Sorry, I left off part of my post.  Thank you for your help and advice :)

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
>
> 20-minute exposures is good, but they could always be longer for any
narrow-band image. <g> You do have a fast scope, so I would expect reasonable
results from those exposures.
>
> Imaging with the moon up is always fraught with risk. Depending on how the
off-axis illumination from the moon plays out - perversely, it can be worse at a
position that is further away, it all depends on the light path inside the scope
- you could definitely have gotten bright spots in some of your images that do
not flat out. The moon reflects all of the colors of the sun, which is rich in
most of the emission bands, so reflections off the moon _might_ be a hazard in
variable ways. From the information you've provided, I would expect that the
moon is possibly the source of the unwanted color in your final image. I suspect
that your images are not really flat because of either the off-axis light, or
sky gradients.
>
> Ron Wodaski
>
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2011, at 2:01 AM, CurtisC wrote:
>
> > Sorry -- total of 9 hrs of data: 9 x 20 min in each NB color, unbinned.  I
didn't shoot any luminance or clear-filter frames.
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wodaski <yahoo@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Let's start with some basics. What is the focal ratio of that scope? What
camera are you using? How long are your exposures? Is there any light pollution
in that area of the sky where you are? (Ha does a good job blocking light
pollution, but OIII and SII are susceptible to it.)
> >>
> >> Ron Wodaski
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 30, 2011, at 11:30 PM, CurtisC wrote:
> >>
> >>> I may not even be asking the question properly, or I may not correctly 
understand what I've been reading.  I'm getting into narrowband imaging (Ha,
OIII, SII).  The North America Nebula practically fell together as a Hubble
palette image, and I was able to achieve a spectacular result that got lots of
"likes" and compliments.  M16 has been a lot -- a lot!! -- more difficult. 
Apparently the fact that it's 3x farther than the N.A. and possibly 1/9 as
bright is probably part of my problem.  What I'm reading about narrowband says I
should align the images (not just the subs within each color) before working on
them in Photoshop.  The question: can CCDStack save each image as though it were
aligned with a base image (say, the H-alpha) without having to actually combine
them?  For some reason, people seem to be cool to the idea of using auto-align
in PS.  I wouldn't use it for the subs, but it seems to work well enough for
aligning the three colors.  In addition, everything I do with
> > M16
> >>> leaves me with lots of green in the outer parts of the nebula.  I was just
looking at a narrowband image of M16 by Russell Croman, and it was almost enough
to make me want to put all of my equipment on Astromart.  Of course, he did it
with a 20-inch scope vs. my 4-inch, but even in the central part that he shows,
I haven't been able to get close to what he has.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I have a Baby FSQ 85mm and want to use it for some wide-field mosaics. I've been
thinking about the QSI 683 wsg as my camera of choice.

However, I'm now also starting to think about getting a longer focal length
telescope such as a 10" RC and do mosaics with it too. I know the 683 camera can
be binned, but would there be other cameras that I should consider for use with
both scopes (can't afford two different cameras)?

Also, is a square sensor better for mosaics?

Thanks in advance.
Rick

> Also, is a square sensor better for mosaics?

Generally speaking, I wouldn't say so. Leaving other factors aside
such as pixel size, resolution, sensitivity, etc... sensor size may be
worth keeping in mind, but not so much whether it's square or
rectangular. The bigger the sensor  - assuming that your optics can
take full advantage of it -  the larger the field you can capture in a
single frame and therefore the less number of panes you may need for a
given mosaic.

Aesthetically, to me it really doesn't matter whether the final image
is squared, double-squared, a more traditional rectangle, etc. For
some people it may matter, but that's more of a personal preference.

Cheers,
Rogelio

I am a newbie to imaging and am having a problem I have not seen addressed in
the forum. I am using an ST8E camera with a SBIG 5 filter wheel. I have to
refocus every time I change filters. Since I have not found this addressed in
Ron's book nor in the CCDSoft owners manual I have to assume this is not
normally necessary. I took the filter wheel apart to make certain the filters
were all screwed down all the way and they are. The greatest difference is
between the Schuller(?) luminence filter and the RGB filters (from SBIG) but
there is even a little difference between each color. This tweeking certainly
adds a great deal of time to the whole process. Any ideas??

rudieallison wrote:
> I am a newbie to imaging and am having a problem I have not seen
> addressed in the forum. I am using an ST8E camera with a SBIG 5
> filter wheel. I have to refocus every time I change filters.

Yes, that is fairly common. Even with top-of-the-line parfocal filters,
refocusing is recommended for each filter.

Some automation software, like ACP, will build and use an "offset table"
that contains the number of steps +/- from the luminance filter to move
your motorized focuser. This allows automated refocusing (if the offset
table is accurate).

If you have a motorized focuser, you could implement the same thing
manually. Just record the number of steps from luminance for each color
and, when you change filters during an imaging session,
click-click-click your focuser the needed steps to reach that filter's
offset.
--
Mike

Mike Dodd
http://astronomy.mdodd.com
Louisa County, Virginia USA  N37.58.23  W77.56.24

Adding to what Mike said, normally you would take an average of your
filters.
Focus each one 5 ~ 8 times and average the offset from the Lum / clear.

Tom

On 8/3/2011 5:00 PM, Mike Dodd wrote:
>
> rudieallison wrote:
> > I am a newbie to imaging and am having a problem I have not seen
> > addressed in the forum. I am using an ST8E camera with a SBIG 5
> > filter wheel. I have to refocus every time I change filters.
>
> Yes, that is fairly common. Even with top-of-the-line parfocal filters,
> refocusing is recommended for each filter.
>
> Some automation software, like ACP, will build and use an "offset table"
> that contains the number of steps +/- from the luminance filter to move
> your motorized focuser. This allows automated refocusing (if the offset
> table is accurate).
>
> If you have a motorized focuser, you could implement the same thing
> manually. Just record the number of steps from luminance for each color
> and, when you change filters during an imaging session,
> click-click-click your focuser the needed steps to reach that filter's
> offset.
> --
> Mike
>
> Mike Dodd
> http://astronomy.mdodd.com
> Louisa County, Virginia USA N37.58.23 W77.56.24
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That's normal. You will indeed find small differences between the LRGB filter,
especially if you have a fast focal ratio.

And the focus difference between the Schuller and the LRGB is also expected;
they use completely different prescriptions, and the thickness (and probably
refractive index) of the various filters will alter the focus.

Ron Wodaski



On Aug 3, 2011, at 5:42 PM, rudieallison wrote:

>   I am a newbie to imaging and am having a problem I have not seen addressed
in the forum. I am using an ST8E camera with a SBIG 5 filter wheel. I have to
refocus every time I change filters. Since I have not found this addressed in
Ron's book nor in the CCDSoft owners manual I have to assume this is not
normally necessary. I took the filter wheel apart to make certain the filters
were all screwed down all the way and they are. The greatest difference is
between the Schuller(?) luminence filter and the RGB filters (from SBIG) but
there is even a little difference between each color. This tweeking certainly
adds a great deal of time to the whole process. Any ideas??
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

I just finished processing and posting an image of M92 on my web site.  This
is an object that seems to be ignored by many.  It is an impressive globular
cluster but has the unfortunate luck to be very close to "The Great Globular
in Hercules", M13.   The image was captured from my backyard observatory in
Denton, Texas.

http://www.waid-observatory.com/m092-2011-07-27.html

Click on the image to view at higher resolution.

As always, comments are welcomed.

Best,

Don Waid
http://www.waid-observatory.com

Among the automapping programs mentioned in response to my post, I thought there
was one that was free. Not AMII, but something else. Comments?

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "CurtisC" <calypte@...> wrote:
>
> I'm using CCD Commander.  It has saved me bundles of time (the M16 project in
my other posts would've been very difficult without CCDC), and the ability to do
automatic dusk/dawn flats is alone worth the $99 price of the software.
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Franke" <bfranke@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wayne,
> >
> > Check out the automation programs, CCDAutoPilot,  CCD Commander and ACP. 
These programs can automate everything during a night's imaging session,
including very precise scope pointing, and are very easy to use.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "waynewatson95959" <sierra_mtnview@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought I posted a message about mosaics here last year, but don't see
it. Anyway it appears that ccdsoft has limited ability to produce mosaics. It
can set up a matrix for images, but beyond that it has little to offer  in the
way of producing images for the matrix. Tom's Corner has some material on how to
create scripts for Orchestrate. At the moment, some sections, web pages, seem to
be missing. Comments?
> > >
> > > Are there other programs that do produce mosaics?
> > >
> >
>

This is really good for doing auto t-point runs and other stuff as well.

http://www.aagware.eu/index.htm

Tom

On 8/3/2011 9:05 PM, waynewatson95959 wrote:
>
> Among the automapping programs mentioned in response to my post, I
> thought there was one that was free. Not AMII, but something else.
> Comments?
>
> --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>, "CurtisC" <calypte@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm using CCD Commander. It has saved me bundles of time (the M16
> project in my other posts would've been very difficult without CCDC),
> and the ability to do automatic dusk/dawn flats is alone worth the $99
> price of the software.
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bob Franke" <bfranke@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Wayne,
> > >
> > > Check out the automation programs, CCDAutoPilot, CCD Commander and
> ACP. These programs can automate everything during a night's imaging
> session, including very precise scope pointing, and are very easy to use.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>, "waynewatson95959"
> <sierra_mtnview@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I thought I posted a message about mosaics here last year, but
> don't see it. Anyway it appears that ccdsoft has limited ability to
> produce mosaics. It can set up a matrix for images, but beyond that it
> has little to offer in the way of producing images for the matrix.
> Tom's Corner has some material on how to create scripts for
> Orchestrate. At the moment, some sections, web pages, seem to be
> missing. Comments?
> > > >
> > > > Are there other programs that do produce mosaics?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ah, yes. Thanks.

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Thouse <look-up1@...> wrote:
>
> This is really good for doing auto t-point runs and other stuff as well.
>
> http://www.aagware.eu/index.htm
>
> Tom
>
> On 8/3/2011 9:05 PM, waynewatson95959 wrote:
> >
> > Among the automapping programs mentioned in response to my post, I
> > thought there was one that was free. Not AMII, but something else.
> > Comments?
> >
> > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>, "CurtisC" <calypte@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm using CCD Commander. It has saved me bundles of time (the M16
> > project in my other posts would've been very difficult without CCDC),
> > and the ability to do automatic dusk/dawn flats is alone worth the $99
> > price of the software.
> > >
> > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>, "Bob Franke" <bfranke@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Wayne,
> > > >
> > > > Check out the automation programs, CCDAutoPilot, CCD Commander and
> > ACP. These programs can automate everything during a night's imaging
> > session, including very precise scope pointing, and are very easy to use.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:ccd-newastro%40yahoogroups.com>, "waynewatson95959"
> > <sierra_mtnview@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought I posted a message about mosaics here last year, but
> > don't see it. Anyway it appears that ccdsoft has limited ability to
> > produce mosaics. It can set up a matrix for images, but beyond that it
> > has little to offer in the way of producing images for the matrix.
> > Tom's Corner has some material on how to create scripts for
> > Orchestrate. At the moment, some sections, web pages, seem to be
> > missing. Comments?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are there other programs that do produce mosaics?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Don,



Nice resolution in the core.



Bernard





From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Don
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:11 PM
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ccd-newastro] M92 - Globular Cluster in Hercules (Not M13)





I just finished processing and posting an image of M92 on my web site. This
is an object that seems to be ignored by many. It is an impressive globular
cluster but has the unfortunate luck to be very close to "The Great Globular

in Hercules", M13. The image was captured from my backyard observatory in
Denton, Texas.

http://www.waid-observatory.com/m092-2011-07-27.html

Click on the image to view at higher resolution.

As always, comments are welcomed.

Best,

Don Waid
http://www.waid-observatory.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Group,

I wanted to share this view of an unusual crimson star in Cepheus near NGC 7635,
imaged on 2 August.

Looked at first like a hot pixel, but in fact it's MO2001-104, a hydrogen-alpha
emission line star, possibly a T-Tauri variable, enclosed in a dense disk or
shell of hot dust and hydrogen.

Wonder if others have seen similar objects.

Image: http://tinyurl.com/3qc7hkw

Info at SIMBAD/CDS: http://tinyurl.com/3v9sok2

Thanks for looking.

Bob Gillette

Bernard, thank you for taking the time to view my M92 image and for your
comment.

Best,

Don Waid
http://www.waid-observatory.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Miller" <bgmiller011@...>
To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:01 PM
Subject: RE: [ccd-newastro] M92 - Globular Cluster in Hercules (Not M13)


> Don,
>
>
>
> Nice resolution in the core.
>
>
>
> Bernard
>
>
>
>
>
> From: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com]
> On
> Behalf Of Don
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:11 PM
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] M92 - Globular Cluster in Hercules (Not M13)
>
>
>
>
>
> I just finished processing and posting an image of M92 on my web site.
> This
> is an object that seems to be ignored by many. It is an impressive
> globular
> cluster but has the unfortunate luck to be very close to "The Great
> Globular
>
> in Hercules", M13. The image was captured from my backyard observatory in
> Denton, Texas.
>
> http://www.waid-observatory.com/m092-2011-07-27.html
>
> Click on the image to view at higher resolution.
>
> As always, comments are welcomed.
>
> Best,
>
> Don Waid
> http://www.waid-observatory.com
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

This is my first post on this group so my apologies if it seems a bit basic.  Is
it typical to image LRGB through a LP filter?  I'm in a red zone, using both
long and short f/l scopes.  Any recommendations on LP filter (I'm thinking
Hutech IDAS)?

