Layers request

[ser1993]

Hello all,

I love Pixinsight, really. I think it's the program I love more. But for me is hard to believe that this fantastic software doesn't have layers. I know that scientific images are not created with layers, but sometimes happen that layers can help to get some details and sharp to images.
I like the unlimited possibility that Pixinsight gives and I think that Pixinsight should give the possibility to use layers. Let's user choose if use layers or not.

Anyway please continue develop this program. You are the best in the market.

Regards,
Matteo Collina

[NGC7789]

http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=5906.msg40159#msg40159

[msmythers]

Matteo

There is a script provide by Gerald for blending. I think this would be of interest for you. What I really like about the script is the fact that the PixelMath formula is listed for the action you are doing. This has helped me understand and use PixelMath more.

You can find out about the script in this posting. http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=7846.msg51967#msg51967     The entire posting is worth reading.

The script is based on this posting. http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=2409.0


Mike

[tommy_nawratil]

hello,

with total respect for Juan's philosophy, I think layers and painting is not at all synonymous.
"Layers" for me is just another word for blending two pictures using certain and adjustable conditions.
Photoshop allows layer blending in different ways, and Gerald's script is doing as well.
There are the different blending modes, and a transparency ruler in the Blend script.
At the same time it would be very desirable to have the possibility to determine a range
to blend in and another to blend out (like "blend if" rulers in PS).
And have a zoomed in preview to check the very details in blending, while doing the adjustments.
Of course that must be done via PixelMath as it is nothing else than Math with Pixels 
but guys of the visual type like me, we just need those bloody rulers to be able to work.
So, I hope Gerald's Blend script will be quickly developed further, it is just the right thing for me. 
I'll push him when I see him this week. 

For us astrophotographers, PixInsight offers such a vast palette of specialised tools,
while ther are other progs like Astoart and so on, no one is so versatile. I don't see Photoshop as a competition at all,
even as oldtime Photoshop user I never again want to miss PixInsight and it's great approach.
I hear that from many people now, so don't fear the gravity tug of competition you are already in orbit,
just follow your way and make PixInsight ever better.

Tommy

[cdesselles]

Layers?  We don't need no stinking layers! - (to paraphrase a famous TV canine star for Taco Bell)

Seems to me Pixel Math can do just about anything that doesn't already have a process or script written for it that Layers would be used for.

[oldwexi]

Layers?  We don't need no stinking layers! - (to paraphrase a famous TV canine star for Taco Bell)

Seems to me Pixel Math can do just about anything that doesn't already have a process or script written for it that Layers would be used for.

Hi cdesselles!
These are very convincing arguments! Especially the first one.
For the second one -
You maybe know i am a PixelMath Fan. But what  i am missing so far is the Realtime-Preview for PixelMath.
i think i understand the difficulties to attach it - but it would help a lot.

Gerald
P.S. I have erased all software which works with layers from my computer after
      installing PI. It makes a cleaner climate. But not everybody did the same...

[cdesselles]

Layers?  We don't need no stinking layers! - (to paraphrase a famous TV canine star for Taco Bell)

Seems to me Pixel Math can do just about anything that doesn't already have a process or script written for it that Layers would be used for.

Hi cdesselles!
These are very convincing arguments! Especially the first one.
For the second one -
You maybe know i am a PixelMath Fan. But what  i am missing so far is the Realtime-Preview for PixelMath.
i think i understand the difficulties to attach it - but it would help a lot.

Gerald
P.S. I have erased all software which works with layers from my computer after
      installing PI. It makes a cleaner climate. But not everybody did the same...

Thanks, Gerald.

There are a number of PI processes that do not have Real-Time Preview that I wish did so.  They are so wonderfully helpful.  I think they should be included whenever and wherever possible throughout PI.

--- Chris ---

[lucchett]

I don't need layers, but I would like to have a tool to create combination masks with just a logic approach...

My fault but in pixel math I get lost when I try to combine masks...
Andrea

[lucchett]

Ability to apply two masks would be enough for me :-)

[oldwexi]

Hi Andrea!
Lets assume you have 2 masks. One named m1 and the other m2.

