Should I buy this? "Hell yeah!" LOL! I busted out laughing when you said that! Um, yeah, this tool is LEGIT one of the best in that last 10 years of astrophotography! :D
So happy to see you enjoying this tool mate! - It's given me such a boost of inspiration , I'm exctied to imagine what will now be possible! :-) Hope you have a great holidays!
Reprocessing IC434 (Horsehead) last night, I ran BlurX early in the workflow as suggested everywhere -- linear. I was impressed with the detail in nearby NGC2023. Then, for some reason, it occurred to me to run BlurX a second time at the very end of the workflow (non-linear). Wow -- much more detail came out! Try it.
I agree too! I've got StarXterminator but not yet tried NoiseXTerminator. I would be great to see how some of those plugins are used in your PI workflow Cuiv. Clear Skies to everyone in 2023!
It slashes 0.5-0.8” from FWHM. Perfect tool to “improve” results obtained on non-expensive equipment. Dream of amateur astrophotographers! But, I think work to get FWHM below 2” is still beat this approach. By the way, if it is applied after NoiseExterminator, it works even better.
Thanks Cuiv. I fully agree - BlurXterminator is just awesome. We all know what to do in the end-of-year holiday period now… reprocess all our images 😂. I already started doing so and am amazed by the result. Enjoy reprocessing and wishing you already a Merry Christmas Bert🧑🏻🎄
Thanks Cuiv, you are saving me money already. I downloaded the Free Trial last night and am glad I did not purchase it yet since I did not know about the $10 discount if you already own NoiseX! Excellent results - Cheers Kurt
Automatic deconvolution is an idea whose time has come, and I thank Russell Croman for coming out with this product. There's a real risk that a free competitor will turn up, or that the functionality will get built into PixInsight itself, or both. Why do I say that? Because in order to be scientifically valid, it can't be secret; if it's scientifically valid, other people can implement it. Unlike "generative AI" photo-improvers, my understanding is that this one only estimates a point spread function, and therefore cannot introduce false detail into your image. (If it estimates badly, it will merely fail to correct the blur.) I am an AI professional and will be following this.
Thanks Michael, completely agree that a free competitor may come along, although I don't view it as a risk :-) Right now, it's clear that BXT is unique!
Bought it the first day it was released, but you can't have too much options, more competition is always good for the customers :) Thanks for sharing about it.
Cuiv I tried auto vs manual PSF. You are absolutely correct. Manual is waaaay better. To prove it, I ran FWHM analysis on the auto vs manual images. The manual PSF images had tighter stars. Brilliant suggestion. Thanks Cuiv !
Quick question, would you apply it before or after processing? I’ve seen mixed responses and wanted to get your opinion on it. This tool seems very powerful and I cannot wait to try it!
Hi and thks for the video. I feel a bit frustrated after applying NXT on different linear astrophotos, I always get lots of extra noise and weird artifacts. I've tried using the default parameters and I've also tried different parameters, but the result is always the same. I mean, I see the stars on my images get pinpoint ones, and in some cases, some areas of my nebula photos get a bit better (more details and structure), but the noise is more than the original photo. I have only applied ABE or DBE to my images, with even no color correction, but I cannot get ridículo of that noise. Could you help me please? Any suggestions/ideas? Parameters to try? Thks in advance
I've got tons of videos on filters - unfortunately I don't get many filters sent to me for testing - most of them I purchase directly so it's not that easy!
Strange how it is. But let's assume you'd be into landscape photography. Do you know how much it costs to have premium licenses to the Adobe software? AND - you never own it anymore! It's all suscription based! I won't even mention how much some of the "mandatory" and "must own" lens cost, but usually more than a nice triplet scope.
@@Neanderthal75 you’re definitely right about that. I’m into landscape photography as well as astro and you basically have to have Photoshop and Lightroom. I don’t like the subscription model but these days it’s everywhere.
looking forward to your dark site with the dwarf =) btw.. dont mean to be so negative about the cost of pix and this... its just. ugh. its been -22C here in at midday, and colder at night. looking forward to some eaa. lol. that said.. i wonder if the gear can handle the cold.
Hahaha yes I completely get it on the cost of Pix! Dark site with Dwarf will have to wait a bit, because wifey kinda destroyed the car - so it's being repaired :) Wifey is fine though!