Tom,

I image from my observatory located in Denton, TX.  That's about 35 miles
north of Dallas and my light pollution is significant.  I use the Hutech
IDAS LPS-P2 filter and am very pleased with it.  Any filter has its negative
side but the Hutech seems to be "less negative" than any I have used.  It
has very little color effect and can be used with your LRGB filters.

Don Waid
http://www.waid-observatory.com



----- Original Message -----
From: "tomodoran" <tomo.doran@...>
To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 6:52 AM
Subject: [ccd-newastro] LRGB thro LP filter


> This is my first post on this group so my apologies if it seems a bit
> basic.  Is it typical to image LRGB through a LP filter?  I'm in a red
> zone, using both long and short f/l scopes.  Any recommendations on LP
> filter (I'm thinking Hutech IDAS)?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

Hi Group,
I took about 2 hours of exposures of the Iris Nebula with my QSI-583wsg through
the Ricardi Honders. I first processed the image in my traditional way, and
posted my new vs older image. Then I realized that my signal-to-noise was
exceptional for a 2 hour image, so I decided to experiment with stretching the
darker background. I was surprised and pleased to see so much detail in what I
previously thought was just dark dust.

Slide your mouse over the image to toggle between the traditional process and
the stretched image. Both used the same data. Let me know what you think.

http://www.stardoctor.org/iris-hush without music
http://www.stardoctor.org/iris with music

For those of you just starting out in astrophotography, my methods for image
noise reduction, called "Going Against the Grain," are summarized in this
September's issue of Sky and Telescope, p. 72.

Ruben
http://www.stardoctor.org

A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered earlier this
week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a demo of how
effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend about a year ago).

So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video tutorials to
learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have more than one
friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various steps needs to
remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.

Two things:

* The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up, and
the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see that we can
do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have to wait for
when I have the time.

* The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software (click
help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic improvement. I
now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power of the program.

IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but also
reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap, folks.
You have to put in some time to master it.

I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or permission from
the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that somewhere so
I can show you what I'm talking about.

I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the lack of
accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance between power
and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing my thoughts. I need to
be fair, after all.

Ron Wodaski

Well, highly critical is what they deserve.  Do they still send you off to
learn it on your own and with the help of videos that someone else made because
they couldn't be bothered writing a help file, let alone a manual?  I have
heard the same things about it in the sense that yes, it is very powerful and
very effective...once you take the time to learn it in the absence of a manual.
 Most of the time, even the simplest software has a help file, but this one
doesn't?  Its just inconceivable that they write the software, slap you on the
butt and say, "Off you go."  It's ridiculous at the price they charge for it.
 It always seemed to me that they were just being exceptionally lazy because
they were allowed to.

Mark


________________________________
From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 10:19 AM
Subject: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software


 
A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered earlier this
week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a demo of how
effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend about a year ago).

So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video tutorials to
learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have more than one
friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various steps needs to
remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.

Two things:

* The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up, and
the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see that we can
do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have to wait for
when I have the time.

* The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software (click
help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic improvement. I
now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power of the program.

IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but also
reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap, folks.
You have to put in some time to master it.

I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or permission from
the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that somewhere so
I can show you what I'm talking about.

I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the lack of
accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance between power
and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing my thoughts. I need to
be fair, after all.

Ron Wodaski




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think you misunderstood me, and I'm sorry but now it's you who is going to get
what you deserve. <g>

PixInsight has a manual, but access to that information is context sensitive. To
read a portion of the manual, click the help button at any point in your
process. you will get long, detailed information that applies to what you are
doing.

I take strong issue with your allegations about laziness. You clearly don't know
much about the software development process if you think that's true. <g> First,
as above: you are incorrect assuming there's no good information for users to
learn to use the program. It's integrated, rather than in the form of a manual
you can cruise through, but it's _extremely_ detailed and very well done.

So I want to make it clear: you haven't understood what I was saying, and I
think it's because your assumptions are incorrect. It sounds to me like you've
missed the point I was trying to make: that there's been a dramatic turnaround
in documentation.

I would normally not approve a post like this (invective), but it gives me an
opportunity to remind everyone: don't assume the worst, and check your facts
before you post. In this case, I'm a bit baffled at how you got from "new
documentation" to "absence of a manual."

The bad news for you, of course, is that I've just used you as an example to
make my point. But I think it's important for us to remain civil and considerate
here, and I post reminders to that effect periodically by addressing posts that
don't meet our requirements. This group is about the facts, and they come first
every time. I'm especially not supportive of mean-spirited language.

And in what way are third-party videos that are really well done a negative?
Does that mean that the excellent third-party videos for MaxIm DL, or the videos
I created explaining CCDSoft, are somehow a bad thing? Of course not. Any
product that is exciting/powerful enough to motivate users to create training
videos has something positive going for it.

If these rules around civility and giving the other party the benefit of the
doubt are not acceptable to anyone, then this might not be the best group for
some folks. There are forums that welcome opinions of all sorts, but this is not
one of those. I'm pretty demanding in that I expect patience, research,
civility, consideration, and attentive listening on the part of participants
here, and I also expect that facts will always prevail over agendas and
opinions.

Ron Wodaski



On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Mark Acker wrote:

> Well, highly critical is what they deserve.  Do they still send you off to
learn it on your own and with the help of videos that someone else made because
they couldn't be bothered writing a help file, let alone a manual?  I have heard
the same things about it in the sense that yes, it is very powerful and very
effective...once you take the time to learn it in the absence of a manual.  Most
of the time, even the simplest software has a help file, but this one doesn't? 
Its just inconceivable that they write the software, slap you on the butt and
say, "Off you go."  It's ridiculous at the price they charge for it.  It always
seemed to me that they were just being exceptionally lazy because they were
allowed to.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 10:19 AM
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
>
>
>
> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered earlier
this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a demo of
how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend about a year
ago).
>
> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video tutorials to
learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have more than one
friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various steps needs to
remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.
>
> Two things:
>
> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up, and
the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see that we can
do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have to wait for
when I have the time.
>
> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software (click
help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic improvement. I
now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power of the program.
>
> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but also
reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap, folks.
You have to put in some time to master it.
>
> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or permission
from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that
somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
>
> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the lack
of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance between
power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing my thoughts. I
need to be fair, after all.
>
> Ron Wodaski
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

I have no issue being corrected at all.  I was really not trying to stir the
pot, I promise.  The fact is that I remember getting a trial of the software a
year or so ago and had to go through a rather byzantine process to get it
because of their concerns about piracy.  I also remember thinking very
distinctly that it's a shame in a way that they have their priorities turned
around as they seemed to assume I was more interested in stealing their software
than learning it.  Left a bad taste right from the beginning.  That, coupled
with the lack of a manual, or even "owner operated help", as opposed to simply
ushering people to the forums to learn how to use it seemed selfish at best.

