Thanks for the excellent tutorial! I’ve been using APP for two years and decided to take the plunge into PI. Good to know that I can continue to use APP to run integrations which is second nature to me while I learn how to post process in Pixinsight.
As in your previous APP vs PI video, I totally agree. I use APP to stack/integrate. Great for multi-session and since I use an ASI183MC-Pro with the Altair Tri-Band filter for nebula imaging, I really appreciate how I can extract , Mono, Ha and OIII. Then use PI for all other processing, combining Ha as red, OIII as blue and green and Mono as Lum.
Thanks for that. Here is a further suggestion. Rather than Blink and subframe selector in PI, use any FITS enabled viewing software to scan the lights for junk, delete those, then use DSS to register the frames (i.e analyse) - and it does a very comprehensive job of that. Select your metric i.e number of stars or sky background or whatever, filter for that and then easily delete those files from within DSS. Then take the remainder to APP and stack and then onto PI. I used DSS for a long time and thought it was very good at analysing lights and presenting the data and then allowing you to select and then keep or delete the data. I stopped using it because I started to get a checkered pattern in stretched images, and moved to APP but that was terrible at allowing access to the image analysis (it can be done but its awkward). Now with this video I realise that all the programs have their good and bad points but all three might work well. Thank you Sacha.
one question please. You mentioned that its important to un-tick the box for "adaptive pedestal/reduce amp glow" as it confuses PI. However my camera is the ASI 183MC Pro, and this has very significant amp glow. Until now I have left this box ticked and APP has calibrated the amp glow out extremely well - however I never before took the APP output into PI, I am just now starting with PI with the 1 month trial. So even though my camera has high amp glow, do you still recommend that I un-check this box? Many many thanks for the excellent videos that I have just discovered on your channel.
I always loved how quick the APP was compared with PixInsight - it always took me half the time at the most for the same data set in APP. The only reason for me to use PI is cosmetic correction in APP didn't work that well, either leaving behind artefacts or removing some good content. If I can manage to make that work as good as PI, I would definitely use that. Thanks for the video.
Great Video and much needed. I have been looking for easy to understand APP video. Only thing I would ask is to post a listing of the workflow and settings in your video description so I dont have to keep watching the video over when I forget the settings. I guess it helps your RU-vid stats. though
Happy you liked it. When it comes to Checklists, Cheat sheets, Workflows and more I decided to offer them exclusively on my Patreon page, given it's also a lot of work creating them. But with the lowest level you already get access to them as well as other benefits like early access to new videos. Have a look: patreon.com/user?u=83665984
Thanks for the very good video. I like the easy way of extracting Ha and other narrow band channels. But I think there must be a Pixelmath way of doing the same thing, which I don’t know yet. Hope the author considers giving a good sale price for APP sometime in the near future.
Another excellent video. I have always referred the results of my calibration and stacking with APP vs Pixinsight. There are a couple of settings i didn’t know about, one of which is the drizzle for SPCC.
I am one who tries WBPP each time something new comes out and I still prefer APP. There are a couple of other simple selections in APP that provide solutions to problems that may arise or that will meet your desire to go beyond the basics. Secondly, I have had very positive experiences with the APP forum. A great resource and well-monitored and moderated. One common complaint is that APP does not forward certain info in the fits header. This is true, but the forum reports they are working to complete the data set in the header. That will be great! ---- If, like me, you go to PI after stacking and have found a good easy way to add the plate solving solution to masters made in APP, I would love to hear how you do so. Thanks for a good video on APP.
Please can I ask 1 question: You mentioned that its important to un-tick the box for "adaptive pedestal/reduce amp glow" as it confuses PI. However my camera is the ASI 183MC Pro, and this has very significant amp glow. Until now I have left this box ticked and APP has calibrated the amp glow out extremely well - however I never before took the APP output into PI, I am just now starting with PI with the 1 month trial. So even though my camera has high amp glow, do you still recommend that I un-check this box? Many many thanks for the excellent videos!
Like you, I too use APP to stack. I believe it is much easier. I've got an issue with my BG after light pollution/gradient removal with one of my rigs that I hope you can help me with. But does not occur with images shot with my other rig. It's like multicolored, not sure how to explain it. Would be easier to send you a stacked image.
Great video. One comment and one question. For those that don't like the fact that you can not save a project: You can simply stack the FITS images from each session. For instance if I shot Orion over 3 nights, maybe a week apart and have stacked each session separately. Load the FITS image from each session as a light frame, go to integration and start. Doesn't take long at all. I noticed you didn't use any rejection filter, is there are reason for that?
Yes, if you leave the integration method on "automatic" it chooses automatically the right rejection filter: "Automatic - With the automatic integration method, APP will automatically set either median or average integration, set suitable integration weights (either equal or quality weights) and it will enable an outlier rejection filter with suitable kappa low and high values, all depending on the number of frames in the integration/stack."
@@viewintospace Thanks I did not realize that. I had messaged you yesterday through FB. I'm restacking the session I was having issues with now. I'll see what happens.
Excellent video! Love the intro with sunglasses!!! What about using APP for star calibration and then moving the fits files to PixInsight for blurexterminator, noise reduction, color manipulation, star exterminator etc. the new PI APCC is quite complicated and it seems super easy in APP. What are your thoughts?
My thoughts? Bad, bad, terrible - NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-) APP is great for stacking but that is it. Their star-calibration is done by assigning color based on statistic distribution, which from my understanding means they do it more or less randomly. SPCC is a bit complicated, but it is the most accurate way today to calibrate the star colors, so it should be utilised by all means.
It's a question of personal preference - some people love it, some hate it. It is best you try it out for yourself. There is a free test version of APP, and the same with PixInsight....
Hi Sasha, A few things- -Where are you getting data on the number of users of PI v the number of users having issues with wbpp? I suspect this ratio is very low as I rarely see the issues you suggest in forums or posts of various groups... -You are correct in saying it is expensive to have two processing softwares for the one task, so I do question why anyone would want to master two softwares (and mastering both would be needed, or why bother?) -You can easily output your approved SS files to a folder, so no need to 'write down' the files you want rejected. -You have not provided examples of the issues people are having in wbpp, so this feels like a bit of a beat-up.. I don't want to turn this into a bash-rant, but this vid feels a bit divisive... Cheers.
Look, I don't have any numbers, so it might be less or more. Fact is that there are a certain number of people who commented here or in FB to this video who can relate to what I'm saying, that I know a substantial number of people who use APP in combination with PI and that I see quite some times in the FB forum cries for help about WBPP. I do not see it as two softwares for one task as a see pre-processing and processing as two very different things. And so having a dedicated pre-processing software makes for me a lot of sense. At the end it was definitely not intended to be divisive and I'm a bit surprised about the strong reaction, as I even state in the video I do not win anyone over. All I wanted is to show an alternative for people who are fed up with WBPP....