The PixelMath Expression to combine m1 and m2 than could be:
max(m1,m2)      takes from each Image only the brighter part. (the maximum)
or:
m1 + m1           adds  two Images/masks.

Find a screenshot with an example here:
http://www.werbeagentur.org/oldwexi/maxm1m2.jpg
Left top you see the original Image right top you see the image/starmask m1
Bottom right you see the image/starmask m2, bottom left you find the combined starmask  Combi_mask1.
Top middle you see the PixelMath expression ,
in the top left original  you see the Combi_mask1 layered over the original Image.

In General i have made a Video called PixelMath Basic - available in german and english.
This Video explains Basic Mask creation, Addition etc.
German Version:
http://www.alrukaba.at/cms/upload/PI/Video04_PixelMath_Grundfunktionen.wmv
English Version:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/57910417/Video04_PixelMath_Part_One_english.wmv

hope this helps.

Gerald

[lucchett]

Hi Gerald, sorry to reply just now...
I know your tutorials, and I think they are great!
Anyway, it is probably me but I get ogften lost when combining two mask in pixel math...
I am the one that everytime I put a simple star mask need to think what it protect ...,
I recently had one image of ngc6992 and wanted a mask to apply ha protecting the Oiii regions.

I started producing an ha luminance mask and Oiii mask...then it took me days to figure out how to mix/ invert :-)
And when I found the magic formula, I realized that the strength of the mask was wrong...

[tommy_nawratil]

hello,

combining two masks is a good possibility, but does not have the same level of intuiutive and comfortable adjustment,
as when you can regulate transparency at whole and define hop-in and hop-out brighness level regions for a given masked layer,
while choosing if you want it affecting R, G, B or R and G or R and B or G and B or.....
Thats my main argument for layers: The many possibilities to mix them in, and preview the whole pic live in all zoom levels you need.
Of course you could do all that with Pixel Math, but what a task

Also, previews in PI sometimes just dont't do what they should, for example with Deconvolution the preview often is totally different
from what you get when applied to the whole pic.
Also. a preview on a small part of the pic may be limited by the very fact that only a small part is affected,
and algorithms that take bigger structure compnents into the calculation cannot find these bigger structures
in the limited preview. Like with MMT when you have 8 wavelet layers, you likely get artefacts on a small preview.

Therefore I regret we probably will not get same level of intuition and comfort in mixing like with PS and not have full live previews.
Like I cannot paint away in PI a irregular star halo caused by a filter or an optical imperfection. Gerald showed some approaches
by constructing a mask for the more regular halos, but some things one actaully is not able to to.

Another wish that I strongly support is a new tool that totally erases stars from the image and fills the gaps with surrounding structures extrapolated.
Like the small program Straton does, or the dust&scratches filter in PS.
Gerald implied a star regnoziation algorithm in his Star Mask utility in the Blend script, that could be a good starting point.

This is NOT meant to play PS against PI please, it is only expression of my personal wish list.
Such play would be bullshit. Don't hook on that trap please.
It is human nature if you see something useful and get used to it, you just want it.
If you don't need it, thats ok for me   but I want it, yes! 
I always say, if there would be DBE alone, it would be worth the money.
PI is so much more, I could not process my pics to the level I am able now without it, true for everybody here I guess 
Let it grow!

Tommy

[ser1993]

The question is more easy than ever: why I should write an expression when I can easily move a slider (or something like that) that do the EXACT SAME THING. Is not about approach to process, it's about UI and fast workflow.

[jkmorse]

Hell, I could never figure out layers in the first place    That's why I went Gerald's way and did a clean break deleting all those old crutches.  Its all just masks anyway. 

But I do take the point that for those of us that are mathematically challenged, PixelMath is not as easy for some as it is for others.  But for Gerald's help and other's like him who take me by the hand and gently lead me to water, I wouldn't be able to use it effectively at all.  This is particularly true when it comes to masks, especially trying to do combinations.  There are easy ways to get most of the way there, either with lum masks or star masks and we now have colormask as well.  But if I had one wish to toss on the pile it would be a reverse starmask and by that I mean a mask that would isolate the non-stellar signal so that it would isolate the target.  Here I stand fully with Andrea.

For what its worth,

Jim