So, if they are finally getting around to correcting this, I am happy to hear
it.  I love trying out new software and really have a fantastic appreciation
for what goes into it, even as little as I understand it.  Then again, as an
end-user, what goes into it is less of a concern to me than what comes out of
it, especially at that price.

Again, not trying to pick a fight at all (it's  _just_ a program-not something
worth fighting over) and my stance was based on my past experience.  I was
extremely frustrated at the odd interface, lack of docs, and my own rather
average intelligence.  It would appear that the circumstance have finally
changed for the better and I'm actually glad to hear it.

Thank you for the clarification, Ron.  Maybe it really is time to give it
another look. 

Mark


________________________________
From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software


 
I think you misunderstood me, and I'm sorry but now it's you who is going to get
what you deserve. <g>

PixInsight has a manual, but access to that information is context sensitive. To
read a portion of the manual, click the help button at any point in your
process. you will get long, detailed information that applies to what you are
doing.

I take strong issue with your allegations about laziness. You clearly don't know
much about the software development process if you think that's true. <g> First,
as above: you are incorrect assuming there's no good information for users to
learn to use the program. It's integrated, rather than in the form of a manual
you can cruise through, but it's _extremely_ detailed and very well done.

So I want to make it clear: you haven't understood what I was saying, and I
think it's because your assumptions are incorrect. It sounds to me like you've
missed the point I was trying to make: that there's been a dramatic turnaround
in documentation.

I would normally not approve a post like this (invective), but it gives me an
opportunity to remind everyone: don't assume the worst, and check your facts
before you post. In this case, I'm a bit baffled at how you got from "new
documentation" to "absence of a manual."

The bad news for you, of course, is that I've just used you as an example to
make my point. But I think it's important for us to remain civil and considerate
here, and I post reminders to that effect periodically by addressing posts that
don't meet our requirements. This group is about the facts, and they come first
every time. I'm especially not supportive of mean-spirited language.

And in what way are third-party videos that are really well done a negative?
Does that mean that the excellent third-party videos for MaxIm DL, or the videos
I created explaining CCDSoft, are somehow a bad thing? Of course not. Any
product that is exciting/powerful enough to motivate users to create training
videos has something positive going for it.

If these rules around civility and giving the other party the benefit of the
doubt are not acceptable to anyone, then this might not be the best group for
some folks. There are forums that welcome opinions of all sorts, but this is not
one of those. I'm pretty demanding in that I expect patience, research,
civility, consideration, and attentive listening on the part of participants
here, and I also expect that facts will always prevail over agendas and
opinions.

Ron Wodaski

On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Mark Acker wrote:

> Well, highly critical is what they deserve.  Do they still send you off to
learn it on your own and with the help of videos that someone else made because
they couldn't be bothered writing a help file, let alone a manual?  I have heard
the same things about it in the sense that yes, it is very powerful and very
effective...once you take the time to learn it in the absence of a manual.  Most
of the time, even the simplest software has a help file, but this one doesn't? 
Its just inconceivable that they write the software, slap you on the butt and
say, "Off you go."  It's ridiculous at the price they charge for it.  It always
seemed to me that they were just being exceptionally lazy because they were
allowed to.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 10:19 AM
> Subject: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
>
>
>
> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered earlier
this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a demo of
how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend about a year
ago).
>
> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video tutorials to
learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have more than one
friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various steps needs to
remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.
>
> Two things:
>
> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up, and
the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see that we can
do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have to wait for
when I have the time.
>
> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software (click
help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic improvement. I
now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power of the program.
>
> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but also
reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap, folks.
You have to put in some time to master it.
>
> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or permission
from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that
somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
>
> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the lack
of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance between
power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing my thoughts. I
need to be fair, after all.
>
> Ron Wodaski
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As someone who has had his software and books ripped off by pirates, I'm more
sympathetic to their approach. I would like it if you buy outside of PayPal,
however.

The odd interface remains. Having used it for a bit, I can only say that, quirky
as it is, and as much as I like a familiar interface, I can see that the
developer of the software has a vision for how it should work (as well as a
vision that's of a scope more often associated with operating systems). But once
you learn the new UI paradigm, it's kind of interesting and I can see how it
provide some functionality (and some new ways of thinking about processing) that
would not be easily possible with a conventional UI.

So I think one has to take both the processing power and the funky paradigm for
what they are: a new way of looking at and practicing image processing. You
can't have one without the other.

But it also means that, no matter how well documented, a user is going to have
to invest time in learning how to use PixInsight. The difference is that I think
the power justified the effort, and the new documentation makes it significantly
easier, if not easy, to use the software effectively.

PixInsight is sort of like coming to Windows Vista, say, without any prior
computer experience. It takes a while to learn the idiosyncrasies and get to a
point where you know where things are, and they work together. I think anyone
who wants to add PixInsight to their arsenal should be prepared to spend that
time.

Ron Wodaski



On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Mark Acker wrote:

> I have no issue being corrected at all.  I was really not trying to stir the
pot, I promise.  The fact is that I remember getting a trial of the software a
year or so ago and had to go through a rather byzantine process to get it
because of their concerns about piracy.  I also remember thinking very
distinctly that it's a shame in a way that they have their priorities turned
around as they seemed to assume I was more interested in stealing their software
than learning it.  Left a bad taste right from the beginning.  That, coupled
with the lack of a manual, or even "owner operated help", as opposed to simply
ushering people to the forums to learn how to use it seemed selfish at best.
>
> So, if they are finally getting around to correcting this, I am happy to hear
it.  I love trying out new software and really have a fantastic appreciation for
what goes into it, even as little as I understand it.  Then again, as an
end-user, what goes into it is less of a concern to me than what comes out of
it, especially at that price.
>
> Again, not trying to pick a fight at all (it's  _just_ a program-not something
worth fighting over) and my stance was based on my past experience.  I was
extremely frustrated at the odd interface, lack of docs, and my own rather
average intelligence.  It would appear that the circumstance have finally
changed for the better and I'm actually glad to hear it.
>
> Thank you for the clarification, Ron.  Maybe it really is time to give it
another look.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 11:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
>
>
>
> I think you misunderstood me, and I'm sorry but now it's you who is going to
get what you deserve. <g>
>
> PixInsight has a manual, but access to that information is context sensitive.
To read a portion of the manual, click the help button at any point in your
process. you will get long, detailed information that applies to what you are
doing.
>
> I take strong issue with your allegations about laziness. You clearly don't
know much about the software development process if you think that's true. <g>
First, as above: you are incorrect assuming there's no good information for
users to learn to use the program. It's integrated, rather than in the form of a
manual you can cruise through, but it's _extremely_ detailed and very well done.
>
> So I want to make it clear: you haven't understood what I was saying, and I
think it's because your assumptions are incorrect. It sounds to me like you've
missed the point I was trying to make: that there's been a dramatic turnaround
in documentation.
>
> I would normally not approve a post like this (invective), but it gives me an
opportunity to remind everyone: don't assume the worst, and check your facts
before you post. In this case, I'm a bit baffled at how you got from "new
documentation" to "absence of a manual."
>
> The bad news for you, of course, is that I've just used you as an example to
make my point. But I think it's important for us to remain civil and considerate
here, and I post reminders to that effect periodically by addressing posts that
don't meet our requirements. This group is about the facts, and they come first
every time. I'm especially not supportive of mean-spirited language.
>
> And in what way are third-party videos that are really well done a negative?
Does that mean that the excellent third-party videos for MaxIm DL, or the videos
I created explaining CCDSoft, are somehow a bad thing? Of course not. Any
product that is exciting/powerful enough to motivate users to create training
videos has something positive going for it.
>
> If these rules around civility and giving the other party the benefit of the
doubt are not acceptable to anyone, then this might not be the best group for
some folks. There are forums that welcome opinions of all sorts, but this is not
one of those. I'm pretty demanding in that I expect patience, research,
civility, consideration, and attentive listening on the part of participants
here, and I also expect that facts will always prevail over agendas and
opinions.
>
> Ron Wodaski
>
> On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Mark Acker wrote:
>
>> Well, highly critical is what they deserve.  Do they still send you off to
learn it on your own and with the help of videos that someone else made because
they couldn't be bothered writing a help file, let alone a manual?  I have heard
the same things about it in the sense that yes, it is very powerful and very
effective...once you take the time to learn it in the absence of a manual.  Most
of the time, even the simplest software has a help file, but this one doesn't? 
Its just inconceivable that they write the software, slap you on the butt and
say, "Off you go."  It's ridiculous at the price they charge for it.  It always
seemed to me that they were just being exceptionally lazy because they were
allowed to.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
>> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 10:19 AM
>> Subject: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
>>
>>
>>
>> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered earlier
this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a demo of
how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend about a year
ago).
>>
>> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video tutorials to
learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have more than one
friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various steps needs to
remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.
>>
>> Two things:
>>
>> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up, and
the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see that we can
do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have to wait for
when I have the time.
>>
>> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software (click
help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic improvement. I
now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power of the program.
>>
>> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but also
reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap, folks.
You have to put in some time to master it.
>>
>> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or permission
from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that
somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
>>
>> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the lack
of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance between
power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing my thoughts. I
need to be fair, after all.
>>
>> Ron Wodaski
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

Interesting update here:

The crimson star noted here may (or may not) be an unusual hydrogen-alpha
emission line star MO2001-104, surrounded by a shell of hot dust and gas, whose
dominant color is the distinctive red of ionized hydrogen.

It now seems more likely that this is an even more unusual object – the small,
bright core of a double planetary nebula  -- one embedded inside the other, the
first of its kind to be identified.  Discovered in 1971 by Elma Parsamian and
Misha Kazarian it is  designated KjPn 8 (and also known as PN G112.5-00.1)

SIMBAD shows the planetary and the emission star as only 0.94" apart. According
to a paper in the 20 Jul 2000 issue of The Astrophysics Journal, J.A. Lopez of
the Autonomous University of Mexico and colleagues, using Hubble images,
conclude that the bright, star-like object is a young (few hundred year-old) PN,
embedded in an older, larger (10-20,000 year-old) PN measuring 14' x 4'.

This double PN, they suggest, resulted from both stars in a binary system
reaching end-of-life within a few thousand years of each other, each blasting
material in very different directions, making KjPn 8 a "rare" and "very peculiar
object."

KjPn8 can be seen in images by the Capella observatory here
http://www.capella-observatory.com/ImageHTMLs/PNs/KjPn8.htm, by Tony Hallas here
http://www.astrophoto.com/BubM52.htm, and by Gimmi Ratto here
http://www.collectingphotons.com/Astro/Nebulae/Bubble.htm

Thanks to Sakib Rasool for drawing all this to my attention.  Makes for an
interesting imaging challenge.

And BTW, turns out it's just over the boundary between Cepheus and Cassiopeia,
so it belongs in the latter.

Bob Gillette


--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, "Bob" <tekic545@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Group,
>
> I wanted to share this view of an unusual crimson star in Cepheus near NGC
7635, imaged on 2 August.
>
> Looked at first like a hot pixel, but in fact it's MO2001-104, a
hydrogen-alpha emission line star, possibly a T-Tauri variable, enclosed in a
dense disk or shell of hot dust and hydrogen.
>
> Wonder if others have seen similar objects.
>
> Image: http://tinyurl.com/3qc7hkw
>
> Info at SIMBAD/CDS: http://tinyurl.com/3v9sok2
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
> Bob Gillette
>

One of the PixInsight forum members also compiled a complete list of educational
links for the software.  That and the newer documentation you can access from
the program is adequate to get you up to speed IF you take the time to learn
this new paradigm as Ron indicates.

http://www.drakevisual.com/pixinsight-links/

Jack Harvey

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
>
> As someone who has had his software and books ripped off by pirates, I'm more
sympathetic to their approach. I would like it if you buy outside of PayPal,
however.
>
> The odd interface remains. Having used it for a bit, I can only say that,
quirky as it is, and as much as I like a familiar interface, I can see that the
developer of the software has a vision for how it should work (as well as a
vision that's of a scope more often associated with operating systems). But once
you learn the new UI paradigm, it's kind of interesting and I can see how it
provide some functionality (and some new ways of thinking about processing) that
would not be easily possible with a conventional UI.
>
> So I think one has to take both the processing power and the funky paradigm
for what they are: a new way of looking at and practicing image processing. You
can't have one without the other.
>
> But it also means that, no matter how well documented, a user is going to have
to invest time in learning how to use PixInsight. The difference is that I think
the power justified the effort, and the new documentation makes it significantly
easier, if not easy, to use the software effectively.
>
> PixInsight is sort of like coming to Windows Vista, say, without any prior
computer experience. It takes a while to learn the idiosyncrasies and get to a
point where you know where things are, and they work together. I think anyone
who wants to add PixInsight to their arsenal should be prepared to spend that
time.
>
> Ron Wodaski
>
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Mark Acker wrote:
>
> > I have no issue being corrected at all.  I was really not trying to stir the
pot, I promise.  The fact is that I remember getting a trial of the software a
year or so ago and had to go through a rather byzantine process to get it
because of their concerns about piracy.  I also remember thinking very
distinctly that it's a shame in a way that they have their priorities turned
around as they seemed to assume I was more interested in stealing their software
than learning it.  Left a bad taste right from the beginning.  That, coupled
with the lack of a manual, or even "owner operated help", as opposed to simply
ushering people to the forums to learn how to use it seemed selfish at best.
> >
> > So, if they are finally getting around to correcting this, I am happy to
hear it.  I love trying out new software and really have a fantastic
appreciation for what goes into it, even as little as I understand it.  Then
again, as an end-user, what goes into it is less of a concern to me than what
comes out of it, especially at that price.
> >
> > Again, not trying to pick a fight at all (it's  _just_ a program-not
something worth fighting over) and my stance was based on my past experience.  I
was extremely frustrated at the odd interface, lack of docs, and my own rather
average intelligence.  It would appear that the circumstance have finally
changed for the better and I'm actually glad to hear it.
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification, Ron.  Maybe it really is time to give it
another look.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
> > To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 11:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you misunderstood me, and I'm sorry but now it's you who is going to
get what you deserve. <g>
> >
> > PixInsight has a manual, but access to that information is context
sensitive. To read a portion of the manual, click the help button at any point
in your process. you will get long, detailed information that applies to what
you are doing.
> >
> > I take strong issue with your allegations about laziness. You clearly don't
know much about the software development process if you think that's true. <g>
First, as above: you are incorrect assuming there's no good information for
users to learn to use the program. It's integrated, rather than in the form of a
manual you can cruise through, but it's _extremely_ detailed and very well done.
> >
> > So I want to make it clear: you haven't understood what I was saying, and I
think it's because your assumptions are incorrect. It sounds to me like you've
missed the point I was trying to make: that there's been a dramatic turnaround
in documentation.
> >
> > I would normally not approve a post like this (invective), but it gives me
an opportunity to remind everyone: don't assume the worst, and check your facts
before you post. In this case, I'm a bit baffled at how you got from "new
documentation" to "absence of a manual."
> >
> > The bad news for you, of course, is that I've just used you as an example to
make my point. But I think it's important for us to remain civil and considerate
here, and I post reminders to that effect periodically by addressing posts that
don't meet our requirements. This group is about the facts, and they come first
every time. I'm especially not supportive of mean-spirited language.
> >
> > And in what way are third-party videos that are really well done a negative?
Does that mean that the excellent third-party videos for MaxIm DL, or the videos
I created explaining CCDSoft, are somehow a bad thing? Of course not. Any
product that is exciting/powerful enough to motivate users to create training
videos has something positive going for it.
> >
> > If these rules around civility and giving the other party the benefit of the
doubt are not acceptable to anyone, then this might not be the best group for
some folks. There are forums that welcome opinions of all sorts, but this is not
one of those. I'm pretty demanding in that I expect patience, research,
civility, consideration, and attentive listening on the part of participants
here, and I also expect that facts will always prevail over agendas and
opinions.
> >
> > Ron Wodaski
> >
> > On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Mark Acker wrote:
> >
> >> Well, highly critical is what they deserve.  Do they still send you off to
learn it on your own and with the help of videos that someone else made because
they couldn't be bothered writing a help file, let alone a manual?  I have heard
the same things about it in the sense that yes, it is very powerful and very
effective...once you take the time to learn it in the absence of a manual.  Most
of the time, even the simplest software has a help file, but this one doesn't? 
Its just inconceivable that they write the software, slap you on the butt and
say, "Off you go."  It's ridiculous at the price they charge for it.  It always
seemed to me that they were just being exceptionally lazy because they were
allowed to.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
> >> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 10:19 AM
> >> Subject: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered earlier
this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a demo of
how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend about a year
ago).
> >>
> >> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video tutorials
to learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have more than
one friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various steps needs to
remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.
> >>
> >> Two things:
> >>
> >> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up,
and the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see that we
can do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have to wait
for when I have the time.
> >>
> >> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software
(click help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic
improvement. I now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power of the
program.
> >>
> >> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but also
reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap, folks.
You have to put in some time to master it.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or permission
from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that
somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
> >>
> >> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the
lack of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance
between power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing my
thoughts. I need to be fair, after all.
> >>
> >> Ron Wodaski
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks Jack.  No doubt, that is going to be a useful compilation of info

Mark


________________________________
From: Jack <coyyote@...>
To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 3:31 PM
Subject: [ccd-newastro] Re: PixInsight software


 
One of the PixInsight forum members also compiled a complete list of educational
links for the software.  That and the newer documentation you can access from
the program is adequate to get you up to speed IF you take the time to learn
this new paradigm as Ron indicates.

http://www.drakevisual.com/pixinsight-links/

Jack Harvey

--- In ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com, Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
>
> As someone who has had his software and books ripped off by pirates, I'm more
sympathetic to their approach. I would like it if you buy outside of PayPal,
however.
>
> The odd interface remains. Having used it for a bit, I can only say that,
quirky as it is, and as much as I like a familiar interface, I can see that the
developer of the software has a vision for how it should work (as well as a
vision that's of a scope more often associated with operating systems). But once
you learn the new UI paradigm, it's kind of interesting and I can see how it
provide some functionality (and some new ways of thinking about processing) that
would not be easily possible with a conventional UI.
>
> So I think one has to take both the processing power and the funky paradigm
for what they are: a new way of looking at and practicing image processing. You
can't have one without the other.
>
> But it also means that, no matter how well documented, a user is going to have
to invest time in learning how to use PixInsight. The difference is that I think
the power justified the effort, and the new documentation makes it significantly
easier, if not easy, to use the software effectively.
>
> PixInsight is sort of like coming to Windows Vista, say, without any prior
computer experience. It takes a while to learn the idiosyncrasies and get to a
point where you know where things are, and they work together. I think anyone
who wants to add PixInsight to their arsenal should be prepared to spend that
time.
>
> Ron Wodaski
>
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Mark Acker wrote:
>
> > I have no issue being corrected at all.  I was really not trying to stir the
pot, I promise.  The fact is that I remember getting a trial of the software a
year or so ago and had to go through a rather byzantine process to get it
because of their concerns about piracy.  I also remember thinking very
distinctly that it's a shame in a way that they have their priorities turned
around as they seemed to assume I was more interested in stealing their software
than learning it.  Left a bad taste right from the beginning.  That, coupled
with the lack of a manual, or even "owner operated help", as opposed to simply
ushering people to the forums to learn how to use it seemed selfish at best.
> >
> > So, if they are finally getting around to correcting this, I am happy to
hear it.  I love trying out new software and really have a fantastic
appreciation for what goes into it, even as little as I understand it.  Then
again, as an end-user, what goes into it is less of a concern to me than what
comes out of it, especially at that price.
> >
> > Again, not trying to pick a fight at all (it's  _just_ a program-not
something worth fighting over) and my stance was based on my past experience.  I
was extremely frustrated at the odd interface, lack of docs, and my own rather
average intelligence.  It would appear that the circumstance have finally
changed for the better and I'm actually glad to hear it.
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification, Ron.  Maybe it really is time to give it
another look.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
> > To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 11:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you misunderstood me, and I'm sorry but now it's you who is going to
get what you deserve. <g>
> >
> > PixInsight has a manual, but access to that information is context
sensitive. To read a portion of the manual, click the help button at any point
in your process. you will get long, detailed information that applies to what
you are doing.
> >
> > I take strong issue with your allegations about laziness. You clearly don't
know much about the software development process if you think that's true. <g>
First, as above: you are incorrect assuming there's no good information for
users to learn to use the program. It's integrated, rather than in the form of a
manual you can cruise through, but it's _extremely_ detailed and very well done.
> >
> > So I want to make it clear: you haven't understood what I was saying, and I
think it's because your assumptions are incorrect. It sounds to me like you've
missed the point I was trying to make: that there's been a dramatic turnaround
in documentation.
> >
> > I would normally not approve a post like this (invective), but it gives me
an opportunity to remind everyone: don't assume the worst, and check your facts
before you post. In this case, I'm a bit baffled at how you got from "new
documentation" to "absence of a manual."
> >
> > The bad news for you, of course, is that I've just used you as an example to
make my point. But I think it's important for us to remain civil and considerate
here, and I post reminders to that effect periodically by addressing posts that
don't meet our requirements. This group is about the facts, and they come first
every time. I'm especially not supportive of mean-spirited language.
> >
> > And in what way are third-party videos that are really well done a negative?
Does that mean that the excellent third-party videos for MaxIm DL, or the videos
I created explaining CCDSoft, are somehow a bad thing? Of course not. Any
product that is exciting/powerful enough to motivate users to create training
videos has something positive going for it.
> >
> > If these rules around civility and giving the other party the benefit of the
doubt are not acceptable to anyone, then this might not be the best group for
some folks. There are forums that welcome opinions of all sorts, but this is not
one of those. I'm pretty demanding in that I expect patience, research,
civility, consideration, and attentive listening on the part of participants
here, and I also expect that facts will always prevail over agendas and
opinions.
> >
> > Ron Wodaski
> >
> > On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:26 AM, Mark Acker wrote:
> >
> >> Well, highly critical is what they deserve.  Do they still send you off to
learn it on your own and with the help of videos that someone else made because
they couldn't be bothered writing a help file, let alone a manual?  I have heard
the same things about it in the sense that yes, it is very powerful and very
effective...once you take the time to learn it in the absence of a manual.  Most
of the time, even the simplest software has a help file, but this one doesn't? 
Its just inconceivable that they write the software, slap you on the butt and
say, "Off you go."  It's ridiculous at the price they charge for it.  It always
seemed to me that they were just being exceptionally lazy because they were
allowed to.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...>
> >> To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 10:19 AM
> >> Subject: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered earlier
this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a demo of
how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend about a year
ago).
> >>
> >> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video tutorials
to learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have more than
one friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various steps needs to
remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.
> >>
> >> Two things:
> >>
> >> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up,
and the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see that we
can do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have to wait
for when I have the time.
> >>
> >> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software
(click help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic
improvement. I now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power of the
program.
> >>
> >> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but also
reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap, folks.
You have to put in some time to master it.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or permission
from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that
somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
> >>
> >> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the
lack of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance
between power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing my
thoughts. I need to be fair, after all.
> >>
> >> Ron Wodaski
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One of the solar observers in the UK has had some excellent results using
PixInsight, "Dynamic Background Extraction" (DBE) to significantly reduce
the "sweet spot" effect in the PST.
I haven't tried it myself, but the resulting flat illumination makes it very
interesting.



On 6 August 2011 17:19, Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered earlier
> this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a demo
> of how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend about a
> year ago).
>
> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video tutorials
> to learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have more
> than one friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various steps
> needs to remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.
>
> Two things:
>
> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up,
> and the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see that
> we can do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have to
> wait for when I have the time.
>
> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software
> (click help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic
> improvement. I now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power of
> the program.
>
> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but also
> reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap,
> folks. You have to put in some time to master it.
>
> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or permission
> from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that
> somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
>
> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the
> lack of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance
> between power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing my
> thoughts. I need to be fair, after all.
>
> Ron Wodaski
>
>
>



--
"Astronomical Spectroscopy - The Final Frontier" - to boldly go where few
amateurs have gone before....
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astronomical_spectroscopy/?yguid=322612425
"Astronomical Spectroscopy for Amateurs" - Springer
"Grating Spectroscopes - How to use them" - Springer


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Do you have a link to his image and his technique?

Don Waid

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Harrison" <kenm.harrison@...>
To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software


> One of the solar observers in the UK has had some excellent results using
> PixInsight, "Dynamic Background Extraction" (DBE) to significantly reduce
> the "sweet spot" effect in the PST.
> I haven't tried it myself, but the resulting flat illumination makes it
> very
> interesting.
>
>
>
> On 6 August 2011 17:19, Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered
>> earlier
>> this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a
>> demo
>> of how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend
>> about a
>> year ago).
>>
>> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video
>> tutorials
>> to learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have
>> more
>> than one friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various
>> steps
>> needs to remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.
>>
>> Two things:
>>
>> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared up,
>> and the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see
>> that
>> we can do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have
>> to
>> wait for when I have the time.
>>
>> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software
>> (click help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic
>> improvement. I now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power
>> of
>> the program.
>>
>> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but
>> also
>> reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come cheap,
>> folks. You have to put in some time to master it.
>>
>> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or
>> permission
>> from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that
>> somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
>>
>> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the
>> lack of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent balance
>> between power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing
>> my
>> thoughts. I need to be fair, after all.
>>
>> Ron Wodaski
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Astronomical Spectroscopy - The Final Frontier" - to boldly go where few
> amateurs have gone before....
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astronomical_spectroscopy/?yguid=322612425
> "Astronomical Spectroscopy for Amateurs" - Springer
> "Grating Spectroscopes - How to use them" - Springer
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

It was discussed on the UK SGL forum:

http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-tips-tricks-techniques/149368-pst-solarscope\
-removing-hotspot.html

To quote:

I've been playing with some processing to see if it is possible to remove
the hotspot produced by the PST solarscope.

An obvious process was Dynamic background extraction (DBE) in PixInsight
which can be used to remove gradients from astro images.

The comparison below shows the same Red channel from a colour DSLR image
after the different processing.

The left image is processed normally using levels and curves adjustment. The
right hand image was inverted so Pixinsight would 'see' it as a astro image
and then the DBE process applied and then inverted again to correct the
image.

It is fairly rough at the moment but the process can be fine tuned.

The results are impressive.

On 7 August 2011 02:08, Don <don@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Do you have a link to his image and his technique?
>
> Don Waid
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Harrison" <kenm.harrison@...>
> To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 7:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
>
> > One of the solar observers in the UK has had some excellent results using
> > PixInsight, "Dynamic Background Extraction" (DBE) to significantly reduce
> > the "sweet spot" effect in the PST.
> > I haven't tried it myself, but the resulting flat illumination makes it
> > very
> > interesting.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6 August 2011 17:19, Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered
> >> earlier
> >> this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had a
> >> demo
> >> of how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend
> >> about a
> >> year ago).
> >>
> >> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video
> >> tutorials
> >> to learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have
> >> more
> >> than one friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various
> >> steps
> >> needs to remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the image.
> >>
> >> Two things:
> >>
> >> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared
> up,
> >> and the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can see
> >> that
> >> we can do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will have
>
> >> to
> >> wait for when I have the time.
> >>
> >> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software
> >> (click help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic
> >> improvement. I now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the power
> >> of
> >> the program.
> >>
> >> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but
> >> also
> >> reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come
> cheap,
> >> folks. You have to put in some time to master it.
> >>
> >> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or
> >> permission
> >> from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting that
> >> somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
> >>
> >> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for the
> >> lack of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent
> balance
> >> between power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note sharing
> >> my
> >> thoughts. I need to be fair, after all.
> >>
> >> Ron Wodaski
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "Astronomical Spectroscopy - The Final Frontier" - to boldly go where few
> > amateurs have gone before....
> >
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astronomical_spectroscopy/?yguid=322612425
> > "Astronomical Spectroscopy for Amateurs" - Springer
> > "Grating Spectroscopes - How to use them" - Springer
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
"Astronomical Spectroscopy - The Final Frontier" - to boldly go where few
amateurs have gone before....
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astronomical_spectroscopy/?yguid=322612425
"Astronomical Spectroscopy for Amateurs" - Springer
"Grating Spectroscopes - How to use them" - Springer


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Tom,

Looks impressive!

Don Waid

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Harrison" <kenm.harrison@...>
To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software


> It was discussed on the UK SGL forum:
>
>
http://stargazerslounge.com/imaging-tips-tricks-techniques/149368-pst-solarscope\
-removing-hotspot.html
>
> To quote:
>
> I've been playing with some processing to see if it is possible to remove
> the hotspot produced by the PST solarscope.
>
> An obvious process was Dynamic background extraction (DBE) in PixInsight
> which can be used to remove gradients from astro images.
>
> The comparison below shows the same Red channel from a colour DSLR image
> after the different processing.
>
> The left image is processed normally using levels and curves adjustment.
> The
> right hand image was inverted so Pixinsight would 'see' it as a astro
> image
> and then the DBE process applied and then inverted again to correct the
> image.
>
> It is fairly rough at the moment but the process can be fine tuned.
>
> The results are impressive.
>
> On 7 August 2011 02:08, Don <don@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Do you have a link to his image and his technique?
>>
>> Don Waid
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ken Harrison" <kenm.harrison@...>
>> To: <ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 7:25 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ccd-newastro] PixInsight software
>>
>> > One of the solar observers in the UK has had some excellent results
>> > using
>> > PixInsight, "Dynamic Background Extraction" (DBE) to significantly
>> > reduce
>> > the "sweet spot" effect in the PST.
>> > I haven't tried it myself, but the resulting flat illumination makes it
>> > very
>> > interesting.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6 August 2011 17:19, Ron Wodaski <yahoo@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> **
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A friend had some problems with a gradient in some data he gathered
>> >> earlier
>> >> this week, and I suggested we try PixInsight to deal with it (I'd had
>> >> a
>> >> demo
>> >> of how effective it was at cleaning up gradients from another friend
>> >> about a
>> >> year ago).
>> >>
>> >> So I updated PixInsight (I have yet to really dig into the video
>> >> tutorials
>> >> to learn the ins and outs), and yet another friend (good thing I have
>> >> more
>> >> than one friend, huh?) and I worked together to dredge up the various
>> >> steps
>> >> needs to remove the gradient and do some basic processing on the
>> >> image.
>> >>
>> >> Two things:
>> >>
>> >> * The actual results were really impressive. The gradient was cleared
>> up,
>> >> and the default processing steps we used were also excellent. I can
>> >> see
>> >> that
>> >> we can do more with the other features of PixInsight, but that will
>> >> have
>>
>> >> to
>> >> wait for when I have the time.
>> >>
>> >> * The new documentation, which is essentially built into the software
>> >> (click help at any point and get detailed information) is a fantastic
>> >> improvement. I now honestly believe I can learn enough to use the
>> >> power
>> >> of
>> >> the program.
>> >>
>> >> IMO, PixInsight has reached a point were it's not _only_ powerful, but
>> >> also
>> >> reasonable accessible. I say 'reasonably' because power don't come
>> cheap,
>> >> folks. You have to put in some time to master it.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry that I don't have a copy of the image to post yet (or
>> >> permission
>> >> from the friend who collected the data), but I'll see about posting
>> >> that
>> >> somewhere so I can show you what I'm talking about.
>> >>
>> >> I've been (sometimes heavily) critical of PixInsight in the past for
>> >> the
>> >> lack of accessibility. Now that I feel that there is an excellent
>> balance
>> >> between power and accessibility, I thought I should post a note
>> >> sharing
>> >> my
>> >> thoughts. I need to be fair, after all.
>> >>
>> >> Ron Wodaski
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > "Astronomical Spectroscopy - The Final Frontier" - to boldly go where
>> > few
>> > amateurs have gone before....
>> >
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astronomical_spectroscopy/?yguid=322612425
>> > "Astronomical Spectroscopy for Amateurs" - Springer
>> > "Grating Spectroscopes - How to use them" - Springer
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Astronomical Spectroscopy - The Final Frontier" - to boldly go where few
> amateurs have gone before....
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astronomical_spectroscopy/?yguid=322612425
> "Astronomical Spectroscopy for Amateurs" - Springer
> "Grating Spectroscopes - How to use them" - Springer
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>

Nice star colors!

--
  -Jason Ware

  ---------------------------------------------------------
        VISIT MY ASTROPHOTOGRAPHY HOMEPAGE!!
     ASTRO IMAGES FOR DOWN-LOAD, TIPS, REPRINTS
          URL: http://www.galaxyphoto.com
  ---------------------------------------------------------
        My Other Hobby....High Power Rocketry
       URL: http://www.galaxyphoto.com/rockets.htm
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Don
   To: ccd-newastro@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 9:10 PM
   Subject: [ccd-newastro] M92 - Globular Cluster in Hercules (Not M13)



   I just finished processing and posting an image of M92 on my web site. This
   is an object that seems to be ignored by many. It is an impressive globular
   cluster but has the unfortunate luck to be very close to "The Great Globular
   in Hercules", M13. The image was captured from my backyard observatory in
   Denton, Texas.

   http://www.waid-observatory.com/m092-2011-07-27.html

   Click on the image to view at higher resolution.

   As always, comments are welcomed.

   Best,

   Don Waid
   http://www.waid-observatory.com





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]