Hi Cuiv. Bit off topic but in a previous video, you mention setting up your home wifi as a connection to your mount. I've got a skywatcher GTi, and an Ioptron CEM25 I'm having trouble with getting my pc and lappy connected properly, and I'm looking for a n alternative. Have you done a video about it, and if not can you do one please?
Let me just add that StarXTerminator really has evolved and now gives a much better result then StarNet. Halos are removed, Distant galaxies are identified and will not be removed and also the colors are maintained better in the image. Those are advantages that anyone can try and see. To try it out, anyone can ask for a short new trial if the previous has expired (5 days). Just letting you know :-)
I bought it too a couple of months ago - in my opinion - far better than StarNet ++. There are no halos or ghost areas where the stars were and stars within or behind nebulosity are removed equally as well. I guess I need to complete the trio with the purchase of NoiseXTerminator!
I wonder how does it comprare to Topaz Sharpen AI, I know if you go crazy with Topaz you got a lot of fake details, but, if you are careful with the sliders seems like you get a very good result that does not look any fake... and as far as I read the Blur exterminator and StarXterminator both rely on AI to resolve the image... would be very interesting to see a test side by side
From my experience with Topaz I would sometimes see details that are plain wrong even with careful slider use. So I stopped using it after noticing that... BXT looks much more faithful
@@CuivTheLazyGeekTrue ! I have the same experience (Topaz is great for non-astro I use it mainly for macro) Thanks Cuiv for again a very informative great video. grt from Belgium
exactly... the data we take will no longer matter that much. I respect way more someone who processes their image "the hard way" and actually puts some effort it. This is not what the astro world needs now.
@@cucubits I respectfully disagree with your opinion- the 'astro world' is built on technological progress that takes 'effort' away from the imager, from phd2, to acquisition computers (PC's with NINA, ASIair, etc), to the very nature of PixInsight itself- every step forward is about removing effort to produce a fine image. What we have now is a new era of AI assisted tools, which appear to be a major leap in progress. You can either embrace it, or keep doing things the 'hard way'...
@@craigwallace6601 right, I could have worded my thoughts a bit better. My worry is that we're going to end up relying too much on AI tools without knowing how they actually work and the line between a real image with our data vs image enhanced by an AI trained on other professional images, is going to get thin. I'll probably end up trying this tool but I really do find it crazy to pay this much for what's essentially a plugin, a shortcut tool in another piece of software which was expensive to begin with. I know, everything is a business and everyone needs to eat, but still... it's just a plugin.
I see your point @cucu, although I'm lazy and processing is not my forte. I don't like processing images. In my ideal world I'd have an AI do the whole processing flow in PI for me and then I could check the history of the processes used and reproduce it with some tweaks ;) Good image acquisition will still get better results, and good processors will still get better results!
I'm also struggling with the cost. But knowing I plan to use it over a period of years makes it a little more sensible. Many other programs these days have annual license costs.
ugh. i already had to sell my children to buy pixinsight. ok being more serious here. you can get photoshop for under a hundred now.. 265 for pix was insane as it is. tripple a titles dont remotely cost this much. reminds me when a company told me they wanted 2 grand for a printer driver. i got one for free elsewhere. sometimes people just ask too much for things... yet some folks still buy it.
right, feels silly to pay almost half of what we paid for the whole PI just for a plugin. I'm fighting the urge and will stay away for now. I'm sure free alternatives will show up. Or get more data... or spend a little more time with free decon. I really don't understand all this hype suddenly from most astro youtubers... there may be some "clever" marketing done in the back for this plugin than it's let on...
PixInsight is a unique offering. I bought it way back when it was still around 130 USD and it is the single best purchase I've made for astrophotography. All of the physical equipment I used at the time has been replaced but PixInsight endures. It's proven it's worth many times over to me!
@cucu feeling a bit conspiratorial today? :D 😁 I'm not getting anything from RC astro (or anyone else) for publishing this video, I'm simply blown away by the results. Deconvolution is hard. It's easy to get things wrong. It's easy to finally manage to get it right, but later down the flow you see one star has that super obvious ring on it and it's back to the drawing board. It's such a pain for a mediocre processor like me that I typically don't even try anymore, even with Ez deconvolution. BXT changes all that. Maybe something free will come up in the future, that would be awesome! But for instance I'm still waiting for a free version of NoiseXterminator - in my experience none of the noise reduction algos I've used (including Topaz) compare to it. At least for my mediocre skills. I have a Bortle 8/9 zone to contend with. I need all the help I can get!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek yeah, most likely. I'm a bit extra salty because I had to sell my mount recently to fund another project. I'm all for getting results faster and I'm the same way, I don't like the processing part. I can spend many nights out to gather data for a project and then just be lazy for weeks and not process it...
