Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: Fine_Art on June 28, 2014, 02:06:42 pm

Title: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on June 28, 2014, 02:06:42 pm
I noticed Bart is using a program called PixInsight for deconvolution so I thought I better check it out.  ;)

It seems to be using DCRAW so it can support any camera they support.
It has a few amazing features.

Compare your own noise reduction program using their test image
http://www.pixinsight.com/tutorials/nr-comparison/index.html (http://www.pixinsight.com/tutorials/nr-comparison/index.html)
Better than Topaz DeNoise!

Artifact free sharpening
http://www.pixinsight.com/tutorials/mmt-sharpening/index.html (http://www.pixinsight.com/tutorials/mmt-sharpening/index.html)

Check out their FAQ comparison to Photoshop. It shows a very different design philosophy.
http://www.pixinsight.com/faq/index.html (http://www.pixinsight.com/faq/index.html)

This seems like an amazing product. I can't wait to get a free trial license.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on June 28, 2014, 02:38:38 pm
"While we try to design and implement our tools to facilitate the user's work as much as possible, ease of use is not one of our main goals."
 I think they failed right there. Providing you even got that far on the website, because you get little clue as to what is going on from the home page.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 28, 2014, 03:44:32 pm
"While we try to design and implement our tools to facilitate the user's work as much as possible, ease of use is not one of our main goals."
 I think they failed right there. Providing you even got that far on the website, because you get little clue as to what is going on from the home page.

PixInsight is not an image editor as most photographers are accustomed to using, it is a software development environment that focuses on processing of AstroPhotographic images. Some of its functionality is very advanced compared to the tools many of us know/use, probably too advanced for many less technically oriented users to make good use of.

Horses for courses.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on June 28, 2014, 09:07:37 pm
PixInsight is not an image editor as most photographers are accustomed to using, it is a software development environment that focuses on processing of AstroPhotographic images. Some of its functionality is very advanced compared to the tools many of us know/use, probably too advanced for many less technically oriented users to make good use of.
Advanced processing necessarily doesn't equate to inaccessible though. That's only the case if something is poorly designed. Some of the stuff PS does is very complex stuff, yet is easy to use.
Not to mention the line I quoted contradicts itself whilst being rather pretentious.
BTW in a previous life I was an astronomer.  :)
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on June 28, 2014, 09:40:41 pm
I don't care if the user interface is primitive if the program delivers the best NR and sharpening. They are a small company. Better they focus on the core functions first which will result in a stable, bloat-free program. They can always add nice curtains later. I design, then build houses. I spend a lot of time on the foundation so that people will never have a pretty house that is breaking up. Most companies will put all the money into fancy finishes. Ask them in 20 years how important that "look" is when the foundation is cracking.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: kirkt on June 29, 2014, 10:51:30 am
Make sure you visit their dedicated resources page:

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

kirk
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Isaac on June 29, 2014, 10:53:51 am
I design, then build houses.

So you don't design and build software? Maybe it's different :-)
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on June 29, 2014, 12:18:28 pm
So you don't design and build software? Maybe it's different :-)

Despite that astounding epiphany, conceptually building anything has similarities. In past careers I have built systems that ran the operations of a college. I built several different systems that controlled the supply chains of multinationals.

IMO photoshop is well designed for graphics manipulations. Scientific imaging programs are about protecting the data. Getting the most out of the data. This approach will never give graphics design type tools. It will give damn good sharpening and noise reduction. Use the tools you need.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on June 29, 2014, 04:30:48 pm
I don't care if the user interface is primitive if the program delivers the best NR and sharpening. They are a small company. Better they focus on the core functions first which will result in a stable, bloat-free program.
Bloat=features I don't want.  ::)  Yet to other people that bloat maybe essential to their workflow.

Quote
They can always add nice curtains later.
If they last long enough with a user unfriendly programme.

Quote
I design, then build houses. I spend a lot of time on the foundation so that people will never have a pretty house that is breaking up. Most companies will put all the money into fancy finishes. Ask them in 20 years how important that "look" is when the foundation is cracking.
And if people struggled to work out how to place the building on the very well built foundation, then they wouldn't hire you again. That would be a better analogy for PixInsight's attitude.
The thing about companies that do not consider how something looks - which is not what I was talking about as usability a very different thing - is that they run are idiots. People almost invariably judge things on looks and if you ignore that fact, then you are only hurting yourself. My view is that if someone doesn't bother to work on something so basic and so important to so many people, what other areas have they overlooked?
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Isaac on June 29, 2014, 05:03:53 pm
Despite that astounding epiphany, conceptually building anything has similarities.

Building anything has superficial similarities.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on June 29, 2014, 09:08:52 pm
Building anything has superficial similarities.

No. I'm talking about the process of analysis that lets you solve a problem. Just like the scientific method is a process that is used for many subjects. In software the object oriented model lets you build all kinds of software. To handle data a common schema like a star or snowflake pattern lets you handle all kinds of data. SQL lets you run data processes on your data. These are not superficial similarities.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: kirkt on June 30, 2014, 10:55:29 am
I've not found PixInsight to be user unfriendly - it is difficult, but not unfriendly, and it is difficult mostly because *I* do not understand some of the specialized tools and their applications - I am not an astrophotographer but I use many of the tools for image processing.  To condemn it seems hasty and unfounded, unless of course you have used it and found it to be doomed to failure for whatever reason.  If the creator of the application states that his emphasis is not on a pretty interface, but on the design and implementation of a toolset that provides flexibility and precision above and beyond what might be currently popular or available, I suppose that is a description he feels is relevant to folks looking for a similar tool.  The workflow is different than Photoshop, but in a good way, providing a non-linear, object-oriented quasi-node-like environment for producing workflow solutions that can be stored, re-used, scripted and programmed.  In addition, there are methods for branching your workflow with multiple paths to a result, all the while preserving the original data.  Add to that tools that provide an extended ability to work with linear and high-bit data and you have an environment that is geared more toward working with raw data.  The gory details are exposed to the user throughout the workflow, should you choose, so one can control the result with was much micromanagement as one sees fit. 

Like any application, there is a learning curve - it is steep but manageable if you know what you are looking to do with your data.  As I posted earlier, there is a website dedicated to learning resources and the documentation is extensive within the application itself.  It is obviously not a tool for everyone, regardless of how great it might be and I can respect that.  I'm not sure how one can argue that it is bloated, other than to characterize something that is filled with things not useful to that person as bloated - in that sense, an application like Lightroom or Photoshop is almost entirely bloat for a lot of people.  For others, it is just about perfect.

kirk
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 30, 2014, 01:29:15 pm
Like any application, there is a learning curve - it is steep but manageable if you know what you are looking to do with your data.  As I posted earlier, there is a website dedicated to learning resources and the documentation is extensive within the application itself.  It is obviously not a tool for everyone, regardless of how great it might be and I can respect that.

I agree with Kirk. The PI functionality is aimed at the processing of AstroPhotography, but some of the functions can be equally useful for 'Terrestrial Photography', in fact a lot can be learned from our stargazing friends (who need to make due with relatively few photons, (atmospheric) motion blur, and still make the best of it).

There are also some interesting features that make more sense for the type of linear gamma images one usually encounters in AstroPhotography, such as a built in File Explorer which not only shows a preview, but also shows the image histogram, and all sorts of technical details of the images, including minimum and maximum RGB pixel value statistics. It's a bit like having a built-in EXIF viewer, and then some, in the file open dialog.

Of course the immediately most useful functions for 'regular' images are found under the Denoising, Wavelet processing, Resizing, and Deconvolution dialogs. Given the complexity of those functions, they are implemented elegantly, with automatic linearization (based on image gamma/profile) where necessary.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on June 30, 2014, 01:29:38 pm
I installed a trial copy.

Here is a quick TNG denoise of an old file. This was an old CCD camera at low ISO. The NR barely touches well defined edges. Not bad for a brand new user. You have to experiment with parameters until you get a feel of it.

Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 30, 2014, 02:29:52 pm
I installed a trial copy.

Here is a quick TNG denoise of an old file. This was an old CCD camera at low ISO. The NR barely touches well defined edges. Not bad for a brand new user. You have to experiment with parameters until you get a feel of it.

Yes, it takes a bit of experimenting to find the best settings of the TGV Denoising. In my experience, it helps to also have an Image Statistics window running in parallel (the statistics shown can be user selected and saved) somewhere on the Work space. When there is a relatively uniform image area somewhere in the image, make a preview selection of it, and set focus to it. Then tweak the (most important) Edge protection control (drag the New Instance triangle to the preview after each change of controls) up/down until you find the sweet spot where noise is starting to be reduced (Standard deviation in 8-bit or 10-bit is reduced). Then see how far you can go up again before image detail elsewhere in the image (you can reposition the Preview or add another one) starts to be impacted. Once everything is to your liking, increase the number of iterations to something like 500, and verify if the details are still there. Tweak if necessary, and balance all that e.g. with the Strength control.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on June 30, 2014, 07:11:03 pm
Here is a quick TNG denoise of an old file. This was an old CCD camera at low ISO. The NR barely touches well defined edges. Not bad for a brand new user. You have to experiment with parameters until you get a feel of it.
And like every de-noise demo I've ever seen, the before looks better. Removing noise generally makes the photo look soft/smeary/unsharp, yes the text may be sharp in that example but the bricks now look soft.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on June 30, 2014, 07:19:14 pm
If the creator of the application states that his emphasis is not on a pretty interface, but on the design and implementation of a toolset that provides flexibility and precision above and beyond what might be currently popular or available, I suppose that is a description he feels is relevant to folks looking for a similar tool.
The comment I quoted had nothing to do with the aesthetics of the interface, but the usability of the software. Fine Art started talking about 'fancy finishes' which was missing the point.

