Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: PixInsight  (Read 3070 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2014, 09:18:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Evil? - pointing out some flaws is certainly not calling them evil. What an absurd thing to say.

I think you are missing the point. PixInsight are talking a load of pretentious nonsense, have a user unfriendly website/software and are demonstrably not interested in making things easy for anyone who wants to use their product. So why should I even bother? If I was still an astronomer, they may have very specialized tools that no-one else could offer me, but as a pro photographer, it frankly seems like a waste of time....unless you can give me examples where this software will help me in my photography.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2014, 08:00:25 PM »
ReplyReply

You have not actually used the software have you? You are basing your complaints on the description on their website. The software is actually very easy to use. All the tools are arranged in a long menu that is easy to work with. What is complex is the options of the tools. They are quite flexible, making finding the optimal settings a feedback loop that requires experience and understanding. Yes, I chose the word evil on purpose; it sounds like you are demonizing a product you have never tried.

If the system does have a flaw it is in needing a connection to their server to run. I found that quite strange. Maybe it is a setup for their trial licenses. I have a big problem with making a hole in my firewall for it to do whatever it does. 
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2014, 04:36:36 AM »
ReplyReply

You have not actually used the software have you? You are basing your complaints on the description on their website.
Their uninviting description.
Now if someone can't be bothered to or is unable to design a usable website, and makes claims that they are not interesting in making things easy for the user, then why would I go any further?
As I asked above, how would it benefit my photography [which no longer is concerned with deep space] over say PS [and LR] which they like to compare themselves with?
Remember they say - "PixInsight is a software platform made by astrophotographers, for astrophotographers."
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 04:38:09 AM by jjj » Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3570


« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2014, 04:42:33 AM »
ReplyReply

If the system does have a flaw it is in needing a connection to their server to run. I found that quite strange. Maybe it is a setup for their trial licenses.

Hi Arthur,

That's correct, it's not a flaw but a feature, it's only required for the trial license. After acquiring an official license, that doesn't happen anymore because it reads a license code which gets stored on your computer(s). It then only calls home if/when you allow it to check for updates.

For the rest, I find PixInsight not really all that horrible in use, not at all. In fact it has a number of features that would benefit e.g. Photoshop as well, e.g. multiple scrollable workspaces, and the capability to store complete workspaces with all image windows and tools that were active when saved. Also nice is the built-in File-explorer, which shows a thumbnail, technical data, a histogram(!), and statistical info such as minimum and maximum RGB pixel values (also for Raws, although based on Camera WhiteBalance).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 04:49:01 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
kirkt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 172


« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2014, 09:27:27 AM »
ReplyReply

The PixInsight page is linked to an entire site dedicated to learning resources:

http://www.pixinsight.com.ar/en/

It explains the interface, each tool, the workflow - with processing examples, etc.  There are over 200 mini-screencasts on each feature of the interface and how it is used/implemented.

While the one sentence on the website has gotten under your skin, it is pretty apparent that the community who use and support the application are going to great lengths to explain how to use it.

kirk
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 09:29:10 AM by kirkt » Logged
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2014, 07:28:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I did a couple of tests to see how RawTherapee would handle this case, along with the CameraRaw 8.5:
Logged

Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2014, 08:24:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I did a couple of tests to see how RawTherapee would handle this case, along with the CameraRaw 8.5:

It is an interesting problem. I tried a variety of programs with both versions, the gradient only and the gradient with noise. Their sample is better than any. I cannot duplicate (after a couple hrs) their results yet, which shows my lack of understanding of their parameters. Not even close. I also tried creating my own double gradient with noise in PS. That was interesting as well due to the color noise adding another wrinkle.

One thing I did notice in raw therappee which I mis-understood before, is the view is not WYSIWYG on noise when zoom is not 100%. It looked like the color noise system was crippled. When you zoom to 100% all the color noise vanishes again. Of course it is gone in the output.

My tendency at this point would be to use RT,s AMAZE then output to TIF noise reduced. Then try their system with very mild setting to further diffuse noise if there is still some there. It's a rare need with the D600. I have had occasional no tripod, no flash, in a museum, where this may be useful.

