross-platform application but no worse for that.  Compared to the archetypal cross-platformer (GIMP), it is a model of consistency and sanity.  (Sure, the GIMP developers have recently introduced a sort-of single window/MDI interface, but you still have to consult the forums to find out how to turn it on, and don't get me started with the crazy cut-paste-floating selection-anchor-to-layer thing they have going on. An object lesson in how to take a function that you should be able to do with two keystrokes and turn it in to an arcane ritual).

Keep up the good work!

[viktorbravo]

Well said IanL.  I started using PI several months ago and I am still learning to drive it around.  I have just recently gotten to the point where I can take an LRGB image from the raw subs to the final product completely in PI and get as good or better result that what I used to get using various pieces of software and Photoshop.  The different processes for astro image processing I like very much, AtrousWavelets, HDRTransform, very powerful masked Decon processes, etc, all in one package, very nice.

For me it was time consuming and took a lot of trial and error to get to that point, but then again, so does Photoshop.  I find some things a bit cumbersome in the interface, but overall I have gotten used to it and it works for me.

Lack of documentation, and/or different documentation scattered over various sites can discourage a first time user.  Even after watching all the different videos numerous times and taking notes, it still took me a while to get the hang of it.  Many times I was cursing at the computer.    

At some point I think a single comprehensive video demonstrating the basic workflow from using the interface, to final process would do a lot to ease the trepidation of first time users that are considering purchasing PI.  I demonstrated PI for a couple of my friends, and while they were very impressed with the tools and the quality of the end image, they decided not to purchase it because the workflow was completely foreign to them, and they found the documentation lacking.  So in the end being frustrated, they stuck with what they already knew, Photoshop and various other products.  But every time I show them one of my new images, they say that they need to take the time to learn PI.

As with any software, you have to take the time to learn your way around it, and when I was able to pull all the pieces together it made sense.  I still refer to my notes while processing an image, but after a few more cycles I can probably do it instinctively.

Given the other software that is out there, I think PI is a great value for the money.  I can run it on every machine I have and will have, the developers are constantly improving it, and I can get as good or better results than I did with other products, and I only need one piece of software, not multiple programs and multiple paid plug-ins, etc.

Keep up the good work gents.

[Geoff]

At some point I think a single comprehensive video demonstrating the basic workflow from using the interface, to final process would do a lot to ease the trepidation of first time users that are considering purchasing PI.  I demonstrated PI for a couple of my friends, and while they were very impressed with the tools and the quality of the end image, they decided not to purchase it because the workflow was completely foreign to them, and they found the documentation lacking.  So in the end being frustrated, they stuck with what they already knew, Photoshop and various other products.  But every time I show them one of my new images, they say that they need to take the time to learn PI.

I agree that this would be of great help to beginners. Perhaps a general introduction and then something that combines the ideas of Harry's video on the BPP script and Vicent's video on LRGB processing.
Geoff

[Josh Lake]

Warren Keller (with RBA) has been hard at work on a new PixInsight tutorial series, and I imagine he will do some variation of the 'process from beginning to end' video at some point: http://www.ip4ap.com/pixinsight.htm

[jcm]

Warren Keller (with RBA) has been hard at work on a new PixInsight tutorial series, and I imagine he will do some variation of the 'process from beginning to end' video at some point: http://www.ip4ap.com/pixinsight.htm

Thanks for the link - nice starting stuff for new users.

John

[Juan Conejero]

A good friend of mine has told me that the word "b****hit" I used in a previous post is very strong and sometimes offensive. As you probably know I am Spanish, so English isn't my mother tongue, and I sometimes make rookie mistakes. This happens to me especially when I'm writing with, so to say, more vehemence than usual ...

I apologize if somebody has felt offended. My intention was to mean "something very bad" or "something ugly", and the word in question seemed appropriate to me. I didn't know I was crossing the limits of politeness in this case.

Out of curiosity, I have looked for the word in thefreedictionary.com, and the Spanish translation is "sandeces", "chorradas". I have found similar translations in other dictionaries. Both words are pejorative in Spanish, but they are indeed very light. In fact, "chorrada" is often used in jokes without any offensive intention. Either these translations are wrong, or we have several levels of vulgar/offensive language in Spanish above English

[Juan Conejero]

You can either click on the little dropdown on the file and choose the Chrome exectuable as the program to open the OGV file, or alternatively go in to the Windows Control Panel and choose the 'Default Programs' icon to set the association up there instead.

Hi IanL, thank you for the information. I have just checked what you say on a Windows machine. I can watch OGV videos without problems by choosing "Open with...". The same happens with Firefox. However, Firefox 13 opens and plays the videos directly on Mac OS X. Curious