To repeat the point.
"While we try to design and implement our tools to facilitate the user's work as much as possible, ease of use is not one of our main goals."
Which is a dumb attitude. Not to mention that it makes little sense as it's somewhat contradictory.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on June 30, 2014, 08:14:08 pm
The comment I quoted had nothing to do with the aesthetics of the interface, but the usability of the software. Fine Art started talking about 'fancy finishes' which was missing the point.

To repeat the point.
"While we try to design and implement our tools to facilitate the user's work as much as possible, ease of use is not one of our main goals."
Which is a dumb attitude. Not to mention that it makes little sense as it's somewhat contradictory.

That sounds like a mis-interpretation of what they are saying. Some software tries to present a simple black box. You feed it something, it spits out a finished product. An example is several of the Topaz plugins, which are quite good. They also have parameters if you want to fiddle with them. Another would be filmpacks from various vendors. Color Efex is another.

This company is saying they give you the manipulation tools. You do what you need to the data. It means you might actually have to learn what your image data is showing. This is perfectly consistent with a scientific imaging product.

Other people may want to pay someone to be their brain trust.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on July 01, 2014, 06:51:44 pm
That sounds like a mis-interpretation of what they are saying. Some software tries to present a simple black box. You feed it something, it spits out a finished product. An example is several of the Topaz plugins, which are quite good. They also have parameters if you want to fiddle with them. Another would be filmpacks from various vendors. Color Efex is another.

This company is saying they give you the manipulation tools. You do what you need to the data. It means you might actually have to learn what your image data is showing. This is perfectly consistent with a scientific imaging product.
Not a misinterpretation at all as they were very specifically comparing themselves to Photoshop, not a simple filter pack in the section where I found the pretentious quote. Remember many people think of PS as an extremely complex tool.

Their attitude simply reminds me of the photographers who slag off PS as a tool to alter photographs, when the truth is they simply are not very good at using it. I'd hazard that PixInsight people are rubbish as UI design and that is why they slag it off. It's a classic diversion technique, to try and hide the fact you are crap at something claim it's not important/relevant.

The fact that the website is nearly all wordy explanations and avoids using images to show/explain things is also a dead giveaway of people who are clueless about both design and how to explain things. Even trying to find a screenshot of what the programme looks like is a challenge. Not to mention that if you land on the home page, you get no clues as to what the website is even about.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on July 01, 2014, 10:29:57 pm
You seem determined to insist they have nothing to offer. Why is that?

PS made a very important jump - layers. Using different effect on different layers with the user choosing what effect to have where was brilliant. Maybe you can afford them (pixinsight) the courtesy of trying their software before spouting how evil it is.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on July 02, 2014, 10:18:15 am
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.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on July 02, 2014, 09:00:25 pm
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. 
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on July 03, 2014, 05:36:36 am
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."
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 03, 2014, 05:42:33 am
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
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: kirkt on July 03, 2014, 10:27:27 am
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
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: MichaelEzra on July 03, 2014, 08:28:25 pm
I did a couple of tests to see how RawTherapee would handle this case, along with the CameraRaw 8.5:
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on July 03, 2014, 09:24:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 04, 2014, 04:10:26 am
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 (http://pixinsight.com/forum/index.php?topic=7263.msg48872#msg48872) 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.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on July 04, 2014, 08:25:34 pm
Bart,
In my post
IP = Images Plus
PI = PixInsight
 :)

The trouble I refer to was NOT PixInsight.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 05, 2014, 03:35:58 am
Bart,
In my post
IP = Images Plus
PI = PixInsight
 :)

The trouble I refer to was NOT PixInsight.

I see I misread. Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on July 08, 2014, 01:23:00 pm
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. 
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: kirkt on July 08, 2014, 08:26:36 pm
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

Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: jjj on July 24, 2014, 05:48:12 pm
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.

Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: NancyP on October 03, 2014, 01:55:57 pm
I am pretty sure that PixInsight has active usergroups. Again, this is primarily used by astrophotographers. Me, I went for Nebulosity for my first astrophotography program based on the better manual and overall simpler (probably less powerful) UI. PixInsight is for power users.
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Alan Smallbone on November 04, 2014, 04:26:28 pm
There is a very active forum for Pixinsight.
http://pixinsight.com/forum/

Alan
Title: Re: PixInsight
Post by: Fine_Art on November 05, 2014, 02:08:45 pm
Here is a deconvolution tutorial using pixinsight. It is the youtube video on the page.
http://mike-wiles.blogspot.ca/2013/08/pixinsight-deconvolution.html

The process is very involved, not something most people would want to go through on their images. The resulting image at the bottom of the page is quite spectacular.

The bottom line is that these software wizardry methods extend the limits when your ability to gather the data you need is limited. In astro-photography that is the atmosphere, then the telescope, then time. In a regular photo, if you need more data you just put on a longer lens then stitch.