I just cant get behind the cost Cuiv. For how many people would use it they would still make money off this script without gouging peoples pockets with almost the same price as Pix for a script
@@CuivTheLazyGeek at some point when I have a stretch of clear weather I will download the trial. and at some point in the future pick it up. Right now my main focus is getting other things for the gear to make life easier as well as working on a mini PC to trade scope time with some Aussie's let them run my scope from their home and vise versa. Since traveling with our rigs is next to impossible without paying alot of money and it still having a high probability of being damaged by an airline
Some videos with more details are on VisibleDark, Lukomatico, and Adam Block's channels (and others I'm sure), be sure to check them out!
Should I buy this? "Hell yeah!" LOL! I busted out laughing when you said that! Um, yeah, this tool is LEGIT one of the best in that last 10 years of astrophotography! :D
Yep, this plus PixInsight are amazing!
So happy to see you enjoying this tool mate! - It's given me such a boost of inspiration , I'm exctied to imagine what will now be possible! :-)
Hope you have a great holidays!
It's really amazing Luke!! Such a neat tool!
Reprocessing IC434 (Horsehead) last night, I ran BlurX early in the workflow as suggested everywhere -- linear. I was impressed with the detail in nearby NGC2023. Then, for some reason, it occurred to me to run BlurX a second time at the very end of the workflow (non-linear). Wow -- much more detail came out! Try it.
Awesome!
Hi Cuiv, great video! What about making a video with your pixinsight workflow and all your tips? It would be great!😉
I agree! Would be very helpful with so many software developments in the past months…
Yeah I myself am a bit confused by all the new options at this point!
I agree too! I've got StarXterminator but not yet tried NoiseXTerminator. I would be great to see how some of those plugins are used in your PI workflow Cuiv. Clear Skies to everyone in 2023!
It slashes 0.5-0.8” from FWHM. Perfect tool to “improve” results obtained on non-expensive equipment. Dream of amateur astrophotographers!
But, I think work to get FWHM below 2” is still beat this approach.
By the way, if it is applied after NoiseExterminator, it works even better.
I'll try it after NXT! Thanks for the tip!
Thanks Cuiv. I fully agree - BlurXterminator is just awesome. We all know what to do in the end-of-year holiday period now… reprocess all our images 😂. I already started doing so and am amazed by the result.
Enjoy reprocessing and wishing you already a Merry Christmas
Bert🧑🏻🎄
Thanks Bert! And yes indeed - but I think I'll just run the process on my final images :p
Thanks Cuiv, you are saving me money already. I downloaded the Free Trial last night and am glad I did not purchase it yet since I did not know about the $10 discount if you already own NoiseX! Excellent results - Cheers Kurt
Haha glad I could help!
Neat tip on manual PSF’s works well.
Awesome Tony!
Automatic deconvolution is an idea whose time has come, and I thank Russell Croman for coming out with this product. There's a real risk that a free competitor will turn up, or that the functionality will get built into PixInsight itself, or both. Why do I say that? Because in order to be scientifically valid, it can't be secret; if it's scientifically valid, other people can implement it. Unlike "generative AI" photo-improvers, my understanding is that this one only estimates a point spread function, and therefore cannot introduce false detail into your image. (If it estimates badly, it will merely fail to correct the blur.) I am an AI professional and will be following this.
Thanks Michael, completely agree that a free competitor may come along, although I don't view it as a risk :-) Right now, it's clear that BXT is unique!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek And I fully expect to buy it. Work like this should be supported.
Bought it the first day it was released, but you can't have too much options, more competition is always good for the customers :)
Thanks for sharing about it.
@@michael.a.covington Agreed Michael - I will be supporting Russell Croman's hard work and contributions to the PI platform, with a purchase for sure!
Cuiv I tried auto vs manual PSF. You are absolutely correct. Manual is waaaay better. To prove it, I ran FWHM analysis on the auto vs manual images. The manual PSF images had tighter stars. Brilliant suggestion. Thanks Cuiv !
Awesome more nuggets of information On BXT
I purchased this like in a nanosecond after seeing some samples.
Yep, it's amazing
Quick question, would you apply it before or after processing? I’ve seen mixed responses and wanted to get your opinion on it. This tool seems very powerful and I cannot wait to try it!
Before is the RC-Astro recommendation
Hi and thks for the video. I feel a bit frustrated after applying NXT on different linear astrophotos, I always get lots of extra noise and weird artifacts. I've tried using the default parameters and I've also tried different parameters, but the result is always the same. I mean, I see the stars on my images get pinpoint ones, and in some cases, some areas of my nebula photos get a bit better (more details and structure), but the noise is more than the original photo. I have only applied ABE or DBE to my images, with even no color correction, but I cannot get ridículo of that noise. Could you help me please? Any suggestions/ideas? Parameters to try? Thks in advance
Can you do a video of Duo Band Filters vs Optolong? I’m getting into astrophotography and don’t know which one to buy. 😅😅
I've got tons of videos on filters - unfortunately I don't get many filters sent to me for testing - most of them I purchase directly so it's not that easy!
Cuiv, that’s fancy! Very cool.
No one told me this hobby was going to be expensive!🤑 😂
Same, what a shock! :)
HD eyeballs are free, carrot upgrade pennies
Hahaha I believe I did make a couple of videos on the topic hehehe
Strange how it is. But let's assume you'd be into landscape photography. Do you know how much it costs to have premium licenses to the Adobe software? AND - you never own it anymore! It's all suscription based! I won't even mention how much some of the "mandatory" and "must own" lens cost, but usually more than a nice triplet scope.
@@Neanderthal75 you’re definitely right about that. I’m into landscape photography as well as astro and you basically have to have Photoshop and Lightroom. I don’t like the subscription model but these days it’s everywhere.
Hi Cuiv, do you think this could make the Dwarf II shots better?
Definitely!
@@CuivTheLazyGeekThank you for the answer, you are making me more and more hesitating getting one !! May be next year. ( I mean 2024)
looking forward to your dark site with the dwarf =) btw.. dont mean to be so negative about the cost of pix and this... its just. ugh. its been -22C here in at midday, and colder at night. looking forward to some eaa. lol. that said.. i wonder if the gear can handle the cold.
Hahaha yes I completely get it on the cost of Pix! Dark site with Dwarf will have to wait a bit, because wifey kinda destroyed the car - so it's being repaired :) Wifey is fine though!
Hi Cuiv. Bit off topic but in a previous video, you mention setting up your home wifi as a connection to your mount. I've got a skywatcher GTi, and an Ioptron CEM25 I'm having trouble with getting my pc and lappy connected properly, and I'm looking for a n alternative. Have you done a video about it, and if not can you do one please?
Let me just add that StarXTerminator really has evolved and now gives a much better result then StarNet. Halos are removed, Distant galaxies are identified and will not be removed and also the colors are maintained better in the image. Those are advantages that anyone can try and see. To try it out, anyone can ask for a short new trial if the previous has expired (5 days). Just letting you know :-)
I can confirm - I tested it again after reading your comment and I bought it. Curse you! ;)
@@CuivTheLazyGeek sorry :)
I bought it too a couple of months ago - in my opinion - far better than StarNet ++. There are no halos or ghost areas where the stars were and stars within or behind nebulosity are removed equally as well. I guess I need to complete the trio with the purchase of NoiseXTerminator!
For a second, because of the thumbnail I thought that this is Astro la Vista's video.🤣
Wow Cuiv, with this tool you can be even lazier!
Exactly!!
I wonder how does it comprare to Topaz Sharpen AI, I know if you go crazy with Topaz you got a lot of fake details, but, if you are careful with the sliders seems like you get a very good result that does not look any fake... and as far as I read the Blur exterminator and StarXterminator both rely on AI to resolve the image... would be very interesting to see a test side by side
From my experience with Topaz I would sometimes see details that are plain wrong even with careful slider use. So I stopped using it after noticing that... BXT looks much more faithful
@@CuivTheLazyGeekTrue ! I have the same experience (Topaz is great for non-astro I use it mainly for macro) Thanks Cuiv for again a very informative great video. grt from Belgium
what Galaxy was that?
When to use NoiseXterminator compared to this
Not sure yet! I currently use it afterwards :)
Amazing tool, only problem is I now have to reprocess every image I've ever taken again!
Hahaha yesss
I've been spending the last few days reprocessing a bunch of data... lol.
Hahaha I completely understand!
$135 for the discounted price for Australians😬
Auto deconvolution. It will be pretty clear who’s using it and who’s not going forward.
exactly... the data we take will no longer matter that much. I respect way more someone who processes their image "the hard way" and actually puts some effort it. This is not what the astro world needs now.
@@cucubits I respectfully disagree with your opinion- the 'astro world' is built on technological progress that takes 'effort' away from the imager, from phd2, to acquisition computers (PC's with NINA, ASIair, etc), to the very nature of PixInsight itself- every step forward is about removing effort to produce a fine image. What we have now is a new era of AI assisted tools, which appear to be a major leap in progress. You can either embrace it, or keep doing things the 'hard way'...
@@craigwallace6601 right, I could have worded my thoughts a bit better. My worry is that we're going to end up relying too much on AI tools without knowing how they actually work and the line between a real image with our data vs image enhanced by an AI trained on other professional images, is going to get thin. I'll probably end up trying this tool but I really do find it crazy to pay this much for what's essentially a plugin, a shortcut tool in another piece of software which was expensive to begin with. I know, everything is a business and everyone needs to eat, but still... it's just a plugin.
I see your point @cucu, although I'm lazy and processing is not my forte. I don't like processing images. In my ideal world I'd have an AI do the whole processing flow in PI for me and then I could check the history of the processes used and reproduce it with some tweaks ;)
Good image acquisition will still get better results, and good processors will still get better results!
100$ that’s expensive.
Cheaper than F1!
It is, but cheaper than a lot of astr filters
I'm also struggling with the cost. But knowing I plan to use it over a period of years makes it a little more sensible. Many other programs these days have annual license costs.
its just to expensive for a filter.
Don't buy it then.
@@pompeymonkey3271 But i want it!
It's expensive - too expensive? I don't know, up to you!
ugh. i already had to sell my children to buy pixinsight. ok being more serious here. you can get photoshop for under a hundred now.. 265 for pix was insane as it is. tripple a titles dont remotely cost this much. reminds me when a company told me they wanted 2 grand for a printer driver. i got one for free elsewhere. sometimes people just ask too much for things... yet some folks still buy it.
right, feels silly to pay almost half of what we paid for the whole PI just for a plugin. I'm fighting the urge and will stay away for now. I'm sure free alternatives will show up. Or get more data... or spend a little more time with free decon. I really don't understand all this hype suddenly from most astro youtubers... there may be some "clever" marketing done in the back for this plugin than it's let on...
And how much have you spent on your image acquisition equipment?
PixInsight is a unique offering. I bought it way back when it was still around 130 USD and it is the single best purchase I've made for astrophotography. All of the physical equipment I used at the time has been replaced but PixInsight endures. It's proven it's worth many times over to me!
@cucu feeling a bit conspiratorial today? :D 😁 I'm not getting anything from RC astro (or anyone else) for publishing this video, I'm simply blown away by the results.
Deconvolution is hard. It's easy to get things wrong. It's easy to finally manage to get it right, but later down the flow you see one star has that super obvious ring on it and it's back to the drawing board.
It's such a pain for a mediocre processor like me that I typically don't even try anymore, even with Ez deconvolution.
BXT changes all that.
Maybe something free will come up in the future, that would be awesome! But for instance I'm still waiting for a free version of NoiseXterminator - in my experience none of the noise reduction algos I've used (including Topaz) compare to it. At least for my mediocre skills.
I have a Bortle 8/9 zone to contend with. I need all the help I can get!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek yeah, most likely. I'm a bit extra salty because I had to sell my mount recently to fund another project. I'm all for getting results faster and I'm the same way, I don't like the processing part. I can spend many nights out to gather data for a project and then just be lazy for weeks and not process it...
I just cant get behind the cost Cuiv. For how many people would use it they would still make money off this script without gouging peoples pockets with almost the same price as Pix for a script
Completely understand - for what it does I personally think it's worth it, but it's all a personal choice!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek at some point when I have a stretch of clear weather I will download the trial. and at some point in the future pick it up. Right now my main focus is getting other things for the gear to make life easier as well as working on a mini PC to trade scope time with some Aussie's let them run my scope from their home and vise versa. Since traveling with our rigs is next to impossible without paying alot of money and it still having a high probability of being damaged by an airline