I think their sharpening has the most potential of becoming my standard. I can get very good results with ImagesPlus. Their (PI) system has the same richardson-lucy while being color managed. IP also has an annoyance that it will not open tifs that have a profile embedded. I have to re-save as no compression, PC encoding, no ICCs. IP's sharpening does shift luminance AND increase color saturation. I either have to strip the luminance, then re-combine, or send it back to RT as a tif to check colors again. There is a good chance I will just go RT to PI then output.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3570


« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2014, 03:10:26 AM »
ReplyReply

It is an interesting problem. I tried a variety of programs with both versions, the gradient only and the gradient with noise. Their sample is better than any. I cannot duplicate (after a couple hrs) their results yet, which shows my lack of understanding of their parameters.

Hi Arthur,

Their Deconvolution sample is from a new, yet to be released, version of TGV Restoration. I have not been alble to test it either, but it's supposed to be released soon (the latest PI release had specific updates to facilitate that addition). What is not clear to me yet is how well small detail survives. Edges are perhaps simpler than small detail and they did mention slight issues in the sharp corners of the target, although they probably did test how well small point sources of light (stars) and planets survived. They're mainly doing final stability testing now, as far as I've read.

Quote
IP also has an annoyance that it will not open tifs that have a profile embedded. I have to re-save as no compression, PC encoding, no ICCs.

That's strange, because I can open TIFFs with compression (LZW or ZIP) or uncompressed, with an embedded profile. Maybe it has to do with layers? Otherwise I'm sure the PIteam would want to have a look at such a problem file.

Quote
IP's sharpening does shift luminance AND increase color saturation. I either have to strip the luminance, then re-combine, or send it back to RT as a tif to check colors again. There is a good chance I will just go RT to PI then output.

That doesn't sound like how it should handle sharpening, I assume you are referring to Deconvolution. Maybe it's related to the above TIFF issue? I've had such a color issue with an earlier release when using the CIE Y deconvolution (not in RGB/K components), but after I reported it they quickly fixed that bug that had crept in when they recoded some of the routines.

I agree that RawTherapee is also a very good converter, but having good alternatives is only positive. We get to pick and choose what suits our workflow best. And who knows, perhaps some of the advancements in PI can be replicated in RT ...

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I have also detected a deconvolution issue, but only when Luminance CIE Y was the selected target. I've just (a few hours before the weekend) reported it as a bug on the PI forum, hopefully it will be resolved soon. The same bug didn't happen on all files, so maybe it has something to do with a specific combination of file parameters coming out of Photoshop.

P.P.S. There may have been a change in the default color management settings, perhaps during an intermediate update. I'll have to check further to see what exactly changed the previous behavior.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 12:58:39 PM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2014, 07:25:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Bart,
In my post
IP = Images Plus
PI = PixInsight
 Smiley

The trouble I refer to was NOT PixInsight.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3570


« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2014, 02:35:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Bart,
In my post
IP = Images Plus
PI = PixInsight
 Smiley

The trouble I refer to was NOT PixInsight.

I see I misread. Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2014, 12:23:00 PM »
ReplyReply

The PixInsight page is linked to an entire site dedicated to learning resources:

http://www.pixinsight.com.ar/en/

It explains the interface, each tool, the workflow - with processing examples, etc.  There are over 200 mini-screencasts on each feature of the interface and how it is used/implemented.
This should not be buried under a menu but be to the forefront. And even that page doesn't simply show or explain to me what it does. Such basic info should up front on the first page. It feels like they assume people already know what it is and what it does and give info out on that basis.

Quote
While the one sentence on the website has gotten under your skin, it is pretty apparent that the community who use and support the application are going to great lengths to explain how to use it.
i.e. make up for the shortfall of the software designers. That 'one sentence' I picked out because it concisely explains the reason why the website and software are not as good as they could be. 
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
kirkt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 172


« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2014, 07:26:36 PM »
ReplyReply

You're right - it could be more obvious, but "Resources" seems pretty evident.  To be fair, here is the front page from PixInsight and from Photoshop.  They are pretty similar.

kirk

Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3365



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2014, 04:48:12 PM »
ReplyReply

You are forgetting one enormous difference. Photoshop is so well known by everyone, not just photographers that 'photoshop' the verb is now everyday language. This means that Adobe does not need to explain on the front page what it does. Pixinsight does.
Our conversation is because of that lack.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad