Thank you for this. Coincidentally, I drew the same conclusion after my last session. I used APP and stretched it while messing around on the right side. Then used GIMP and had to undo some of the mess from stretching in APP. After thinking about it today, I thought why not just go through the process on the left side, then finish with GIMP. You've validated that thought.
A nice high level overview of capabilities. What I'd love to see is someone tackle the fine points (probably a series). I've looked and haven't found anyone who has done that in the last year or two and this program has made huge advances in that time. I regularly stumble across a change to a single setting (Local Normalization Rejection for example) which has made dramatic improvements to my final stack. It makes me wonder about all the other things I don't know about this program. Would love to see someone take up that challenge.
Leo, I watched quite a lot of APP tutorials, and some went point by point through all the options and what to choose in which situation. There were times when I did then the changes manually myself too, but the more I read the description of the Automatic options, the more I understood that APP does select exactly these recommended options itself. There are also very experienced APP users why recommend, to leave everything on default. I guess the only moment when you have to switch to manual is when you do something out of the ordinary or when you have data with substantial quality issues.
I've had APP on my computer for about 8 months now but haven't used it for quite a while because I had also seen tutorials that showed all the steps going down. That was too complex so I started using WBPP in Pixinsight. But I still had the feeling that stacking could be even better and that's why I'm going to test APP thoroughly again. Thank you for this video and with the auto settings life will be a bit easier ;)
Great video. I do find Pixinsight tedious for stacking. A couple of questions. When using master files do they have to be in .fits format, not xifs format and when stacking say Ha, Oiii and Sii lights and flats and darks can you load all of these and go? Thanks
Happy you liked it! .xifs is a PixInsight internal format, so it will not work for APP - you need to use .fits. You can easily do the stacking of various filters and sessions, all with their own calibration files in one go and you can specify what should only be registered together but integrated separately, and what should also be integrated together. It is straight forward.....
Thanks for the video. Just getting into AP (8 months) and currently use APP to stack and PI to process. I tried WBPP but think APP is better for stacking, my two cents.
I am wanting to do what you use APP for; stacking only. You are heavily invested into PixInsight for post processing. Up to this point I have done my post processing in Star Tools. With Star Tools the recommendation with APP stacking is to 1st uncheck 2)Adaptive Pedestal and 2nd uncheck 5) Neutralize Background. The reason for this is to retain the undistorted native data. Would this be the same recommendation with PixInsight? Can you think of any advantage of leaving these checked when bringing the final Fits into PixInsight?
If you use a dedicated astro cam like a ZWO you do not need Adaptive Pedestal anyway, but I would like assume it would do any harm. Neutralise Background kind of asks you afterwards to do Background Calibration in APP, so give we continue working in PI I would deselect that. SPCC now suggests to Drizzle, so activate the 1x Drizzle option. Otherwise you should be fine.
@@viewintospace So it appears that for the most part my APP stack settings would work good for both PixInsight and Star Tools. I haven’t ever considered Drizzle but do dither so perhaps this might be a good setting to enable in APP.
thanks for doing this. I like that you dont have to plate solve to make mosaics, and you can literally create a mosaic in one click. But I know you dont like mosaics :D
Enjoyed your explanation of APP vs PI. I'm very new to Astro Imaging, and have only a few objects photographed so far. Nonetheless, i did find the quality of the stacked image with APP (using the HA/O3 algorithm - using Antila ALP-T dual band 5nm filter) to be much better than PI. I also find (as you suggested) that APP runs much faster than PI (I am using an Apple M1 max Studio) likely due in part to the native implementation. Perhaps a simple question. Can you tell me how APP uses Flats/Master Flat, Darks/Master Darks, Bias/Master Bias,... I'm guessing that APP first looks at the Darks. Flats, Bias, Dark Flats, and creates "Master" images, and then uses these "Masters" to calibrate the stacked Lights? Is this correct? Thanks, John
That is absolutely correct. And as you might have realised, APP saves the created masters automatically in your main directory, so next time you can use the masters which makes it even faster
Nice video as usual. I'll have to look, but is 2.0 available for download now? Haven't seen any emails from them. As I'm sure you know, there are actually some post-processing on the left side under tools which can be useful such as combine RGB, and remove light pollution. My work flow usually saves a stretched final file (tiff format), choosing one of the preset stretches (as I've never been able of figure out the sliders!) and then importing that to LigthRoom / Photoshop. I have tried PI before, but found it too cumbersome and I spent way more time getting basically similar results as in LR & PS. By the way, it looks like you backfocus needs adjusting from the final image you show.
Thanks Richard!!!!! Version 2 is available as a far progressed beta for download on their homepage. It is totally stable - I downloaded it and use it productively - no issues! I would challenge you to give PI another try! Have a look at my 2 PI videos and try it out - you can request a second trial period - they usually grant it. I assure you - after a short time you will be faster in PI, the results are more controllable and the result should be better. About backfocus . well spotted. It is something I presently address as I anyway change the corrector....
Agreed. Some of the Tools on the left are useful for those of us proceeding to Lightroom, including Light Pollution, Star colour calibration, RGB/ SHO/ Hubble combination, and Star Reducer.
Astro pixel processor is the gold standard for stacking and pixinsight is the gold standard for processing in my opinion. I would also say that the remove light pollution tool in APP is actually better than DBE or ABE in pixinsight. No question Astro pixel processor is the best software on the market for stacking; it's a brilliant piece of software
Congratulations, another nominee for the most confusing GUI ever written. After 6 months, I am finally getting comfortable with Pixinisght, using APP would drive me to drink. What is ait about Astro processing software? Do any of them work with a User Interface / GUI designer? I think not.
I woud 100% agree that neither PI nor APP developers have any idea about UX/UI Design - which drives me crazy too. That said, the APP GUI is not that hard to operate, once you understand the basic idea they had in mind. And an other advantage is that the changes you need to do on a regular bases are rather few. So given that WBPP and APP are far from optimal when it comes to UX, I still prefer APP ;-)
What kind of nonsense is this?! A test should only be made public if you really know the program. The features revealed in the TOOLS tab are excellent!
It is quite telling that this statement comes from someone who is German speaking, given that we have Daniel Nimmervoll who propagates as one of the very view APP as the ultimate one stop shop for stacking and processing. But then again, Daniel uses also Photoshop and with APP alone, he would not achieve his results.... Point is, excellent is a very relative term, and while the tools might be sufficient for your needs and in combination with Photoshop can deliver great results, there is no doubt that PixInsight is far superior in direct comparison to the processing capabilities of APP. First of all APP offers only a small fraction of the capabilities of PixInsight, and even then comparing for example the "calibrate star colors" of APP with the "Photometric Color Calibration" of PixInsight - it's like comparing a Trabbi with a Ferrari ;-) Bottom line: I know the tools of APP Udo, the question is: Do you know PixInsight? ;-)
![A Full Guide on AstroPixelProcessor [Astrophotography Stacking Software]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9EAKNqZ201Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this. Coincidentally, I drew the same conclusion after my last session. I used APP and stretched it while messing around on the right side. Then used GIMP and had to undo some of the mess from stretching in APP. After thinking about it today, I thought why not just go through the process on the left side, then finish with GIMP. You've validated that thought.
Excellent... currently using the Trial version, I am sold.
A nice high level overview of capabilities. What I'd love to see is someone tackle the fine points (probably a series). I've looked and haven't found anyone who has done that in the last year or two and this program has made huge advances in that time. I regularly stumble across a change to a single setting (Local Normalization Rejection for example) which has made dramatic improvements to my final stack. It makes me wonder about all the other things I don't know about this program. Would love to see someone take up that challenge.
Leo, I watched quite a lot of APP tutorials, and some went point by point through all the options and what to choose in which situation. There were times when I did then the changes manually myself too, but the more I read the description of the Automatic options, the more I understood that APP does select exactly these recommended options itself. There are also very experienced APP users why recommend, to leave everything on default. I guess the only moment when you have to switch to manual is when you do something out of the ordinary or when you have data with substantial quality issues.
Many people know Photo Shop, so APP is a great front end to get astro images ready for final processing in PS.
I've had APP on my computer for about 8 months now but haven't used it for quite a while because I had also seen tutorials that showed all the steps going down. That was too complex so I started using WBPP in Pixinsight. But I still had the feeling that stacking could be even better and that's why I'm going to test APP thoroughly again. Thank you for this video and with the auto settings life will be a bit easier ;)
Great video. I do find Pixinsight tedious for stacking. A couple of questions. When using master files do they have to be in .fits format, not xifs format and when stacking say Ha, Oiii and Sii lights and flats and darks can you load all of these and go? Thanks
Happy you liked it! .xifs is a PixInsight internal format, so it will not work for APP - you need to use .fits. You can easily do the stacking of various filters and sessions, all with their own calibration files in one go and you can specify what should only be registered together but integrated separately, and what should also be integrated together. It is straight forward.....
Thanks for the video. Just getting into AP (8 months) and currently use APP to stack and PI to process. I tried WBPP but think APP is better for stacking, my two cents.
well done - thank you
I am wanting to do what you use APP for; stacking only. You are heavily invested into PixInsight for post processing. Up to this point I have done my post processing in Star Tools. With Star Tools the recommendation with APP stacking is to 1st uncheck 2)Adaptive Pedestal and 2nd uncheck 5) Neutralize Background. The reason for this is to retain the undistorted native data. Would this be the same recommendation with PixInsight? Can you think of any advantage of leaving these checked when bringing the final Fits into PixInsight?
If you use a dedicated astro cam like a ZWO you do not need Adaptive Pedestal anyway, but I would like assume it would do any harm. Neutralise Background kind of asks you afterwards to do Background Calibration in APP, so give we continue working in PI I would deselect that. SPCC now suggests to Drizzle, so activate the 1x Drizzle option. Otherwise you should be fine.
@@viewintospace So it appears that for the most part my APP stack settings would work good for both PixInsight and Star Tools. I haven’t ever considered Drizzle but do dither so perhaps this might be a good setting to enable in APP.
thanks for doing this. I like that you dont have to plate solve to make mosaics, and you can literally create a mosaic in one click. But I know you dont like mosaics :D
Enjoyed your explanation of APP vs PI. I'm very new to Astro Imaging, and have only a few objects photographed so far. Nonetheless, i did find the quality of the stacked image with APP (using the HA/O3 algorithm - using Antila ALP-T dual band 5nm filter) to be much better than PI. I also find (as you suggested) that APP runs much faster than PI (I am using an Apple M1 max Studio) likely due in part to the native implementation. Perhaps a simple question. Can you tell me how APP uses Flats/Master Flat, Darks/Master Darks, Bias/Master Bias,... I'm guessing that APP first looks at the Darks. Flats, Bias, Dark Flats, and creates "Master" images, and then uses these "Masters" to calibrate the stacked Lights? Is this correct? Thanks, John
That is absolutely correct. And as you might have realised, APP saves the created masters automatically in your main directory, so next time you can use the masters which makes it even faster
Nice video as usual. I'll have to look, but is 2.0 available for download now? Haven't seen any emails from them.
As I'm sure you know, there are actually some post-processing on the left side under tools which can be useful such as combine RGB, and remove light pollution. My work flow usually saves a stretched final file (tiff format), choosing one of the preset stretches (as I've never been able of figure out the sliders!) and then importing that to LigthRoom / Photoshop. I have tried PI before, but found it too cumbersome and I spent way more time getting basically similar results as in LR & PS.
By the way, it looks like you backfocus needs adjusting from the final image you show.
Thanks Richard!!!!! Version 2 is available as a far progressed beta for download on their homepage. It is totally stable - I downloaded it and use it productively - no issues!
I would challenge you to give PI another try! Have a look at my 2 PI videos and try it out - you can request a second trial period - they usually grant it. I assure you - after a short time you will be faster in PI, the results are more controllable and the result should be better.
About backfocus . well spotted. It is something I presently address as I anyway change the corrector....
@@viewintospace I went to the site, but only found the Windows version; I use a Mac. I'll keep checking.
@@MakeAMark I have a Mac M1 - go here to Forums - at the top are the downloads: www.astropixelprocessor.com/community/
Agreed. Some of the Tools on the left are useful for those of us proceeding to Lightroom, including Light Pollution, Star colour calibration, RGB/ SHO/ Hubble combination, and Star Reducer.
Great job. The one thing I depend on is the light pollution removal tool. If use entirely excellent.
APP V2 is not on the website for Mac...its cool I found the link in the comments below
nothing can beat Stacking power and mosaic generation of APP. Its the best
Astro pixel processor is the gold standard for stacking and pixinsight is the gold standard for processing in my opinion. I would also say that the remove light pollution tool in APP is actually better than DBE or ABE in pixinsight. No question Astro pixel processor is the best software on the market for stacking; it's a brilliant piece of software
Congratulations, another nominee for the most confusing GUI ever written. After 6 months, I am finally getting comfortable with Pixinisght, using APP would drive me to drink. What is ait about Astro processing software? Do any of them work with a User Interface / GUI designer? I think not.
I woud 100% agree that neither PI nor APP developers have any idea about UX/UI Design - which drives me crazy too. That said, the APP GUI is not that hard to operate, once you understand the basic idea they had in mind. And an other advantage is that the changes you need to do on a regular bases are rather few. So given that WBPP and APP are far from optimal when it comes to UX, I still prefer APP ;-)
Get to the Point!!
I usually have a reputation of being very concise and to the point, but we all have a different idea on how much to the point someone has to be 😉
What kind of nonsense is this?! A test should only be made public if you really know the program.
The features revealed in the TOOLS tab are excellent!
It is quite telling that this statement comes from someone who is German speaking, given that we have Daniel Nimmervoll who propagates as one of the very view APP as the ultimate one stop shop for stacking and processing. But then again, Daniel uses also Photoshop and with APP alone, he would not achieve his results.... Point is, excellent is a very relative term, and while the tools might be sufficient for your needs and in combination with Photoshop can deliver great results, there is no doubt that PixInsight is far superior in direct comparison to the processing capabilities of APP. First of all APP offers only a small fraction of the capabilities of PixInsight, and even then comparing for example the "calibrate star colors" of APP with the "Photometric Color Calibration" of PixInsight - it's like comparing a Trabbi with a Ferrari ;-) Bottom line: I know the tools of APP Udo, the question is: Do you know PixInsight? ;-)
@@viewintospace ..."Do you know PixInsight?"
Not good, and that's exactly why I won't make a video about this program.